If Karl Rove were a Democrat

[jacknky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oot9IbQxrI

This illustrates just how poor the Democrats are at the mudslinging game. a lesson as from the Master.

[jacknky]

Someone just sent me a link to a video that says Obama and Rev. Wright had been in a homosexual relationship. I guess as long as it works there's no limit as to how low some people will go.

[Acumen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oot9IbQxrI

This illustrates just how poor the Democrats are at the mudslinging game. a lesson as from the Master.

The youtube on McCain was actually done quite well.  Factually incorrect, but correct enough to sway uninformed voters.

[jacknky]

I hate to see it on either side.

[Faithfulee]

I hate to see it on either side.

Good for laughs.  I like the Obama/Wright homosexual affair one.

"The Obama Nation"  is much more factual but requires some degree of literacy.

[Acumen]

I hate to see it on either side.

Good for laughs.  I like the Obama/Wright homosexual affair one.

"The Obama Nation"  is much more factual but requires some degree of literacy.

CNN and the NY Times said the book was discredited.

[Faithfulee]

I hate to see it on either side.

Good for laughs.  I like the Obama/Wright homosexual affair one.

"The Obama Nation"  is much more factual but requires some degree of literacy.

CNN and the NY Times said the book was discredited.

What would you expect??

Some dates and refrences are wrong, but the substance and associations are reported to be accurate.

Obama is losing ground all by himself, and the book should give him a bit of a shove. 

[Acumen]

The problem I have is that the author touted how he meticulously fact-checked everything so there should be no errors or inconsistencies.  If some of the dates and references were wrong, that suggests to that he somewhat rushed the book into publication.

[Faithfulee]

The problem I have is that the author touted how he meticulously fact-checked everything so there should be no errors or inconsistencies.  If some of the dates and references were wrong, that suggests to that he somewhat rushed the book into publication.

I have no doubt that he rushed the book into publication or that some of his facts are wrong.  That does not effect the need for some more insight into Obama's background and his associations.  I don't have my copy yet but I will read it with interest (and skepticism).

I saw this morning an attack peice on McCain by the Obama organization, so they are reacting to the book and that is a good thing also. 

For Example Whitewater should have been exposed before the Clinton election, and of course if Edwards had been exposed, Hillary would more than likely be the candidate.

[Acumen]

The problem I have is that the author touted how he meticulously fact-checked everything so there should be no errors or inconsistencies.  If some of the dates and references were wrong, that suggests to that he somewhat rushed the book into publication.

I have no doubt that he rushed the book into publication or that some of his facts are wrong.  That does not effect the need for some more insight into Obama's background and his associations.  I don't have my copy yet but I will read it with interest (and skepticism).

I saw this morning an attack peice on McCain by the Obama organization, so they are reacting to the book and that is a good thing also. 

For Example Whitewater should have been exposed before the Clinton election, and of course if Edwards had been exposed, Hillary would more than likely be the candidate.

Right, but the fact that some of his facts are wrong is underscored by the liberal media, and they're doing a pretty good job painting this guy as a loon.  If he had taken time to fact-check a little more, he wouldn't have been discredited so quickly.

The media won't focus on the point that his book is 95% right, but rather that it's 5% wrong.

[Faithfulee]

It is serving it's purpose quite nicely.  The liberal media would attack it no matter what the accuracy.

On the other hand, it is making the author a bunch of money, and it is timely, coming just before the Democrat convention.  It could be enough to get Hillary the nomination, even though I doubt it.

[Acumen]

Time will tell.

[jacknky]

The "liberal media" is a myth. Major corporations own the major media outlets. Why should they support liberals over more pro-business Republicans? I think conservatives believe this myth because they see the world more in black and white. If you're not FOR us then you're against us. Trying to be neutral, like the media, means you're against us.

Cheney/Bush had a total and complete blank check from the media for years after 9/11. Little if anything they said or did was questioned because the media, like Congress, didn't want to appear unpatriotic by questioning the "war" president. If the media were truly liberal Bush wouldn't have had such a cakewalk getting his policies through.

[Acumen]

The "liberal media" is a myth. Major corporations own the major media outlets. Why should they support liberals over more pro-business Republicans? I think conservatives believe this myth because they see the world more in black and white. If you're not FOR us then you're against us. Trying to be neutral, like the media, means you're against us.

Cheney/Bush had a total and complete blank check from the media for years after 9/11. Little if anything they said or did was questioned because the media, like Congress, didn't want to appear unpatriotic by questioning the "war" president. If the media were truly liberal Bush wouldn't have had such a cakewalk getting his policies through.

I'm not exactly sure what world you live in.  And I say that with due courtesy.  Do you watch MSNBC and CNN?  Do you read the Associated Press?  It's not just the factually incorrect statements or their arbitrary topics, but about what is included, what is left out, and the choice of words used to paint a picture.

[jacknky]

LOL. The sky is blue in my world. How about yours?

I'm curious. Why do you think CNN and MSNBC, owned by large corporations, would push politicians who, say, want to increase the rate of taxation on corporations? Of course, there is a great deal of evidence there's not that much difference between Dems and Repubs in the way they pander to Big Money. Perhaps if there really is a bias they've decided they need to balance the conservative media of Fox News and almost any talk radio show you can mention.

I also made the point that the (liberal) media gave Bush a free pass for a few years after 9/11.

[Acumen]

LOL. The sky is blue in my world. How about yours?

I mean, come on, Jack.  You seriously think that a liberal media is a myth?  Before Fox News came along, there were nothing but liberal to choose from. 

I'm curious. Why do you think CNN and MSNBC, owned by large corporations, would push politicians who, say, want to increase the rate of taxation on corporations?

First, CNN has been doing much better with a more balanced approach.  MSNBC doesn't even try to pretend they are balanced whatsoever, and the same goes with the Associated Press.  You should really watch a few clips of Scarborough working with his colleagues - you can cut the tension with a knife.

Concerning increased taxes on corporations, who cares?  One can say the same thing about wealthy people like the Kerrys, the Clintons, and the Kennedys.  Why would they be for higher taxes on the wealthy if they are wealthy themselves?  They just do.  Perhaps they just believe it's right, or perhaps they just play the game to be in power.  Either way, they have enough money to endure higher taxes.

Of course, there is a great deal of evidence there's not that much difference between Dems and Repubs in the way they pander to Big Money.

You may have a point.

I also made the point that the (liberal) media gave Bush a free pass for a few years after 9/11.

Um, when did this happen?  It was a matter of days before media vilified Cheney for taking cover in some remote location after the attacks, or Bush for staying overly composed at the elementary school when he first learned about the Trade Center.  The media is relentless, continually.   

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"Concerning increased taxes on corporations, who cares?  One can say the same thing about wealthy people like the Kerrys, the Clintons, and the Kennedys.  Why would they be for higher taxes on the wealthy if they are wealthy themselves?"

Individuals can have consciences. Corporations as a rule don't.

"Um, when did this happen?  It was a matter of days before media vilified Cheney for taking cover in some remote location after the attacks, or Bush for staying overly composed at the elementary school when he first learned about the Trade Center.  The media is relentless, continually."

Other than Michael Moore's movie I don't remember anyone saying much about Bush's "deer-in-the-headlight" moment when he was told about 9/11. I'm sure it's just a matter of perception. being anti-war I would have liked for the media to question more. Instead they allowed themselves to be "imbedded" into military units producing feel-good stories about the troops. Did anyone in the media ever say anything about the rule against filming caskets? Did anyone ever investigate what happened to the billions in cash that went missing in Iraq? Did anyone in the media ever investigate what happened to the hunbdreds of thousands of small arms that went missing in Iraq? Did anyone ever tabulate how many times the administration doctored scientific reports they didn't like? Information is beginning to become more available now but it's too late to do any good.   

[Acumen]

Acumen,
"Concerning increased taxes on corporations, who cares?  One can say the same thing about wealthy people like the Kerrys, the Clintons, and the Kennedys.  Why would they be for higher taxes on the wealthy if they are wealthy themselves?"

Individuals can have consciences. Corporations as a rule don't.

It's not about consciences, it's about decisions.  And corporations make decisions just like individuals do.

"Um, when did this happen?  It was a matter of days before media vilified Cheney for taking cover in some remote location after the attacks, or Bush for staying overly composed at the elementary school when he first learned about the Trade Center.  The media is relentless, continually."

Other than Michael Moore's movie I don't remember anyone saying much about Bush's "deer-in-the-headlight" moment when he was told about 9/11. I'm sure it's just a matter of perception.

You need to do a google search.  I remember the media criticizing Cheney quickly for being flown to a protected location.  The criticism of Bush at the elementary school was a little later.  But all of this misses the rather obvious point that the media doesn't cut people breaks, especially conservatives.

Case in point, Sarah Palin, a person not known by the media very well, was decimated by their liberal coverage.  CNN and MSNBC criticized her on many different fronts.  They said she was a hypocrite for preaching abstinence when her 17 year old daughter got herself pregnant.  They criticized her for accepting a nomination when she has a small child to tend to.  They criticized her for her lack of experience.  They criticized her for the firing of her ex-brother in law.  And all of this just happened in the duration of two days.

On the flip side, none of the major media covered the story of Obama's relationship with known terrorist William Ayers even though Obama's spokespeople admitted that he was friendly with him.  The only news organization that covered the story was Fox News.  And CNN mentioned the incident once.  Only ONCE!!!!

What about John Edwards?  No media organization would touch the rumor of his adultery until they had hard facts, which is commendable.  But it's not so commendable when CNN and MSNBC cover the rumors circulating that Sarah Palin's down syndrome child was really her grandchild, and that she tried to cover up her daughter's pregnancy.  The double standard is obnoxious and makes we want to hurl.  Seriously.  And people like you really, sincerely believe there is no liberal bias in the media?