Media in the tank for Obama was just conservative BS right?

[Palzon]

Palzon, Mathews is just one of many, one of the majority of media talking heads who all got on board the Obama ticket. You are dissembling as dissent suggested.
The bias has become so bad that foreign media are starting to report on it. And now that the election is over you'll see the domestic media try to find their way home and rationalize their behavior just like Mathews did in that interview.
The details are there to see for yourself, the ratio of coverage broken down by favorable or unfavorable and just about any other category you can imagine are off the charts compared to previous elections.

Is my pointing this out a rant? Sure, but just because someone is ranting about it doesn't mean it has no foundation. Mathews is a commentator, sure, he commentates on politics and held up by his network as an expert on the subject. He is an expert in fact, he worked for Tip O'Neil when he was Speaker of the House. He's been reporting on politics for years with different job titles.
Just because he's not a NBC anchor doesn't mean his slant isn't taken by the left as news! You have to be really in denial to go there!

Right, because heavens knows the redneck, inbred, hillbilly, religious folk (REAL Americans!) who consume a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, and O'Reilly can certainly tell the difference between commentary and news. Yeah...forgive me for not seeing the distinction as you clearly can.

Listen, Will and Dissent. Let me say that I have a lot of love for the people of the Descent world. I truly like everyone here (except for TB who should be kicked in the nuts every time he posts). But I don't have to love the politics of the Descenter. You two can call me any name in the book because it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Because reality speaks for itself.

You can brush off Jeff's comment about the liberal bias of reality. The fact remains that McCain was a so-so candidate. He chose a pathetic excuse for a running mate. What a total betrayal to the backbone of his party. He ran a poor campaign. Some one might have pointed out to the McFailin ticket that 80% of Americans live in what we city folk call...cities. Apparently you should think twice before you go campaigning to split America in two.
And the guy never could get the stink of Bush off him. For that I actually feel sorry for him (but not that sorry).

I see a Republican party in shambles. They're not the party of small government any more. They're not the party of fiscal responsibility any more. I'm not even sure what they stand for any more except clearly they hate fags. They've put so many eggs in the rural, ignorant, Evangelical basket that they've marginalized themselves from mainstream society. They've just finished holding the White House for 8 years, 6 of which they enjoyed a majority in the Senate. And this Presidency has at worst damaged the county in about every conceivable way, and at best has been incompetent to prevent the damage or set a new course.

Bush has the lowest approval rating of any President ever, since they started tracking the numbers. And for good reason. And please don't fk'ing say the polls are biased because Obama won by more than the polls predicted (proof they're biased against him?!?! ...Silly, yet this sort of spurious logic passes for proof in the intellectual wasteland that is this forum. Ooh, the stocks went down today! Obama must be bad for America! Ooh, stocks went up today! Proof Bush's policies are starting to work!).

Oh, but I'm the dishonest one who is out of touch with reality so let's get back to that...

So if the mainstream media was "in the tank" for the (more) mainstream party/candidate...is that terribly surprising? I love how the right wing wants a TV fairness doctrine, but a radio fairness doctrine is un-American. And what the f'k does it prove even if it were true? That douchebaggery should get equal treatment by the media? All candidates are not created equal. While I say that vast left-wing conspiracy is pure bullsh&t, it is not reasonable to expect that this loser ticket should have been given some kind of kid glove treatment. It's hardly unique. Afterall, a Connecticut paper had Adams accusing Jefferson of being a "howling atheist" (to which Jefferson fired back that Adams was a "howling hermaphrodite." ....I've seen some bad losing campaigns in my time. Most of them were Democrats. It's no suprise they lost. And it's no surprise that McCain/Palin did as well.

I truly want to thank the conservative, Evangelical, "real" Americans of this forum. You people; right wingers on this bulletin board, and certainly those like Ingram, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, are killing the Republican party (at least it's incarnation of the last 20 years or so). So my exhortation to you is to keep doing what you're doing. Keep spreading lies, hate, fear and BS. The more you spread, the more you bring about a reaction in the opposite direction. The Republican party might be able to save itself if it returns to its roots of fiscal conservatism and stops pandering to the fundamentalists. I would applaud this. I...like...IKE!!!!! So keep doing what you're doing and help mainstream America see it for what it is - naked distortion of the truth or wilfull self delusion.

Yes, keep ignoring every negative thing about your own party, your own President, the daily RNC propaganda tool that is AM radio, and yourselves. Your denial will ensure the failure of the sorry elements you've backed. Believe it or not but I'd like to see the Republican party viable. But as long as you people shill for the lowest of the low in the Republican party we're all stuck with the same thing. Basically, what I'm saying is that it's because of you that we can't have nice things.

But at least your radicalism will make it less likely the next Bush will make it into office. I say, carry on! Continue to drown out or ignore the reasonable voices in this forum and elsewhere Talk about delusion? Go ahead and blame dirty liberal journalists when your Republican wet dream peters out more like a humid puff of air. Maintain the margin of 20 negative Obama threads to each positive one. That's realistic! After all you've got to keep up the good fight so that after Obama's third term we don't end up with an illegal-alien transsexual potsmoker moviestar devil worshiper who is married to his pet wombat and wants to teach your kids we came from a gay monkey. The threat is real, people! Well, the good thing about an Obama Presidency is that you can stop blaming all of Bush's failures on Clinton and start pinning them on Obama. Also, if Obama does anything right you can be sure to give Bush the credit.

This pathetic excuse for a forum should absolutely have its name changed from E&C to RWCJ: Right Wing Circle Jerk forum. How bout at least for one day, ya know, for kicks (and accuracy)? .

/not fooled.

[sniper725]

I'd say its more likely that the media is bias toward things because they think most people are for them as well. That way the majority will like them more. After all the driving force behind America is what I like to call \"the people\". I think Obama would have won no matter what the media did (unless the have mind control tech.).

The media, of course, should not be bias but they are far too fearful of the repercutions if the facts aren't to the liking of the people.

[Will Robinson]

Palzon, in that big long rant you indicted the right wingers for a number of flaws and a failed campaign but you agreed that the media wasn't even handed and offered the suggestion that it was because the rightwing is damaged goods....well, the fact that the media was leaning toward Obama was my only point in this thread. I never said they should be even handed because the republicans deserve it! I do believe the citizens deserve an even handed portrayal though.

I'm tired of hearing how the owners of the media outlets are right wing therefore the media can't slant toward the left.
I'm glad you recognize that they can and did! Quite effectively in my view.
You don't have the big talking heads of media admitting just three days before election day their lack of knowledge about a candidate on so many important issues without realizing they didn't care about his views as long as he was beating the other side! You seem to be saying that because the other side is a bad choice it doesn't matter...I disagree.

Since I voted for Obama in the primary and the Libertarian in the general (not that I really like Barr) I could really care less to contest your assessment of the rightwing, especially since you have a lot of it nailed down pretty accurately.

Too bad the media doesn't see the value in exposing both sides as equally as it can because they know all too well that the majority of voters don't do their homework instead they vote according to the soundbites the media produces. If this slanted coverage becomes status quo however then the ownership of the media will be picking your President for you. Do you guys want to trust this process to them just because this time the talking heads were on your guys side? The talking heads can be replaced you know.....

If you guys are OK with this new freedom-to-campaign for the media pretty soon the claim that the media ownership dictates the politics of the coverage will be true. I guess we need a Rush Limbaugh type in every anchor chair then you'll come around!

[Spidey]

Stuff

Silly Me!

And here, I thought you might actually bring a unique perspective into this forum, But Nooooo…you had to drop a huge bag of tired old condescending BS instead.

Thanks for nothing!

[woodchip]

Right, because heavens knows the redneck, inbred, hillbilly, religious folk (REAL Americans!) who consume a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, and O'Reilly can certainly tell the difference between commentary and news. Yeah...forgive me for not seeing the distinction as you clearly can.

So you are now the DBB biggoted racist poster? I would suspect these people you vilify are better able to tell the difference between commentary and news because the commentators are not reporting news, they are commentating on it and make no bones about where their affiliations are.

OTOH, would you like me to tie togeather a colorful string of verbage about the people who exclusively listen to MSNC and the likes of Chris "Happy Pants" Mathews and think they are getting news?

[Ferno]

LOL

[Jesus Freak]

I love good old healthy, wholesome debate.

[Bet51987]

Well, I for one, think there's a lot of truth to what Palzon says. What surprised me was that the Republican party stuck with that ideology even when the people gave them a warning two years earlier only to have the hiring of Sarah Palin exemplify it.

Bee

[Sergeant Thorne]

Continue to drown out or ignore the reasonable voices in this forum and elsewhere ...

Whoa there. Which reasonable voices? I credit Will Robinson as being one of the most reasonable voices on this forum (something I really appreciate).

I'm not going to touch the rest of your rant, because I don't have the patience to deal with it appropriately at the moment. You come close to the truth sometimes, but it is a typical liberal rant. I too have had the thought that you couldn't really expect the media to find equal amounts of good and bad on both candidates, which is true, but it's also deviating from the issue, and the issue is obvious intent, not merely unbalanced results. The liberal news media's intent has been to showcase their favored racehorse, and destroy the opposition, not to do objective reporting (obviously a foreign concept these days). What it boils down to is what you're willing to believe, I guess, Palzon. You can pretty much talk yourself into anything, if the truth isn't important to you. The truth is that the purpose of news and reporting is to inform, and it has been terribly perverted. I don't know about you, but I would like to know as much as possible about any particular event or happening, and be in a good position to form my own opinion, not have it pre-formed for me.

There's a lot more to conservatism than fiscal conservatism.

Edit: The really positive aspect to all of this is if I ever wanted to start a news company for the sole purpose of accurately informing people, the niche is wide open.

[Behemoth]

Funny

Some of you here have truly gone off the deep end. You've ceased to think about politics except with your emotions. You are no longer engaging in dialogue in this forum. You're just ranting.

Palzon, Mathews is just one of many, one of the majority of media talking heads who all got on board the Obama ticket. You are dissembling as dissent suggested.
The bias has become so bad that foreign media are starting to report on it. And now that the election is over you'll see the domestic media try to find their way home and rationalize their behavior just like Mathews did in that interview.
The details are there to see for yourself, the ratio of coverage broken down by favorable or unfavorable and just about any other category you can imagine are off the charts compared to previous elections.

Is my pointing this out a rant? Sure, but just because someone is ranting about it doesn't mean it has no foundation. Mathews is a commentator, sure, he commentates on politics and held up by his network as an expert on the subject. He is an expert in fact, he worked for Tip O'Neil when he was Speaker of the House. He's been reporting on politics for years with different job titles.
Just because he's not a NBC anchor doesn't mean his slant isn't taken by the left as news! You have to be really in denial to go there!

Right, because heavens knows the redneck, inbred, hillbilly, religious folk (REAL Americans!) who consume a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, and O'Reilly can certainly tell the difference between commentary and news. Yeah...forgive me for not seeing the distinction as you clearly can.

Listen, Will and Dissent. Let me say that I have a lot of love for the people of the Descent world. I truly like everyone here (except for TB who should be kicked in the nuts every time he posts). But I don't have to love the politics of the Descenter. You two can call me any name in the book because it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Because reality speaks for itself.

You can brush off Jeff's comment about the liberal bias of reality. The fact remains that McCain was a so-so candidate. He chose a pathetic excuse for a running mate. What a total betrayal to the backbone of his party. He ran a poor campaign. Some one might have pointed out to the McFailin ticket that 80% of Americans live in what we city folk call...cities. Apparently you should think twice before you go campaigning to split America in two.
And the guy never could get the stink of Bush off him. For that I actually feel sorry for him (but not that sorry).

I see a Republican party in shambles. They're not the party of small government any more. They're not the party of fiscal responsibility any more. I'm not even sure what they stand for any more except clearly they hate fags. They've put so many eggs in the rural, ignorant, Evangelical basket that they've marginalized themselves from mainstream society. They've just finished holding the White House for 8 years, 6 of which they enjoyed a majority in the Senate. And this Presidency has at worst damaged the county in about every conceivable way, and at best has been incompetent to prevent the damage or set a new course.

Bush has the lowest approval rating of any President ever, since they started tracking the numbers. And for good reason. And please don't fk'ing say the polls are biased because Obama won by more than the polls predicted (proof they're biased against him?!?! ...Silly, yet this sort of spurious logic passes for proof in the intellectual wasteland that is this forum. Ooh, the stocks went down today! Obama must be bad for America! Ooh, stocks went up today! Proof Bush's policies are starting to work!).

Oh, but I'm the dishonest one who is out of touch with reality so let's get back to that...

So if the mainstream media was "in the tank" for the (more) mainstream party/candidate...is that terribly surprising? I love how the right wing wants a TV fairness doctrine, but a radio fairness doctrine is un-American. And what the f'k does it prove even if it were true? That douchebaggery should get equal treatment by the media? All candidates are not created equal. While I say that vast left-wing conspiracy is pure *******&t, it is not reasonable to expect that this loser ticket should have been given some kind of kid glove treatment. It's hardly unique. Afterall, a Connecticut paper had Adams accusing Jefferson of being a "howling atheist" (to which Jefferson fired back that Adams was a "howling hermaphrodite." ....I've seen some bad losing campaigns in my time. Most of them were Democrats. It's no suprise they lost. And it's no surprise that McCain/Palin did as well.

I truly want to thank the conservative, Evangelical, "real" Americans of this forum. You people; right wingers on this bulletin board, and certainly those like Ingram, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, are killing the Republican party (at least it's incarnation of the last 20 years or so). So my exhortation to you is to keep doing what you're doing. Keep spreading lies, hate, fear and BS. The more you spread, the more you bring about a reaction in the opposite direction. The Republican party might be able to save itself if it returns to its roots of fiscal conservatism and stops pandering to the fundamentalists. I would applaud this. I...like...IKE!!!!! So keep doing what you're doing and help mainstream America see it for what it is - naked distortion of the truth or wilfull self delusion.

Yes, keep ignoring every negative thing about your own party, your own President, the daily RNC propaganda tool that is AM radio, and yourselves. Your denial will ensure the failure of the sorry elements you've backed. Believe it or not but I'd like to see the Republican party viable. But as long as you people shill for the lowest of the low in the Republican party we're all stuck with the same thing. Basically, what I'm saying is that it's because of you that we can't have nice things.

But at least your radicalism will make it less likely the next Bush will make it into office. I say, carry on! Continue to drown out or ignore the reasonable voices in this forum and elsewhere Talk about delusion? Go ahead and blame dirty liberal journalists when your Republican wet dream peters out more like a humid puff of air. Maintain the margin of 20 negative Obama threads to each positive one. That's realistic! After all you've got to keep up the good fight so that after Obama's third term we don't end up with an illegal-alien transsexual potsmoker moviestar devil worshiper who is married to his pet wombat and wants to teach your kids we came from a gay monkey. The threat is real, people! Well, the good thing about an Obama Presidency is that you can stop blaming all of Bush's failures on Clinton and start pinning them on Obama. Also, if Obama does anything right you can be sure to give Bush the credit.

This pathetic excuse for a forum should absolutely have its name changed from E&C to RWCJ: Right Wing Circle Jerk forum. How bout at least for one day, ya know, for kicks (and accuracy)? .

/not fooled.

Must not have been able to help yourself methinks.

Back on topic, I think it's only fair to say that Matthews is someone who represents a part of what the media is expected to say after a post-bush america, I don't blame him or anyone else when SAYING it's our job to help Obama succeed.

However, the likelihood of actually doing anything about that is slim to nil, Those posts about unfavorable media coverage for Mccain vs Obama are interesting at best but that doesn't mean much now that election time is over... I think all we can do is wait to see if a democrat can actually do something productive for america this late in the game.

[Ferno]

What surprised me was that the Republican party stuck with that ideology even when the people gave them a warning two years earlier only to have the hiring of Sarah Palin exemplify it.

Bee

he did it because he's a MAVERICK! LOL

[woodchip]

Behemoth:
\"Back on topic, I think it's only fair to say that Matthews is someone who represents a part of what the media is expected to say after a post-bush america, I don't blame him or anyone else when SAYING it's our job to help Obama succeed.\"

Tell me, did Matthews et al try to help Bush succeed after a post Clinton America? Or was their job quite the opposite?

[Behemoth]

Behemoth:
"Back on topic, I think it's only fair to say that Matthews is someone who represents a part of what the media is expected to say after a post-bush america, I don't blame him or anyone else when SAYING it's our job to help Obama succeed."

Tell me, did Matthews et al try to help Bush succeed after a post Clinton America? Or was their job quite the opposite?

From what i've seen on msnbc they were all gung ho towards a coalition movement into afghanistan and iraq, and even then after his ratings were going down they still tried to blame the "bush haters" yada yada yada.

I'm not claiming that he did actually help the bush administration mind you, but his segments have always had a right-wing agenda in my mind.

[Lothar]

Palzon,

There's a lot of truth to your rant. McCain ran a weak campaign (though I think he chose a good running mate, he very badly misused her, and they both did a poor job of showing what she's all about.) The Republican \"brand\" is horribly damaged due to a lack of fiscal responsibility, corruption, too much focus on issues like gay marriage, and so on; the party needs to move in a more libertarian direction (which, by the way, is the read I get on Palin's governing style; she did a poor job responding to the misquoted half-sentences that made her sound like a religious fundie.) Because of all of that, it comes as no surprise that the media would be harsh toward any Republican candidate. They should have been!

But all of that doesn't excuse the fact that much of the media (specifically, the parts most likely to reach swing voters) was extra soft toward Obama. Obama was a weak and flawed candidate in a lot of ways, and I think if the media had been interested in really trying to understand Obama and give a complete picture of him, a lot of swing voters would've swung the other way. He probably still would've won (but by a much smaller margin); McCain campaigned too weakly, Palin sucked in the spotlight, and the Republican brand is simply too damaged. But that doesn't invalidate the complaint that the media was seriously in the tank for Obama, to the point of willfully overlooking things they shouldn't have.

In order to have an effective representative government, we need the people to understand who they're electing. We need a media establishment that doesn't overlook flaws just because they like candidate X personally, or because party Y has done a poor job over the past few years. We need both sides of the media establishment to push both parties toward putting forward good candidates and good ideas, instead of giving flawed candidates from their favored party a free pass. Not just for this election, but in general -- we're not going to get a good government if our major sources of information don't help uncover the problems with the candidates.

[Gooberman]

The Republican "brand" is horribly damaged due to a lack of fiscal responsibility...

If I were ever to cross over, it would be on this bridge. I tend to believe in the pendulum more than either party. It is the struggle between big government and small government that keeps us stable. It worries me that the Republicans have lost their way on this issue, if the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and meanwhile is always increasing in energy/spending, than this country and our economy will see rapid fluctuations (now) and eventual complete instability.

Republican or Democrat, the next leader who is able to bring us back to fiscal roots will be the next “Ronald Reagan.” The next leader who brings us back to fiscal roots deserves to be.

[Gooberman]

(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.

After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.

According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as \"Fruitwood-smoked Quail,\" \"Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb,\" and \"Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus.\"

My dinner tonight will consist of easymac.

[Bet51987]

Palzon,

There's a lot of truth to your rant. McCain ran a weak campaign (though I think he chose a good running mate, he very badly misused her, and they both did a poor job of showing what she's all about.) The Republican "brand" is horribly damaged due to a lack of fiscal responsibility, corruption, too much focus on issues like gay marriage, and so on; the party needs to move in a more libertarian direction (which, by the way, is the read I get on Palin's governing style; she did a poor job responding to the misquoted half-sentences that made her sound like a religious fundie.) Because of all of that, it comes as no surprise that the media would be harsh toward any Republican candidate. They should have been!

But all of that doesn't excuse the fact that much of the media (specifically, the parts most likely to reach swing voters) was extra soft toward Obama. Obama was a weak and flawed candidate in a lot of ways, and I think if the media had been interested in really trying to understand Obama and give a complete picture of him, a lot of swing voters would've swung the other way. He probably still would've won (but by a much smaller margin); McCain campaigned too weakly, Palin sucked in the spotlight, and the Republican brand is simply too damaged. But that doesn't invalidate the complaint that the media was seriously in the tank for Obama, to the point of willfully overlooking things they shouldn't have.

In order to have an effective representative government, we need the people to understand who they're electing. We need a media establishment that doesn't overlook flaws just because they like candidate X personally, or because party Y has done a poor job over the past few years. We need both sides of the media establishment to push both parties toward putting forward good candidates and good ideas, instead of giving flawed candidates from their favored party a free pass. Not just for this election, but in general -- we're not going to get a good government if our major sources of information don't help uncover the problems with the candidates.

Ummm... Sarah Palin IS a religious fundie, which she displayed pretty well, and McCain choosing her for a running mate WAS a bad idea and most people DO know why he chose a A HER over other people much more qualified.

People have to stop blaming the media. McCain had nothing at all to distance himself from the president and Palin spent most of her time calling Obama a terrorist. Some, like me, saw class vs arrogance and that coupled with the voting records of each candidate made it easy to realize that if America is to have a new direction we had to get rid of the archaic thinking of the conservatives.

Bee

[woodchip]

Those archaic conservative principles are what built this country, or do you think money grows on trees?

[dissent]

Ah yes, back to this thread. As I recall we were discussing the Chris Matthews clip from Will’s OP. oh, and here, Palzon has replied -

rant
……………………..
/rant

Listen, Will and Dissent. …. You two can call me any name in the book because it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I didn’t call you any names. I did comment on your defense of what Chris Matthews said in the clip.

Right, because heavens knows the redneck, inbred, hillbilly, religious folk (REAL Americans!) who consume a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, and O'Reilly can certainly tell the difference between commentary and news.

Now that sounds like name-calling.

The fact remains that McCain was a so-so candidate. … He ran a poor campaign.

Agree – he certainly wasn’t my first choice.

He chose a pathetic excuse for a running mate.

Disagree, though I did have issues with some of her talking points.

They're not the party of small government any more. They're not the party of fiscal responsibility any more.

Agree and agree, to a large extent.

I'm not even sure what they stand for any more except clearly they hate fags.

I hardly think that the Phelps church is indicative of the Republican center. Both parties have their lunatic fringe elements.

Right, because heavens knows the redneck, inbred, hillbilly, religious folk (REAL Americans!) who consume a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, and O'Reilly can certainly tell the difference between commentary and news. Yeah...forgive me for not seeing the distinction as you clearly can.
… They've put so many eggs in the rural, ignorant, Evangelical basket that they've marginalized themselves from mainstream society.

It is curious though that many of the largest (Protestant) Evangelical mega-churches are in affluent suburbs of major metropolitan areas, and are largely attended by affluent, well-educated members of those communities.

Oh, but I'm the dishonest one who is out of touch with reality so let's get back to that...

So if the mainstream media was "in the tank" for the (more) mainstream party/candidate...is that terribly surprising?

Wait a minute. So, as a citizen, you’re just fine with whatever candidate the media chooses to bless as long as they tell you what you want to hear about that candidate?

And what the f'k does it prove even if it were true? That douchebaggery should get equal treatment by the media? All candidates are not created equal. While I say that vast left-wing conspiracy is pure *******&t, it is not reasonable to expect that this loser ticket should have been given some kind of kid glove treatment.

Nobody was asking for kid-glove treatment of the McCain ticket. It would have been nice if both campaigns had been subjected to equivalent levels of scrutiny. The premise of this thread is that clearly they were not.

It's hardly unique. Afterall, a Connecticut paper had Adams accusing Jefferson of being a "howling atheist" (to which Jefferson fired back that Adams was a "howling hermaphrodite."

Yeah, I just love those old newspapers. American politics has always been a rough and tumble business. Of course, back in the day, a lot of the old newspapers had “Republican” or “Democrat” or “Whig” or whatever right there on their titles, so readers didn’t have to wonder what their political sentiments were.

Keep spreading lies, hate, fear and BS.

Which, of course, Democrats never do.

Yes, keep ignoring every negative thing about your own party, your own President, the daily RNC propaganda tool that is AM radio, and yourselves.

Strange. I’ve heard a lot of negative AM radio commentary aimed at the Bush administration, when they strayed from conservative principles.

I say, carry on! Continue to drown out or ignore the reasonable voices in this forum and elsewhere

Clearly, my making any comment has not prevented anyone else from responding.

… so that after Obama's third term …

Hey, that’ll be a neat trick, even for a Constitutional law professor. I didn’t see that part of the plan anywhere on Obama’s web site.

[dissent]

Here's Camille Paglia on Obama, McCain, Ayers and Palin.

[dissent]

To nobody's great surprise, here is yet more post campaign admission of pro-Obama bias

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html

[Gooberman]

Not to throw you guys any unneeded bones or anything, but I did chuckle at CNN's main headline story on their website this morning... (still up as of post)...which read:

Obama will 'do what's necessary' to fix economy, aide says

That is some breaking news right there! Nice and specific.

[woodchip]

Obama also said he represented \"Change\" for the country also.