DescentBB

Fox News once again obliterated any line that may exist between reporter and commentator today with their obtaining the 2nd interview of the witness protection program's own Sarah Palin.

Sean Hannity's \"No Topic off limit interview.\" Questions:

\"Senator Obama was attacking senator McCain for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong, do you believe that the fundamentals of our economy are strong?\"

\"Is senator Obama using what happened on Wall Street for political gain?\"

\"You have 354 law makers who got money from Fanny and Freddy, second top recipient was Barack Obama, should there be an investigation between those political donations and then of course the bankruptcy that ensued and the impact on the economy?\"

\"Do you think these attacks by Barrack Obama and senator Biden on John McCain will be effective?\"

\"How are you holding up against the attacks against you?\"

.........................................................

And then they bring in Karl Rove to analyze the Interview: Guess what he thinks about it, go on , guess....

\"I thought it was an incredible performance.\"

.....He then proceeds to explain how this economy is all the democrats fault.

Seriously, the fact that some people think that this is the network of \"fair and balanced news\" is why there is war in the middle east.

It's no secret that the demographic to which Fox News most appeals is the Republicans.

Bee, I'm not sure but the Palin photo you posted may have been from a hacker going into Palins private email acct. which is a federal crime. If so you have unwittingly put your stamp of approval on such activity.

Secondly there is a big difference between the M-16 style firearm Cheney is chopped holding to the pump up pellet rifle Palin is holding.

Thirdly I hope to God there is no picture of Biden in a speedo.

I guess Palin isn't the only one to shun the press...
sit in the back and shut your mouth

Sirius wrote:It's no secret that the demographic to which Fox News most appeals is the Republicans.

actually there was an independent poll taken and its a pretty even split about 39% republican and 34% democrats watch Fox. its just the lefties that want you to believe otherwise. also O'Riely<sp> and Hannity and Colmes are an Opinion shows not a news shows. I'll look up the poll if you like

With the way reporters act like their employer is the National Enquirer, would you expect either of the candidates to want reporters around?

CUDA wrote:

Sirius wrote:It's no secret that the demographic to which Fox News most appeals is the Republicans.

actually there was an independent poll taken and its a pretty even split about 39% republican and 34% democrats watch Fox. its just the lefties that want you to believe otherwise. also O'Riely<sp> and Hannity and Colmes are an Opinion shows not a news shows. I'll look up the poll if you like

Dude. Just because some poll says that democrats watch FOX too, doesn't mean that FOX is not trying to APPEAL to conservatives. Anyone with a brain will take in news from all angles to get the 'whole' story.... The 'lefties' are not trying to get you to believe that only republicans watch FOX, they are saying that FOX leans right. And they ARE right.

Everyone knows that FOX news has a slant…it’s when some others are accused, that all the denial starts.

woodchip wrote:the Palin photo you posted may have been from a hacker going into Palins private email acct.

Nope; the picture Bee posted is a photochop, as my previous snopes link demonstrates.

Also, according to the original Palin e-mail hacker, there was nothing even remotely incriminating or damning in her e-mail -- nothing that could've been used against her. Certainly no bikini pics.

(The Palin Rumors page has a nice collection of all the rumors that are out there. Dude has done his research and given solid responses to most of them.)

My apologies to Bet then.

Uh oh! 'Troopergate' is getting messy for Palin. Several people that received subpoenas, including her husband Todd, are refusing to testify.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk ... wD939EL103

The McCain campaign has sent some of their high-powered lawyers up there to squelch the whole investigation. The independent investigator Steve Branchflower has indicated that he is going to get his findings out before Oct. 10.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 92,00.html

What kills me about this whole mess is that this Trooper Wooten was such a scumbag to her sister and son that Sarah could have gotten far more sympathy by NOT interfering with this whole investigation and coming clean about what really happened. Instead she now looks like an obstructionist hiding behind a bunch of lawyers, whether she's done something wrong or not.

Funny how life’s little speed bumps can become roadblocks if your running for political office. But I bet Joe is just whistle clean…

I think trooper gate hurts Obama alot more then Sarah Palin. It allows them to keep up the narrative that she is \"being attacked.\" Which gives them the excuse that they need for hiding her from the media while they prepare her for the \"I knew this stuff all along\" VP-debate \"surprise.\"

Also, like you said, even if Sarah Palin is found guilty, this is one of those that most Americans can shrug their shoulders too. And if she is found not guilty then John McCain gets to ride a false wave of \"I told you so's\" aimed at some mythical \"you\".

It's a complete Win-Win: an indictment for an understandable crime.

This is a democratic year, most conservatives admit to that and the polling numbers confirm it. John McCain does better during weeks of distractions, Obama does better on weeks focused on issues.

I don't think John McCain overlooked troopergate when he picked her....I think John McCain was counting on it!

Hmmmmmm. The Sarah Palin search count beats 'boobs' in Google Search.

And yes, 'troopergate' is just a distraction that McCain is counting on. But why is his campaign so bent on suppressing it BEFORE the November election?

Gooberman wrote:I think trooper gate hurts Obama alot more then Sarah Palin. It allows them to keep up the narrative that she is "being attacked." Which gives them the excuse that they need for hiding her from the media while they prepare her for the "I knew this stuff all along" VP-debate "surprise."

Also, like you said, even if Sarah Palin is found guilty, this is one of those that most Americans can shrug their shoulders too. And if she is found not guilty then John McCain gets to ride a false wave of "I told you so's" aimed at some mythical "you".

It's a complete Win-Win: an indictment for an understandable crime.

This is a democratic year, most conservatives admit to that and the polling numbers confirm it. John McCain does better during weeks of distractions, Obama does better on weeks focused on issues.

I don't think John McCain overlooked troopergate when he picked her....I think John McCain was counting on it!

Hmmmm food for thought.

I haven't seen anything that would convince me of wrong-doing on Sarah Palin's part concerning this Trooper business. The fact that the Trooper in question is still in the employ of the state of Alaska makes the allegations seem pretty ridiculous to me. I suppose that it is possible that there was an abuse of power--I wouldn't rule that out altogether without evidence to the contrary (but perhaps that's the problem with rumors)--but then why would she content herself with dismissing the man who wouldn't fire him, and never actually get her ex-brother-in-law fired.

I'd say she needs those lawyers, because the only reason there is for pursuing the case against her is hurting her credibility and thus the 2008 Republican ticket. It's an unreasonable attack, if she isn't guilty why should she take what some might imagine to be the the moral high-ground and just ride it out? I dare say she doesn't have time for it. Just look at who's heading the investigation.

Look at who is running it is exactly why they are fighting back. Tunnelcat may not want to admit the obvious political smear job they are turining it into but most people will understand and like Gooberman said when the rupub's point out the cop she wanted fired was tasering his 10 year old stepson, her nephew, there isn't a woman left alive that isn't going to feel a kinship to Palin for doing something about it!

Obama's already losing the female vote more and more to her everyday, if they try to hang her for fighting back against an abusive husband figure they are really stupid!!1
If I was advising Obama I'd tell him to very publicly say \" There are lots of reasons to disagree with Sarah Palin but trying to protect her family from a monster isn't one of them...as governor she had every right to try and rid her state of a trooper like that whether he was married to her sister or not etc.etc.
So lets please move on to the important issues and leave these old tactics behind us'

That would do him more good than anything they are trying right now.
Obama swallowed the Palin bait on day one and he hasn't figured it out yet, either that or his pride is blinding him to it.

Like I said, this Wooten guy sounds like a MAJOR LOWLIFE SCUMBAG, no argument there, and I don't fault Palin for wanting to get rid of him. If my sister was dealing with an abusive husband, I would be trying everything possible to bring him down hard. There is no excuse for a wife and child beater to be kept around, NONE!

However, why is she now stonewalling this whole thing when she was originally for an open investigation of her actions? By hiding behind lawyers, now she looks like she's done something wrong and needs to hide it. It just looks sleazy when she could have originally gotten a sympathy play with the whole mess even if she HAD been charged with abuse of her powers of office. It never pays to hide dirty laundry, it will always stink.

Maybe it is a political smear job, she did piss off a few Republicans up in Alaska and they originally voted with the Dems to investigate the matter. But now that she's in the veep spotlight, a lot of the Repubs have conveniently changed their position to shut this whole thing down BEFORE the election.

I believe I heard that the Alaska AG has said there will be no civil or criminal investigations allowed against Palin. While some of you may not agree, just remember why the investigations were being attempted and by who. Up until Palin got tapped for VP, there was no reason for anyone in Alaska wanting to initiate a investigation into Palin's actions.

I think I am not understanding you Woodchip.

The investigation into Sarah Palin happened before she was tapped as VP. It is currently run by a three republicans and two democrats. It was approved by the majority of her republican colleagues.

Trying to pin this investigation on the Obama campaign is like trying to pin the extinction of the dinosaurs on man made Global warming.

The Obama campaign isn't trying anything right now. It hurts Obama by the distraction it causes. I disagree that Obama should come out in her defense because the media would spend a week (only 6 left) chewing on that (and frankly it would be a bit presumptuous of him and would take him off message; the economy is significantly more important then this side-show). As of yet the story hasn't dominated any news cycles, and Obama needs to keep it that way.

As I laid out in my last post, there is just no win-able out come for them. Americans just aren't going to care if she tried to get the man who tasered her nephew fired. And the man who she did fire, she is legally allowed to fire for forgetting to brush his teeth.

You guys are extrapolating the media wanting controversy to the Obama campaign. I know I wont convince either of you of this: but the Media and the Obama campaign are indeed separate entities. They want this to be a story, he does not.

woodchip wrote:Up until Palin got tapped for VP

Can people stop saying that she "got tapped" ...... I'm offended by this sexist comment.

Hostile wrote:

woodchip wrote:Up until Palin got tapped for VP

Can people stop saying that she "got tapped" ...... I'm offended by this sexist comment.

It's only sexist if you're thinking in the gutter.

Go wash your brain.

tunnelcat wrote:why is she now stonewalling this whole thing when she was originally for an open investigation of her actions?

Democrats will say it's because she has something to hide, because she was in the wrong.
Republicans will say it's because the process has been tainted and become a witch hunt.

I can't say for sure either way. But I can say I don't trust the process to be fairly and correctly pursued right now. I think it's becoming a sideshow, and is wide open for abuse by partisan investigators, partisan witnesses, etc. (both directions.) And I think both campaigns would be happy to see it pushed to the background for now.

Another video discussion about Palin. I know that Maher is a leftie, but Sullivan is conservative.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... night.html

tunnelcat wrote:Sullivan is conservative

He still calls himself that, but since about 2002 he's made several major leftward shifts.

Hah. They're just playing to the Left.

Basically, come election time, you'll have two groups of people: people that have bought into all of the Palin trashing hook, line, and sinker, and build further opinions and views on top of that (those people you're seeing in the video, and our own friend tunnelcat); and then people who have seen the Palin bashing by the Left for what it is, and have long since stopped relying on the media for an opinion. One thing's for sure, the Left is going to be positively rabid if McCain is elected, on account of Palin, which I think would be absolutely hilarious, personally.

It would be refreshing to hear a reasonable objection to Palin being elected VP. The only one I've heard so far is her lack of foreign-policy experience, which I think is reasonable.

Edit: And Sarah Palin is no longer a Pentecostal, to correct the host.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It would be refreshing to hear a reasonable objection to Palin being elected VP. The only one I've heard so far is her lack of foreign-policy experience, which I think is reasonable.

Most VPs haven't had a lot of foreign-policy experience, thats forgivable. What isn't forgivable is that the woman will not give real interviews, one month after knowing she would be VP she has done one real interview.

Obama interviews: countless
Biden interviews: The most of any senator (look it up, more then Obama and McCain).
McCain interviews: countless
Palin interviews: 1

If she is just a pretty face then the American people deserve to know that, if she isn't then at this point its fair to call her a coward. It has almost been a month. That is a reasonable objection.

There will be backlash if McCain keeps on playing Hide-the-candidate with the American people. Interviews are much more important to me then any stump speech, and I'm not alone in that regard.

Gooberman wrote:...
Palin interviews: 1
...

Actually she's had a second interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity:
1 of 7
2 of 7
3 of 7
4 of 7
5 of 7
6 of 7
7 of 7

Those numbers aren't revealing at all, Goob. You would do a lot better to list how many times Joe Biden has been interviewed, so far, as VP, and then list previous election VP interview statistics.

Gooberman wrote:There will be backlash if McCain keeps on playing Hide-the-candidate with the American people.

I think we ought to strive to distinguish between possible future events and the pipe-dreams of Obama supporters. McCain isn't stupid. Furthermore I doubt many conservatives fault the ticket for the slow start, considering the cluster-**** that has been the Liberal news media since she was presented. I wish we could fault them for it, but they were up against some nasty opposition, and I don't blame them for not rushing in. As it was ABC tried to portray her as some kind of religious nut-job, not to mention how they tried to make her appear presumptuous in wanting to go from her apparently humble setting in Alaska to the White House.

Edit: Interviews are very important to me, which is why I was a little annoyed with how ABC cut theirs up. I don't need to be spared anything. I want to see what she has to say!

The first post on this page is mine showing the questions Sean Hannity asked her. (I will admit to not being able to stomach part II, and John Stewart had Tony Blair on (A real conservative who actually wasnt at the bottom of his class and went to a respectable school) so he won out that night.

If you guys would ever field someone half as smart as Blair you would have my vote in a second. Hell I would even donate, Im just so damn tired of these gut politicions. Why you go for C students, 5 colleges in 6 years to graduate journalism, 800th in his class (Im rounding down for him), candidates is a mystery to me.

But the bottom line is, that is not an interview. Sean Hannity is no where near center. He is not going to let the public know anything that may disqualify her. I trust her stump speeches to more accurately portray her then Sean.

Those numbers aren't revealing at all, Goob. You would do a lot better to list how many times Joe Biden has been interviewed, so far, as VP, and then list previous election VP interview statistics.

You must be joking! Biden has been on the Sunday shows, he has given numerous off the cuff interviews to reporters since being tagged (better Hos?). They get no media time because he isn't all shiny like.

And the point being, we all know who Biden is, we have no idea who she is, other then what is fed to us.

Gooberman wrote:The first post on this page is mine showing the questions Sean Hannity asked her.

Oh yeah.

It's as much an interview as ABC, at the very least! Just because they're not trying to stick her in the mold the Left has picked out for her from their shoddy mud-digging... That's not journalism.

Gooberman wrote:You must be joking! Biden has been on the Sunday shows, he has given numerous off the cuff interviews to reporters since being tagged (better Hos?). They get no media time because he isn't all shiny like.

I'm not saying he hasn't been interviewed a lot, I'm saying that your numbers only tell us what is obvious to anyone: that Sarah Palin hasn't been interviewed a lot. The only reason for presenting comparative numbers is to make a case that it's abnormal or sub-par, and your numbers don't make such a case. Why bother? Just say "Sarah Palin: 1", and I'll say "you're full of ★■◆● she's had 2".

Gooberman wrote:And the point being, we all know who Biden is, we have no idea who she is, other then what is fed to us.

Yeah, well, that's kind of a catch 22 until someone decides to do some real journalism. The Repubs aren't going to say anything bad about McCain or her, and the Left can't stop uttering lies. I turned my bull**** filter on "industrial strength" and waded into the Liberal "examination" of Sarah Palin a short while back (and every now and then), and I came to the conclusion that they really don't have anything, except that she has no foreign policy experience, and may have exaggerated a few of her claims, but none of that is even very damning. So far if Sarah Palin loses she loses because McCain isn't what this country needs--the Republicans aren't what this country needs, forget the Social... er Democrats. The Republicans have got the basic values down (let's hope), and that's certainly a crucial part, but it's not the complete package by any means. I think the problem with most Republicans is that they think it is. I would say the rest of the problem is that, for the greater part, liberalism and higher learning have become a package deal in our country. Not that there aren't any conservatives in higher learning, but they are certainly a minority, it seems.

By the way, I don't watch TV. I get interviews and so forth on YouTube, mainly; My news tips come from a number of different sites, all of which I find necessary to hold at arm's length; and I pick up some things here.

Palin wasn't picked to satisfy democrat voters desires to see her interviewed. She was picked to get voters on McCain's side and that is why she's been out lining up support instead of doing interviews.
If you think a potential McCain vote is going to be lost because someone who favors McCain on election day has second thoughts because looking back they think Palin didn't do enough interviews you're crazy. Right now the numbers indicate she is being very successful so why would McCain change up now? Just to satisfy people who are hoping she'll say something they can use against her?

She'll do a few more and do the debate and the rest of the time she'll be out on the trail raising money and votes, meanwhile democrat voters will be saying the same bad things about her regardless of how many interviews she gives.

If you want to compare her campaign with previous VP candidates please look at how many previous VP choices had the media and entertainment industry saying the kind of things about them that they are saying about her! They are reaching new lows when it comes to the attacks on her and so far all I can see for the motive is she believes in god and is anti-abortion. The left is very self absorbed and shallow. They behave like spoiled children and your request for more interviews is like asking for the right to cater to the whiny little brats.

They want more interviews for only one reason, they’re praying that she will choke.

We're up to 10 pages. For a Librarian Porn star. She can't be all bad!

I heard Rush today talking about some major gaffs from Joe Biden…maybe he should hide .

CNN and CBS just pulled their reporters from following Sarah Palin on the campaign trail for lack of access. Apparently she doesn't want to talk to them and the two networks got tired of paying for travel expenses. The AP is even pissed off at her. The writer for this story is John Aravosis who used to work for Senator Ted Stevens.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/mcca ... ut-of.html

Awww…Did they all take there little microphones and go home? (trying real hard to care)

Her loss. She loses face time with the press to taut her message, if she ever had one. Maybe it's because her husband Todd is the man behind the curtain, err skirt.

tunnelcat wrote:CNN and CBS just pulled their reporters from following Sarah Palin on the campaign trail for lack of access.

Awwww, poor babies... According to ABC's Kate Snow, the McCain campaign wanted to limit coverage to just a camera. No editorial presence, just real footage. Why exactly is that objectionable to our media?

Lothar wrote:...the McCain campaign wanted to limit coverage to just a camera. No editorial presence, just real footage....

Now that is the best reform I've ever heard of! Go McCain!

Too bad we can't mandate separation of news and editorial. It's at least as important as separation of church and state!!
Let each media outlet decide if they want to report factually on events or talk about what they think of events but no one media company can do both.
Then if you aren't real news your broadcasts have to have a visual and/or audible disclaimer indicating that you are not reporting the news.

tunnelcat wrote:Her loss. She loses face time with the press to taut her message, if she ever had one....

You mean if the press was ever was ever going to report it unmolested....

Spidey wrote:I heard Rush today talking about some major gaffs from Joe Biden…maybe he should hide .

Ya Biden came out today and stated that the president should have gone on National TV and talked to the country about what was happening like FDR did during the market crash of 1929.

Only 2 problems with that.

1. FDR wasn't president in 1929. Hoover was
2. TV wasn't invented until 1939