DescentBB

Krom wrote:Man after listening through a bunch of speeches from the RNC, I have to say I'm getting rather tired of hearing about how awesome Sarah Palin is.

If she is so incredible...why isn't she one running for president?

Krom wrote: She was a thorn in the republican parties side in Alaska, so they decided to try and promote her to a position where she can do nothing.

Without thinking of the person Obama and the person Palin just add up their resume entries.

Will Robinson wrote::words:

Gooberman wrote:

Without thinking of the person Obama and the person Palin just add up their resume entries.

Ok, lets.

Obama:
B.A in political science from Columbia University, with a specialization in international relations
J.D. in Law from Hardvard, graduated magna cum laude; President of the Harvard Law Review
12 years (92-04) teaching constitutional law
7 years State Senator: sponsored more than 800 bills
4 years Senator for Illinos, a state with 12.8 million people

Palin:
Bachelor's in journalism from University of Idaho
4 years Wasilla City Council (8000 people)
6 years Wasilla mayor (8000 people)
1 year "Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission"
20 months governor of a state with 660,000 people

I know we live in a society where a good education doesn't mean ***** in the view of the public, (one of the reasons we suck so much at education!), but really......Sarah and Obama cannot be compared.

tunnelcat wrote:By the way, Sarah Palin voted to CUT funding for assisting unwed teen mothers in the state of Alaska.

tunnelcat wrote:... The Republicans need to quit whining about the so-called left-wing press (which it's a myth since most of them are rich and corporate owned) delving into her private life, it's going to happen.

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site.

tunnelcat wrote:I've noticed that when it's a sex scandal on the Republican's part, they whine that it's a PRIVATE matter, but when it happens to the Democrats, it's fair game to criticize, spread rumors and hold up for moral trashing.

tunnelcat wrote:By the way, Sarah Palin voted to CUT funding for assisting unwed teen mothers in the state of Alaska. Not all teen parents can afford to raise their children like the Palin's can. Hyprocrite!

ST. PAUL -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

tunnelcat wrote:You guys thought her speech was good? What BS! I thought it was full of sneers and snipes about Obama and didn't give us any substantive reason to believe that she would be a good VP other than as a attack lap dog for McCain! Every other facial expression was a sneer! No class, just a witch!

Will wrote:Now remember we're comparing Obama, who wants to be President, to Palin who was chosen by his opponent to be a back up!! I'll say it again, no matter how this comparison shakes out Obama is losing by virtue of having to get involved in the debate in the first place!

Will wrote:If I was looking to accept someone for post graduate studies at a university I'd say he has her beat but if I want to hire someone to run a government I'd say he takes second place!

My prediction is that if McCain can keep up the pressure Obama's pride is going to fuel his temper and he's going to blow it between now and November.

Gooby wrote: You guys like your "Gut" politicians, and thats what Sarah Palin is. She gets yall rilled up. I don't want any more politicians that are "just like us", I want a politician to look up too.

Gooberman wrote: This is how we end up with C students like Bush running the country, because C is average and people want a president that is "one of us" (yes he went to Yale, but it was not based on achievement, it was based on Daddy).

tunnelcat wrote:OOOOOOOOK. Let's see, Palin has military experience because Alaska is right next door to Russia, according to Cindy McCain AND she's Commander in Chief of the National Guard. Well, it turns out that she has never, NEVER actually signed any executive order for them AND also has not addressed the shortage of personnel:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iT8a ... gD92VOKO80

tunnelcat wrote:She's also had NO experience dealing with a deficit in her state. Alaska is so flush with oil money that residents of the state even got money back in their tax returns last year.

tunnelcat wrote:She was the 'earmark queen' until it became a liabilty to her when it involved the 'Bridge to Nowhere'.

tunnelcat wrote:What programs do you think are going to get cut if the McCain/Palin crew gets into office? We're running a deficit in the trillions and he wants to cut taxes to corporations and the ordinary middle-class American family. By ordinary family he means anybody making over $500,000, so naturally they deserve a tax cut. I'm guessing he's going to cut more social programs and funding to our already crumbling infrastructure. So where is he going to get the money for his little war mongering. Out of his rear end? Oh, maybe it's going to come from our grandchildren, because we're probably going to be stupid enough to elect the tax cut and spend Republicans who don't think that the government should interfere with the free market.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, the McCains are just being portrayed as ordinary folks by their party. I guess that every woman in the country can afford a $300,000 outfit to wear to a Presidential Coronation.

By the way Will, as a woman myself, I have some insight into how we think and act. I respected Hillary because she was a fighter even though I disagreed with her positions and especially her husband. In my opinion, Sarah was just acting like an arrogant PMS b***h during her speech! She's the one with her claws out. A lot of other women commentators noted it that night as well.

Wings wrote:I turn 18 a month after this whole thing, so it doesn't matter anyway for me.

Wings wrote:With how bad Bush screwed up, I was almost positive Democrats would practically be gifted the presidency for the next 4 years.

tunnelcat wrote: That's why I don't see how Palin's experience by association is going to be a benefit for our country as the Republicans keep harping about.

tunnelcat wrote:....But as a female, I think that females in general are naturally adept at reading facial expressions and emotions, especially of other women. What you 'guys' thought of her speech as 'coming out swinging' and being a 'fighter', I got out as a sneering, sniping reprimand of Obama, no substance or basis. Even some female press members noted it in their analysis of her speech.

tunnelcat wrote:... And now,long after he's sung "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..." it looks like we're going to get his wish:

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=2985

Sedwick wrote:Hope I'm not too late with this:

http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341

"About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla
A suburban Anchorage homemaker and activist — who once did battle with the Alaska governor when Palin was mayor — recounts what she knows of Palin's history..."

She is largely viewed as having had her hometown’s best interests at heart when she pursued big projects or an overhaul of city taxes. By the time she ran for re-election in 1999 — again facing Mr. Stein — things had smoothed out. She was returned to office by a large margin, 826 votes to 255.
------------
“When I first met Sarah, I would say Sarah was a Republican, with the big R, and that’s it,” said Dave Chappel, Ms. Palin’s deputy mayor for more than two years. “As she developed politically, she began to see beyond the R and look at the whole picture. She matured.”