Barack to the right

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, you have an absolutely blind allegiance to Barack Obama. Believe whatever you like.

Why don't you point out what is factually wrong with my statement? Otherwise, I have to assume the blindness is on your part.

One error that I see and a couple of omissions, but hey, reality can't compete with that thrill running up your leg. I agree with Mike Allen that the Post should have gone with the stepping-up-their-lifestyle angle instead of the unrelated Countrywide stuff.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, you have an absolutely blind allegiance to Barack Obama. Believe whatever you like.

Why don't you point out what is factually wrong with my statement? Otherwise, I have to assume the blindness is on your part.

One error that I see and a couple of omissions, but hey, reality can't compete with that thrill running up your leg. I agree with Mike Allen that the Post should have gone with the stepping-up-their-lifestyle angle instead of the unrelated Countrywide stuff.

Just imagine your reaction if I were to comment on thrills running up your leg. Nice way to avoid pointing out factual errors, however. Yeah, that Mike Allen is brilliant to point out that someone who just received a million plus book contract improved his life style At least Obama didn't have to marry into money like McCain. Nor did he have to whore himself out like Bill Clinton.

BTW, what do you and Mike Allen think about McCain failing to pay taxes for 4 years on one of his seven homes? Would you take the "he's a deadbeat" angle or the "he improved his lifestyle angle"? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You and Mike Allen don't cover McCain.

[Anonymous]

now, now.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, you have an absolutely blind allegiance to Barack Obama. Believe whatever you like.

Why don't you point out what is factually wrong with my statement? Otherwise, I have to assume the blindness is on your part.

One error that I see and a couple of omissions, but hey, reality can't compete with that thrill running up your leg. I agree with Mike Allen that the Post should have gone with the stepping-up-their-lifestyle angle instead of the unrelated Countrywide stuff.

Just imagine your reaction if I were to comment on thrills running up your leg. Nice way to avoid pointing out factual errors, however. Yeah, that Mike Allen is brilliant to point out that someone who just received a million plus book contract improved his life style At least Obama didn't have to marry into money like McCain. Nor did he have to whore himself out like Bill Clinton.

BTW, what do you and Mike Allen think about McCain failing to pay taxes for 4 years on one of his seven homes? Would you take the "he's a deadbeat" angle or the "he improved his lifestyle angle"? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You and Mike Allen don't cover McCain.

I actually don't cover McCain, Jeff. I can't poach on someone else's territory. As for the thrill running up the leg, I know you caught the reference and I think Chris Matthews is an excellent example of liberal media bias. Again, I'm a liberal, a journalist, and a professor. But I don't agree with you that we in the media do a good job of policing ourselves. Someone like Matthews or Olbermann runs completely against the grain of everything ethical in journalism. But they're not journalists, any more than Rush Limbaugh is a journalist. They're entertainment. The problem is that most people don't seem to understand the difference.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I actually don't cover McCain, Jeff. I can't poach on someone else's territory. As for the thrill running up the leg, I know you caught the reference and I think Chris Matthews is an excellent example of liberal media bias. Again, I'm a liberal, a journalist, and a professor. But I don't agree with you that we in the media do a good job of policing ourselves. Someone like Matthews or Olbermann runs completely against the grain of everything ethical in journalism. But they're not journalists, any more than Rush Limbaugh is a journalist. They're entertainment. The problem is that most people don't seem to understand the difference.

Matthews is a buffoon and any comparison to him is an insult. How could you possibly think I have anything but contempt for someone who continually uses the phrase "regular people" to mean "white males", marginalizing entire classes of people? Also, your reference to Matthews' leg is a suggestion that my advocacy of Obama is not logical or fact-based, but emotional -- just like your jibe about "reality". That's also insulting. I am more than prepared to debate facts with you.

I never said the media polices themselves. That was someone else. My view is that most journalists are liberal. However, most journalists are nothing but cogs in a machine and the machine itself is protective of the status quo -- that status quo being somewhat center-right. Its no surprise that the Post has a positive editorial about Obama today regarding Obama's flip flop on FISA. Of course the Post is happy that Obama accepts Bush's position.

Its interesting that you mention Olbermann because he is such an anomaly. There are countless examples of right-leaning newscasters; indeed there is an entire network of them -- Fox. Moreover, you haven't really addressed the bias of the specific instances we've been discussing:

1) Did Obama "flip-flop" regarding welfare reform? You and the ABC Blog attempted to argue that he had. The ABC Blog is misleading by saying that Obama makes a claim regarding results of the federal law which he opposed. Actually, if you watch the ad, the claim is about the Illinois law of which Obama was one of only five cosponsors. I pointed out that the flip flop claim is specious. The entire blog item is biased against Obama.

2) Did Obama get a "discount" on his home mortgage. I argue that "average" is derived from lower and higher values and that Obama's mortgage rate is consistent with what someone with a solid financial status and good credit rating would get given the prevailing average. I consider the Post article biased against Obama. You think I have a thrill running up my leg and can't deal with reality.

3) I have still not gotten over the Post's front page article about rumors that Obama is a Muslim in which it was never stated that these rumors are false. The Post ran a second article saying that some people actually believe such rumors, not seeming to understand that running such rumors on the front page might actually lead people to believe them. Both articles are examples of incompetence by Post reporters which reflects negatively on Obama.

While all of this is going on, there is no coverage of issues that might reflect badly on McCain. For instance, have you seen any article regarding McCain's trip to Columbia that mentioned that his leading strategist has been a paid lobbyist for Columbia? Doesn't it seem significant that the maverick, straight-talker might have a conflict of interest during this little venture? Why exactly did he go to Columbia? Its not like the Columbian-American vote is going to swing this election.

You can accuse me of wearing "hope-colored" glasses or being under the influence of too many lattes, but I'd prefer you address the issues.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I have too little time, too little sleep, too much work, and too much potty training (of child, not self) to do much more back-and-forth with you. Perhaps because of my work, I do see a great deal of negative reporting on McCain. If you're upset about the Post's coverage, contact the ombudsman or write a letter to the editor. I think you'll find, if you do contact the ombudsman, that there is more balance to the Post than you assume. I do believe that your vehemence on this is emotion driven rather than logic driven. Numerous analyses have shown that Sen. Obama has received very favorable press coverage. The only exceptions to this have been during periods of self-inflicted trouble within his campaign, such as the Wright story and its later resurgence due to Wright's own grandstanding. It's the responsibility of the press to investigate and report fully on each candidate, however, and you seem to take offense when reporters actually do their job in regard to Obama.

You said the media have "one hell of a self-correcting mechanism." (That's the comment I was referring to when I said you mentioned self-policing.) While that has been true in the past, I see it becoming less and less true with the proliferation of Internet sources. In my own experience, I have seen editors become more and more willing to push the envelope in the interest of being provocative, which is to say in the interest of selling newspapers and magazines. As for Olbermann, serious journalists have been questioning for months his rising influence at MSNBC and the pernicious effect it may be having on the television news industry. For an interesting and disturbing analysis of his dominance there, check out Peter Boyer's recent profile of him in The New Yorker.

I actually didn't intend to compare you to Chris Matthews. Of course that would be offensive, and I apologize if I seemed to be making that comparison.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I have too little time, too little sleep, too much work, and too much potty training (of child, not self) to do much more back-and-forth with you. Perhaps because of my work, I do see a great deal of negative reporting on McCain. If you're upset about the Post's coverage, contact the ombudsman or write a letter to the editor. I think you'll find, if you do contact the ombudsman, that there is more balance to the Post than you assume.

I have been writing letters to the editor for the past 20 years and have had a large number published. However, you posted a link to the story accusing Obama of a flip flop on welfare reform, so I'd think you have a responsibility to answer for that.

I do believe that your vehemence on this is emotion driven rather than logic driven. Numerous analyses have shown that Sen. Obama has received very favorable press coverage. The only exceptions to this have been during periods of self-inflicted trouble within his campaign, such as the Wright story and its later resurgence due to Wright's own grandstanding. It's the responsibility of the press to investigate and report fully on each candidate, however, and you seem to take offense when reporters actually do their job in regard to Obama.

Not true. I love it when the press does its job. Ironically, a true flip flop by Obama -- on FISA -- has elicited media praise and positive coverage. It is not the media's job to publish misleading articles. Obama was a leader in Illinois on welfare reform. The ABC blog article misrepresented the facts. Your post of a link to that article also contained false information (Obams did not criticize Clinton). The article about Obama's mortgage was also unfair. I am not upset that the media is doing its job, but that it is not doing its job competently.

The studies that you cite may have been true when the race was Obama against Clinton. Anyone who suggests that Obama is getting better coverage than McCain is simply not paying attention.

You said the media have "one hell of a self-correcting mechanism." (That's the comment I was referring to when I said you mentioned self-policing.) While that has been true in the past, I see it becoming less and less true with the proliferation of Internet sources. In my own experience, I have seen editors become more and more willing to push the envelope in the interest of being provocative, which is to say in the interest of selling newspapers and magazines. As for Olbermann, serious journalists have been questioning for months his rising influence at MSNBC and the pernicious effect it may be having on the television news industry. For an interesting and disturbing analysis of his dominance there, check out Peter Boyer's recent profile of him in The New Yorker.

That was not me. All of my posts have my name on them. That quote was by Anonymous.

I actually didn't intend to compare you to Chris Matthews. Of course that would be offensive, and I apologize if I seemed to be making that comparison.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Okay, points taken. I was referring to analyses of media coverage during the primary, yes. I doubt there's been any substantive analysis since then. And I'm sorry I tagged you with a comment that was actually by another poster. As I said, not enough sleep, but still an error on my part. Working within the system I see very little self-correction these days, and very little self-reflection, so I laughed out loud at "one hell of a self-correction mechanism." That poster really ought to read the New Yorker profile of Olbermann. As far as the ABC story, I read Obama's use of the word "disturbing" as critical of Clinton but know it mirrored a lot of black thinking at the time, including that of Clinton allies such as Marian Wright Edelman.

The FISA flip flop is a genuine flip flop, but what can he do? Obama simply cannot look as though he stands to the left of Nancy Pelosi. Sometimes compromise is necessary -- the welfare reform legislation is actually another example of that.

What disturbs me is that those who deplore the Rush Limbaughs of the world -- and I do not mean you, Jeff -- fail to similarly protest a Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews. It's no better when it's on the left than when it's on the right, folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's great he's opposing this horrible Supreme Court decision! I was absolutely appalled to hear about the ruling this morning. Raping a young child is far far worse than executing the person who did it. I do not find the punishment disproportionate at all. Raping a young child is one of the most horrible crimes a person can commit and they should receive the ultimate penalty for doing so. I am differentiating here between child rape and rape of an adult/teenager. The state's law said the victim had to be under 12. How can anyone think it is not the most heinous crime to rape a child that young?

I actually was quite saddened to find out that so few states have a law allowing the death penalty for child rapists and that so few people actually receive this sentence for committing that crime.

I agree with everything you say about child-rape except the conclusion that capital punishment is the appropriate response. Here are a couple of reasons I disagree:

First, it is beyond my comprehension how anyone could do such a horrible thing. The only thing I can think of is that the person was sick, suffering from a compulsion strong enough to overcome reason, compulsion so strong the death penalty is not a deterrent.

Second, precisely because it is so heinous, a jury's decision is likely to be colored by emotion that makes it more likely that they might convict the wrong person. The more you hate the crime, the more likely the death penalty is an act of vengeance rather than justice.

But I raised the question not because I am enthusiastic about the Court's decision; I won't be shedding tears about the death of a child-rapist. However, when we are talking about an issue of such emotional power, but which actually applies to TWO people in the entire country, making a political issue of a case that must have been very difficult for the Justices, who I'm sure are also revolted at the thought of child-rape, does no service to the rule of law.

I do not think you could possibly have a child and believe this. If a person is so sick that they can not help but destroy another life, it is time to meet the maker.