According to a March 2008 poll, one in 10 registered voters believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Of course, he isn't. Obama is a Christian (but I try not to hold that against him).
Given this pathetic level of misinformed potential voters, The Slate poses an interesting question: Are Muslims allowed to pass?
I always thought that believers were taught that it is better to die for your faith in God than to deny him or your belief...
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Obama Shifts on Welfare Reform ( Change )
ABC News' ^ | July 01, 2008 | Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace
Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.
"I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare," Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. "Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems."
Obama's transformation from critic to champion of welfare reform is the latest in a series of moves to the center. Since capturing the Democratic nomination, the Obama campaign has altered its stances on Social Security taxes, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions, and the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s, sweeping gun ban.
The shift in Obama's rhetoric on welfare reform has proceeded in stages. When former President Bill Clinton was poised to sign welfare reform while running for re-election in 1996, Obama called it "disturbing."
A decade later, as an underdog running for president against Clinton's wife, he spent 2007 avoiding the subject.
By the time Obama emerged as the Democratic frontrunner in the spring of 2008, he began leaving the impression that he was for it all along.
That all you got? Desperation rears its ugly head again.
on the brightside, at least he's not pretending he's thomas sowell this time.
and speaking of desperate, have y'all noticed how the main stream media is desperate for a close race?
I pay little or no attention to mainline media 'news', except for a little News Hour on PBS (I catch the last half, after Jeopardy). I get most of my news from the web, and yes, I'll admit most of that is 'mainline' stuff, but if it's politics I tend to ignore it anyway.
It all boils down to "I'm good, he's bad", or at best, "I'm good, he's not so good." Whoopee. Rah. Whatever.
here's a link about the media bias.
You can always find a few isolated examples to make a point like that. But overall, the vast majority of MSM reporting is biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans.
And I've only had time to look through one of the articles that link refers to. It's far from a biased hatchet job.
People who might complicate Obama's campaign
Well, G, all we have is your opinion to go on there. I'll take Corey's evidence over your opinion any day.
"But overall, the vast majority of MSM reporting is biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans."
i can't agree. in my own opinion, the traditional media plays up the underdog every time. makes for a better story, which makes for a better bottom line. i think finances are always issue #1 in the media.
when dubya and gore were debating each other in 2000, the press set the bar so low for bush that all he had to do was show up and keep from drooling on himself to come out the victor. the press couldn't bear the thought of a blowout, and they handled him with kidgloves.
that's just one glaring example, but i'd bet (metaphorically, i don't actually gamble)...i'd bet if mccain took a sizable lead, the press would start overstating his faults and underplaying obama's. they need a tight race.
the only consistant media bias is from the overtly republican faux news, and/or am talk radio. i would list keith olbermann, but he's not a network.
That's the same Slate article I link to in the initial post, Corey.
csm,
I guess you didn't notice that coreyd's "evidence" is just a link to an opinion piece. Now that I've had a chance to read all the articles that opinion piece linked to, it's clear that it's just empty complaints.
Bipartisanship marks McCain's Senate tenure
Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word
In fact, the headline on the second article begins with "Analysis:..." Doesn't that imply that the article is intended to show the writer's view of what happened?
When I read articles like these, I see standard reporting. The only way to see these things as unfair attacks on Obama is if one feels it is unacceptable to bring any criticism upon him. I'm sorry, but those who somehow think that it is unfair to look into Obama in the same way we look into any other candidate is incapable of rational thought on this issue.
As I've already stated, one can always find a few incidents to prove the point they want to make. Unfortunately, the modern media tends to inject opinion into nearly everything, rather than just reporting things on a factual basis and allowing the readers & listeners to do their own evaluation.
Here's another opinion piece, but at least he refers to an actual study rather than solely anecdotal "evidence." I'm not going to spend the time chasing down the study because I don't really care that much about bias in reporting. It's a fact, and there's nothing we can do about it.
If 'The Media' Dislike Hillary, How Do They Feel About Those ----- Republicans?
Clarification:
When I referred to those who are incapable of thinking rationally about Barack Obama, I was referring to people like this writer over at crooksandliars... not specifically to any of you.
aww, shucks. sorry 'bout that, csm. i don't know what i was thinking. can somebody start getting senile in their mid-thirties? man, i'm pathetic.
g, i can't be satisfied with bias in reporting. it could be limited more than it is. i watch the hullabaloo over obama's hedging (iraq, abortion, etc.) and i wonder why the traditional press doesn't focus equal time on mccain's outright reversals.
here's another aspect of media bias: they shy away from complex analysis of any sort.
look at the recent report on political progress in iraq. they say 15 of 18 benchmarks are now being met. i want to know if this is credible. but the press won't touch it. come to think about it, ALL iraq reporting disappeared when the threat of civil war waned. we don't even hear about attacks over there unless the body count is greater than 50.
all i'm saying is we should be aware of their numerous biases, and push for minimizing them.
coreyd,
I don't like the media bias either, but there isn't anything we can do about it (other than just tuning it out). Freedom of the press means that they can present the news pretty much however they choose... short of libel, of course.
I think that if one of the networks came up with a real, unbiased news show, they would get a good amount of viewers. I'm sure they would still fall well short of the cable "news" circus, but they would have viewers. It could even be done with analysis, as long as it isn't just two party-line hacks that refuse to think for themselves.
Really, I don't even mind the political "leanings" of the networks and newspapers, as long as they're fair and up front about it. What I can't stand is seeing all the fawning over one candidate while blasting the other. Both candidates have serious flaws. It's when a news source refuses to talk about "their" candidate's problems that I get annoyed.
As far as I could tell over the years the main 'bias' I've seen in general media news is that of perceived profit rather than politics.
I am in agreement with you g, you can consume information from (serious) sources with which you may not agree with. NPR is a perfect example for me. Many times I find myself talking back to the radio(to the constant questioning looks from my co-workers), but I also find NPR to have a vast array of stories and storylines you would be hard pressed to match.
To Corey's point in an earlier comment about the media skewing coverage to make the race seem closer than it is/will be:
ABC News and The Washington Post issued staggered releases of the results of their latest poll, withholding from their first release results favorable to Sen. Barack Obama, including the finding that 50 percent of registered voters would vote for Obama for president versus 42 percent for Sen. John McCain. The next day, the Post ran an article headlined "Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions," which did not mention Obama's 8-point lead over McCain. Later that day, ABC News and the Post issued a second release with additional poll results that stated: "Obama continues to hold most of the advantages in the presidential race."
nah, that can't be. they're all in the tank for obama. it's gotta be, 'cause mouse said so.
(/sarcasm)
Post a Comment