Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1.    #1  
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/

    Interesting read. Major caveat though - most DO NOT work in the political reporting field. Nonetheless, I can see where the claims of "liberal bias" come from if this report is accurate. Whether I'd rather have a liberal media vs. a government mouthpiece is another matter.
  2. #2  
    Here's the accompanying article. It's amusing how the New York Times "Ethicist" Randy Cohen (he writes articles about ethics) rationalizes violating company policy.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

    As for the 9-to-1 ratio of Democrat donors to Republican donors, well, I think I've read something showing a similar imbalance of registered Democrats versus registered Republicans among journalists, though I don't recall the exact figures.
  3.    #3  
    I'd be very interested in narrowing this study to those that actually cover politics and cross-correlating the data with the reach each of the political journalist have. e.g. Bill O'Reilly has a huge audience, where did he donate and how much? A list of the top ten political journalists ranked by popularity, with a sub-index of amounts donated and to which party, would be very telling.
  4. #4  
    Did you notice though the number of ANGRY democrats versus the number of ANGRY republicans? Overall an interesting article.

    Ben
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Did you notice though the number of ANGRY democrats versus the number of ANGRY republicans? Overall an interesting article.

    Ben
    No I didn't. How many are there?

    Seems to me there is plenty to be angry about. But then I doubt you'd agree with me. My only regret is that the Dems never seem to be able to channel that anger quite the way the GOP can.
  6. #6  
    Not really, they are in positions of influence and I really doubt many people are that capable of separating their work lives from their personal lives. What I really found outrageous though were the statements from a few pleading ignorance about MoveOn.org.

    The current democrat majority is having problems channeling anything right now. Grandmaw ought to let someone with a better reputation guide the ship.

    Ben

    Ben
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The current democrat majority is having problems channeling anything right now. Grandmaw ought to let someone with a better reputation guide the ship.
    Yeah, we need a Hammer. Let's get Tom Delay/Hastert back. They'll do much better
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Yeah, we need a Hammer. Let's get Tom Delay/Hastert back. They'll do much better
    Probably would actually. It's easy getting things done when you monopolize all branches of government; have a President who won't veto/stop your spending; provide no oversight or resistance to even the most outrageous expansion of the executive branch; and plenty of good friends in the energy/oil industry cheering you on while you redact/change climate reports and hand out copious amounts of corporate welfare to those poor poor energy companies.

    Seriously....the upside is the Dems have passed an increase to the minimum wage, found reasonable compromise with the NRA to pass new gun legislation, have in fact cut in half earmarks, and are providing more oversight over the executive branch than we've had in 6 years. So I guess it depends on your perspective but I do see more progress than I see failures. Granted I want to see much much more out of them...
  9.    #9  
    BTW - fundamentally I doubt we'd ever reach any concensus on this board. I believe in a press that is critical of the government and willing to take risk to report their every move. They may not get it right all of the time but if they get 1 out of 5 stories close that seems to be far more oversight we'd have over our supposed respresenatative government than if we all rolled over and pretended the government will do the job we tax payers are paying them to do.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Probably would actually. It's easy getting things done when you monopolize all branches of government; have a President who won't veto/stop your spending; provide no oversight or resistance to even the most outrageous expansion of the executive branch; and plenty of good friends in the energy/oil industry cheering you on while you redact/change climate reports and hand out copious amounts of corporate welfare to those poor poor energy companies.

    Seriously....the upside is the Dems have passed an increase to the minimum wage, found reasonable compromise with the NRA to pass new gun legislation, have in fact cut in half earmarks, and are providing more oversight over the executive branch than we've had in 6 years. So I guess it depends on your perspective but I do see more progress than I see failures. Granted I want to see much much more out of them...
    Given the copious amounts of $ that the politicians have to raise to get elected, and the limited intelligence of the electorate, who keeps electing them because they see more ads on the TV (remember, the ploticians do this because it works!!), I am a pessimist.

    The Repubs showed that having control of all 3 branches of the Govt is no guarantee that anything meaningful will be achieved (like immigration reform, addressing the entitlements, deficits).

    Divided government can lead to middle-of-the-road compromises, or gridlock. I am predicting gridlock.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Given the copious amounts of $ that the politicians have to raise to get elected, and the limited intelligence of the electorate, who keeps electing them because they see more ads on the TV (remember, the ploticians do this because it works!!), I am a pessimist.

    The Repubs showed that having control of all 3 branches of the Govt is no guarantee that anything meaningful will be achieved (like immigration reform, addressing the entitlements, deficits).

    Divided government can lead to middle-of-the-road compromises, or gridlock. I am predicting gridlock.
    You're probably right. Ahh...politics in America. Where a man like Thompson, who made over $1MM in lobbying fees, can probably be elected yet Obama cannot because his name rhymes with Osama.

    BTW - I'd rather risk gridlock any day than chance total domination of one party in all branches of government again. The system was supposed to provide for checks and balances and grid lock is a necessary consequence of that system on occassion.
  12. #12  
    I sincerely doubt that Obama will not get it because of his name. My reason for not voting for him is he is too far to the left and is in MoveOn.org's area.

    Ben
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I sincerely doubt that Obama will not get it because of his name. My reason for not voting for him is he is too far to the left and is in MoveOn.org's area.

    Ben
    Actually, my complaint thus far is that I don't enough about his positions.

    What are your concerns specifically? I'd like to know where he stands on some of the issues
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Actually, my complaint thus far is that I don't enough about his positions.

    What are your concerns specifically? I'd like to know where he stands on some of the issues
    No specifics Ben? Go figure.
  15. #15  
    Guys, we all have lives...

    When Barrack Obama attended an annual convention for the United Church of Christ he commented on his use of faith regarding politics and the Christian right using issues to divide us rather than bring us together. For so long we have been told by those on the left to leave our morals out of politics.........Wow.

    Obama and his knowledge of the Palestinian state issue, stating our absence has helped open the door to extremism in the West Bank and Gaza - he needs to check his news more often - President Bush was the 1st American president toofficially support a Palestinian state, gave a major policy address outlining a new process to achieve it, notwithstanding the collapse of the Oslo process. Convinced the UN, EU and Russia to formally endorse the process, got both Israel and the Palestinians to formally commit themselves to the 3 phase plan.

    He opens his mouth without a thought.

    In 2002 Obama was asked to speak out against the Iraq invansion and hesitated to do so - he changes his position to meet the prevailing situation.

    When a conservative speaks of helping private faith based organizations is bashed for saying it, but Obama gets away with it.

    You know, I have not got that much interest in the man to go further. Frankly, he changes his statements to meet his needs, much like Hilary does.

    Obama can speak at a church. Hillary can speak at a church. No comments from the left.

    A republican speak at a church? You guys come unglued.

    What a pity that a few of you just cannot admit the left has its problems with the principals of fairness.

    Ben
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Guys, we all have lives...
    Fair enough.

    When Barrack Obama attended an annual convention for the United Church of Christ he commented on his use of faith regarding politics and the Christian right using issues to divide us rather than bring us together. For so long we have been told by those on the left to leave our morals out of politics.........Wow.
    I guess I'm missing the "wow" part. I thought he claimed he relies on his faith as a means of strength - as in, life can be tough so he relies on faith to give him strength and see him through tough times. This is a far cry from literally reaching into the pews (Rove) and pandering to the right by claiming they don't believe in separation of church and state (Gingrich) or passing laws into the middle of the night over a woman with the brain the size of a grape (Frist) to appease the right to lifers.

    Obama and his knowledge of the Palestinian state issue, stating our absence has helped open the door to extremism in the West Bank and Gaza - he needs to check his news more often - President Bush was the 1st American president toofficially support a Palestinian state, gave a major policy address outlining a new process to achieve it, notwithstanding the collapse of the Oslo process. Convinced the UN, EU and Russia to formally endorse the process, got both Israel and the Palestinians to formally commit themselves to the 3 phase plan.
    How is that working out? How is that whole middle east thing working out for your boy Georgie? You've got to be in the last 29% in this country that actually thinks Bush has been a diplomat and leader in this middle east. And probably in the last 1% globally to think so....

    He opens his mouth without a thought.
    Is what way? In a "Mission Accomplished" kind of way? Or a "you're doing a heck of a job Brownie" kind of way?

    In 2002 Obama was asked to speak out against the Iraq invansion and hesitated to do so - he changes his position to meet the prevailing situation.
    Yes, unusual for a politician I know...especially the "Rove" adminstration. Seriously, he was against the war from the beginning. Seems to me he had the foresight to see that the war was misguided.

    When a conservative speaks of helping private faith based organizations is bashed for saying it, but Obama gets away with it.
    Could it be because conservatives...wait, they're not conservatives...I take exception to that...conservatives are today's moderates, ala Barry Goldwater. They are extremist. But back to your point; could it be that Obama is not seen as an extremist that will attempt to impose his belief system legislatively and thusly less people question his interest in faith based organizations? Nah, that wouldn't fit into the right wing effort to "redefine him" now would it?

    You know, I have not got that much interest in the man to go further. Frankly, he changes his statements to meet his needs, much like Hilary does.
    You mean you don't like him because he is a Democrat. Both sides shift their positions around to attract - or represent - a larger constituency. So where you feel that Obama is so disingenious I see him as playing the game that Rove invented.

    Obama can speak at a church. Hillary can speak at a church. No comments from the left.

    A republican speak at a church? You guys come unglued.
    You seem fixated with this. Do you really think that them speaking at a church will equate to legislative change that favors the church's positions? Let's face it Ben, you'd be the first handing out Coulter's hate booked called "Godless" at an Obama rally if he didn't attend church and it irks you that he is playing the same game as the Rove-robots on the right.

    What a pity that a few of you just cannot admit the left has its problems with the principals of fairness.

    Ben
    Fairness? What kind of fairness? Claiming that Edward's drives around with a bumper sticker that says, "ask me about my dead son" on it? Or fair like the 2002 Election New Hampshire "phone jamming" case? That kind of fair?

    Thanks Ben. Your response did not disappoint. In fact, I think I could have written it for you it was so predictable.

Posting Permissions