Over five-day period, Fox News provided far more campaign stump time to Republicans than to Democrats
SUMMARY: Of the total time Fox News devoted to unfiltered campaign clips between September 5 and September 9, 78 percent was of the Republican candidates and their surrogates, with 22 percent devoted to the Democrats. Moreover, all three cable networks devoted more airtime (significantly more in the cases of Fox News and MSNBC) to, and broadcast a significantly greater number of, clips of the Republican candidates and their surrogates campaigning than of the Democratic candidates and their surrogates on both Fridays after the two national conventions.
Over the five-day period from September 5 through September 9, Fox News spent far more time airing unfiltered clips -- that is, clips of the candidates talking at campaign events uninterrupted by journalists' voice-overs -- of the Republican presidential ticket and its surrogates than of the Democratic presidential ticket and its surrogates, also airing a far greater number of Republican clips. Moreover, all three cable networks devoted more airtime (significantly more in the cases of Fox News and MSNBC) to, and broadcast a significantly greater number of clips of, the Republican candidates and their surrogates campaigning than of the Democratic candidates and their surrogates on both Fridays after the two national conventions.
Of the total time Fox News devoted to unfiltered campaign clips between September 5 and September 9, 78 percent was of the Republican candidates and their surrogates, with 22 percent devoted to the Democrats. Moreover, of the total number of these clips aired on Fox News, 81 percent were of Republicans.
During the five-day period, 47 percent of the time that Fox News devoted to unfiltered clips was spent on clips of Gov. Sarah Palin, 29 percent on clips of Sen. John McCain, 22 percent on clips of Sen. Barack Obama, and no time on clips of Sen. Joe Biden. Similarly, 47 percent of Fox News' clips were of McCain, 25 percent were of Palin, and 19 percent were of Obama.
On Friday, September 5, all three cable networks -- MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News -- devoted more time to airing unfiltered clips of the McCain-Palin campaign than of the Obama-Biden campaign, with Fox News and MSNBC skewing significantly in favor of the Republicans. Fox News devoted 81 percent of its unfiltered clip time to Republicans and MSNBC 64 percent. CNN devoted 53 percent of the total clip time length to the Republicans.
Of the total number of clips run on the three cable channels on September 5, 93 percent on Fox News, 77 percent on CNN, and 68 percent on MSNBC were of Republicans.
While the fact that September 5 was the day after the Republican convention might be cited by the cable networks as justification for the disparate coverage, on the previous Friday, the day after the Democratic National Convention, the cable networks' coverage of candidates also skewed heavily in favor of the Republican candidates. On August 29, of the time devoted to unfiltered clips of candidates and their surrogates, Fox News and CNN both devoted 98 percent to the Republicans, while MSNBC devoted 86 percent to them.
Moreover, on August 29, 86 percent of the unfiltered clips aired by Fox News, 85 percent of those aired by CNN, and 57 percent of the ones aired by MSNBC were of the Republicans.
For September 6-9, the rest of the period monitored, Fox News continued to have skewed coverage while the other two networks were more balanced. Fox News devoted 77 percent of its total clip time length to Republicans, while CNN and MSNBC devoted 51 and 52 percent, respectively, to Republicans.
Between September 6 and September 9, 71 percent of the total number of clips that Fox News aired were of Republicans, 53 percent of the clips that CNN aired were of Republicans, and 53 percent of the clips aired on MSNBC during this period were of Democrats.
Methodology
Media Matters for America documented unfiltered and unmediated speech clips from the candidates and their surrogates aired on the three major cable news networks -- CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News -- on August 29 and from September 5 through September 9 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET. The total number of clips and the length of each clip were recorded. Only clips that were 15 seconds or longer were included in the study.
To be included in the study, the clip had to be unfiltered and unmediated by any journalist or news agency. Clips in which a journalist or anchor talked over the candidate or surrogate were not included. Clips of press conferences were included only if the candidate or surrogate was not answering questions, but making opening statements to the journalists present. Clips of interviews were not included.
For the Democratic side, the vast majority of the clips recorded were of Obama and Biden. Sen. Hillary Clinton was clipped twice, for a total time length of approximately eight minutes. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine was clipped once for 19 seconds on August 29. No other Democratic surrogates were clipped during the time period. On the Republican side, the vast majority of the clips recorded were also of the candidates, McCain and Palin. Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Gov. Palin's husband, Todd Palin, were each clipped once. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was clipped twice. The total time for these surrogates was less than two minutes. An unidentified McCain supporter was also clipped speaking at a rally for nearly two minutes on August 29.
HOOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for the liberal media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Note: Conservatives constantly whine and moan about media mistreatment. Poor things!
Note: If it is true that most journalist trend liberal, corperate ownership trends....
Note: If its true that most journalist trend liberal, its because they make a living paying attention. Most conservatives seem to frame their message so people can decide without paying attention. Example: Since Obama hates the flag/America, is a muslim, hangs out with terrorist, I don't need to know anything else about the election.
Funny you say that. At the "values voters" summit this weekend (that would be right wing christians) they're selling some pretty racist stuff (courtesy of think progress)...
‘Obama Waffles’ featuring racist, stereotyped images sold at Values Voter Summit.»
C'mon snoop...for those that think that Obama has changed his position on many issues...a box of waffle mix is a great parody.
As to his picture...what should they have done?...give him a head of hair like Glen Campbell...the squinty eyes of Carl Cameron...and a complexion like Cher?
The likeness was a dead ringer for Obama...the cry of racism is horseshit.
You and others may not find it funny...but the howl of racism is bogus.
So You'll be OK if we sell something called Pork-O's and feature a picture of Palin with a pig in lipstick?
Sure...it's ok with me...I might not find it funny but it's ok with me.
What would you expect? That I'd bawl about sexism...or porkism...or some other ism?
The image looked very much like Obama...which was the point...it wouldn't have been very clever if the person on the box looked like Rock Hudson in blackface. Oh crap, now I've gone from ism's to homophobia...ye gads.
Don't be a simpleton tool and parrot the silly "thick lips and popping eyes" rhetoric. It's a parody...one that you might not find funny...but give the racism angle a rest. Contrary to many opinions here...many, many conservatives don't judge people by the color of their skin.
But these particular conservatives and "values voters" are without a doubt racist.
The way I judge whether something is racist or not is to take it to West Philadelphia, West Baltimore or Bed/Sty and ask anyone passing by what they think.
I hope everyone here is smart enough to see the canard being hocked by MM.
Why did MM cherrypick September 5 through 9? Sept. 5 was the first day after the end of the RNC.
C'mon, MM. Not cool at all. Not cool.
Actually, you may have a point. I'd like to see the difference (if any) during the period after the DNC.
By the way, I like my Obama Waffles with Aunt Jemima syrup while watching Buckwheat on the tee vee. Yum Yum!
Wesley
There is a long history in this country of the use of demeaning, racist imagery. That you can't recognize it here speaks to your unwillingness to see it. Many conservatives use this bullsh#t 'color blind' meme as a means of denying the obvious truth that racism is still a major problem in this nation. The right has simply attempted to turn this fact on its head, sneering that racism exists only in the minds of African Americans and white liberals.
It is a dishonest tactic. It is a transparent dodge by which conservatives try to excuse the ignorance and mean-spirited actions of an important constituent group. It is a denial of reality, and a cynical attempt to blame an historically oppressed minority for vicious crimes that have been and continue to be committed against them.
When such clear racism is pointed out to you in the future, try not to be such an obvious and disingenuous stooge in your denials.
We'll be seeing a lot more such examples of racism before this election is over.
Republicans also have an issue with sexism also. Sarah Palin herself, in her recent interview with Charlie Gibson, spoke of how she personally had never had an issue with her family treating herself any differently because she was a woman, and she claims that any questions about sexism are irrelevant!!!!! So what that she's never had an issue - for her to deny that there is still sexism is ignorant in the extreme!!!
PALIN: I don't know. I'm lucky to have been brought up in a family where gender has never been an issue. I'm a product of Title 9, also, where we had equality in schools that was just being ushered in with sports and with equal opportunity for education, all of my life.
I'm part of that generation, where that question is kind of irrelevant, because it's accepted. Of course you can be the vice president and you can raise a family.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5789483&page=2
It is a denial of reality, and a cynical attempt to blame an historically oppressed minority for vicious crimes that have been and continue to be committed against them.
Eloquent mumbo jumbo.
One look at Rev. Wright, Jessie Jackson, and Al Sharpton should evidence the black racism in the country.
We'll be seeing a lot more such examples of racism before this election is over.
Yes, by Liberals. Liberals are the biggest racist/sexist hypocrites ever.
Most of the positive fervor around Hillary Clinton was regarding her sex; by liberals. A good portion of the negative press around Gov. Sarah Palin has been around the fact that she is a woman (with kids, etc.) Again by liberals.
Virtually none of the negative feelings towards Obama from the right has to do with his color.
Now on to the topic at hand:
Over five-day period, Fox News provided far more campaign stump time to Republicans than to Democrats
this is simple to understand. If you watch Sen John McCain or Gov Sarah Palin, you will see substance and content. A positive outlook and 'believable' plans for the future.
If you watch 5 minutes of Obama, what you will get is "Woe as me", "Doom and Gloom", and either defensive or offensive remarks regarding the Republican ticket.
People are tired of it.
Fox is providing more coverage to republicans because McCain and Palin are more exciting than the doom and gloom ticket headed by Obama; that's why.
<guffaw!> <SNORT!>
There are very few attacks against palin for being a woman, unless you want to call lying about visiting troops in Iraq, hiring idiots to lead the dept of agriculture because their only experience is they love cows, or bringing home enough pork to make KKKarl Rove blush a female issue. And contrary to your other false claim, the republican campaign is first and foremost about the color of Obama's skin. Nice try though...
I think I speak for most neocons when I say rubbish.
I too was attracted to Obama when he first appeared on the national scene, but like most other neocons was disappointed to find out he was nothing more than a good looking windbag with a questionable background.
It's convenient to think of us neocons as racist, but it ain't true brother.
I have no problem with Obama's color, but I do find him pompous, arrogant, inexperienced, and worrisome because of his anti-American associations.
Simply put; Barack Obama is wrong for American but right for hand-wringing liberals.
(yes, you may quote me.)
Disappointing even for you, Mini.
"Liberals are the biggest racist/sexist hypocrites ever." - Mini Drama
More twisted, head-up-your-ass rhetoric from the far right. You guys are in such a delusional state of denial that you have come to actually BELIEVE Rush's inversion of America's racial problems. Rush is a confirmed racist himself, you know, and you're parked right now on a web site that can present you with an overwhelming amount of objective evidence of it. But I know you won't bother to avail yourself of it, because it would put quite a crimp in your hallucinatory snidings.
"Virtually none of the negative feelings toward Obama from the right has to do with his color. - Mini Drama
Amazing that you would have the gall to say this almost directly underneath a pristene example of racism that Snoopy has provided us with. What most people call lying, the far right calls talking. You have the undeniable evidence of racism being practiced by so-called Christians on the far right, and you just sit there going 'Nope! Nope! Not going to acknowledge it! Nope! Didn't happen! Rush warned me about these guys, and their sneaky liberal tricks! Not going to listen! La la lal la la la la!'.
Even if you can't smell that steaming horse apple that you're attemting to hand us, you'd think that you could at least TASTE it.
My views are my views. It's convenient to blame the views of the masses on a handful of people, but as much as you guys are in command of your views, we are in command of ours. (more actually.)
(In simple terms, we believe what we say.)
you're parked right now on a web site that can present you with an overwhelming amount of objective evidence of it.
Haha! good one. MMFA is the crew-chief that responds to a hull breach.
What most people call lying, the far right calls talking.
No, we call it "saying it like it is".
You have the undeniable evidence of racism being practiced by so-called Christians on the far right, and you just sit there going 'Nope! Nope! Not going to acknowledge it!
I won't deny there are racists on the right just like there are deluded self-loathing, (racist,) apologists on the left. But that's not what we are talking about are we? The Right is saying Obama is bad for America; period.
We understand he is great for those what want to curtsy before the world and say "I am sorry for the success of America" .. but he's not for the rest of us.
Even if you can't smell that steaming horse apple that you're attemting to hand us, you'd think that you could at least TASTE it.
All I can smell is your desperate stoop and cover to what I am saying; Obama is a dolt without America's best interests in mind. Obama wants to deliver America to the world as a sorry, second-class citizen.
I say F that. I love this country and don't want the likes of Obama as a representative of this great nation.
Um..., have you been reading the paper or watching the news? The surge totally worked. Violence is way down and we are planned withdrawals/redeployments to Afghanistan.
Your facts are all wrong here. The Surge worked and Obama was 'steadfastly' wrong.
Max,
Go back to Bush's surge speech and please point out all of the policy goals that have been met by the surge. Violence is down, which is great, but what were the purposes outlined by Bush and what goals have been met?
Hey look!! Cleetus is back!!
"The likeness was a dead ringer for Obama...the cry of racism is horseshit."
REALLY Cleetus? Really?
So when you look at Obama you see really thick lips and popping eyes? I would say this gives us more of a view into your ideas of what Obama looks like if you think that the image is "a dead ringer".
Dammit Snoopy!!
You know there are words that don't belong in a sentence together.
Military Intelligence
Christian Rock
Monkey Butler
Compassionate Conservative
And now, Right wing satire.
That was very bad Snoopy, very bad!!
>>The likeness was a dead ringer for Obama...the cry of racism is horseshit.
Not really. Africans have noticeably different features in different regions.
Hang on. I have to be fair here. A cartoon that shows Obama to be a black man is not racist. It's.....well, accurate. Let's not shy away from the fact that he IS BLACK. Nobody says it publicly, but it is a FACT. Get real, here. The cartoon of him on a box of waffles is indicative of a perception of wishy-washiness that the right is trying to convey. Come on, folks. We HAVE to lighten up, here. It's just satire. How can we say that we are above pettiness when we're getting spun up over innocent satire and farm animals donning cosmetics. We seem to be LOOKING for a message that just isn't there. I mean, we are 7 weeks from the ELECTION, and this is what we're focusing on?
We joke and laugh about Dubya looking like a chimp and heck I can find umpteen million cartoons depicting him as a monkey, but some yayhoo makes Obama shirts in the likeness of Curious George and we howl racism? Gut check, Obama really does look like Curious George!! If we really are above petty racial differences like we SAY we are, why can't we laugh at things like this? Or is it that we just aren't above petty racial differences? Who really knows?
Obama's lips are not that big. A depiction of him is fine if it exaggerates his actual features, not ones that are stereotypical of black people in general.
This is a huge difference.
Maybe a bigger image is clearer, but that little image doesn't offend me, and I try very hard to be offended at the righties.
Can we focus on the fact that the waffling side is calling the other side wafflers? When it's all about emotion on both sides, the factual side loses.
Boondocks? You seriously aren't trying to make a connection, are you?
No, the only point here is a christian run group called "value voters" approved for sale at their conventikon this box that hit on a lot of the stereotypes - especially the muslim theme on the boxtop. This would be dishonest enought for a GOP convention, but for a christian one? C'mon...
Of course you have no obligation to prove anything to me, but this feels like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. All cartoons are distortions. Not all distortions are racist.
A distortion that plays off of stereotypes is racist. I've seen images of Obama that make fun of his ears. That's all well and good. If Obama really had big lips and popping eyes, then this would be fine as well.
How about if someone drew Lieberman as having a big hook nose? I know he doesn't have many fans here, but since there's no basis in reality for that depiction, you would have to conclude that it's racist in nature. Don't you think?
I'll back down because the illegal alien and muslim stuff is clearly offensive.
I don't know if the Daily Show, Colbert, and Real Time should be called liberal humor or just humor, but clearly it and not conservative humor is what survives in the marketplace of ideas. According to our lord and savior, Capitalism, conservatives aren't funny.
(Actually, conservatives don't like capitalism. Capitalism depends on fair competition and full information, which are both anathema.)
You're other posts were on point. Most political cartoons contain disproportionate physical traits. Such cartoons typically are drawn by those critical of the politician they're caricaturing. That in and of itself is hardly racist. The "artist's" just looking for comedic effect. How many times has everyone seen GW drawn as a hunched over little fella with big ears. The same are drawn about Clinton . . . . In my city, I've seen similar cartoons about my mayor, an African American, that were drafted by black cartoonists . ..
You're also right in that the offensive, and pathetic, aspect of the cartoon, is what's on top of the box.
Disproportionate physical traits based on their actual traits, though. This is a key distinction. Like I said, if someone drew Lieberman with a big nose, that would be racist, because he doesn't have a big nose to begin with. You could do it for Barbra Streisand though, because she does have one. In a caricature, the exaggeration is based on what's actually there, not on racial stereotypes.
Washington AP:
[...].....Republican Party stalwarts Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were among speakers at the forum, which officials said drew 2,100 activists from 44 states.
While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama's politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.
Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.
On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens." The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?"
The novelty item also takes shots at 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, Obama's wife, Michelle, and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright...........[...]
EB
You believe that the reporters are dems and pay attention and care about the issues, yet the owners are all conservatives.
Well, if you are right, the reporters....and thus the dems, must all be to dumb to ever rise to the top and own anything.
Deep Sigh.
Okay Krusty, as your mum had obviously called you up from the basement to have your dinner the last time you posted this crap l will post my reply again:
"Did l disagree with Saddam's actions? Yes, of course l did. I like millions of were disgusted when he used the chemical weapons WE SUPPLIED HIM on not only the Iranians but on the Kurds. Were you there as part of the protests when he was doing this in the 80's? Were you outside the Iraqi embassy protesting about western firms supplying him with the equiptment to try to build his "Supergun"? Or were you cheering along because at the time the enemy of my enemy is my friend? You go on and on about Saddam but where is YOUR indignation or calls for actions against Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir, or Lieutenant General Idriss Déby Itno, or Joseph Kabila? Have you even heard of the Janjaweed? What about the dictatorship in Nepal? In a modern day update of Godwin's Law you jump the shark in your arguement and accuse those who rightly question an illegal invasion of actually supporting the person they probably, and in my case definately, know more about than you do.
You also accuse me of slandering great leaders. Good god man!! Try opening a history book NOT WRITTEN IN THE US. There are many things done by the thatcher government which cause pain, heartache and anger, scars that will not heal quickly by people who will NEVER forgive let alone forget. Just because you have her up on a pedestal because she supported the repubican deity Reagan has blinded you to other things like her support of the dictator Pinochet in Chile and her stident shrill objections to Sanctions in South Africa and the Anti-Apartheid movement. You did know she was for keeping the black majority in South Africa as the underclass, did'nt you? I bet you don't even know who the British PM was during Vietnam. Did you know that relations between the UK and US were at it's worst because he refused to join in with the folly? I'm not slandering thatcher, blair or even bush. I'm stating things that, even though they give you "the vapours" are true about more than one leader in the world. Are you REALLY trying to say the war criminal arguement has not been said in the US, just on the torture arguement alone? I'm definately not slandering thatcher because the history of what she has done has already been written. Is that what is shaking you? That in years to come, no matter what has been said by bush, blair, limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly et al, historians will actually write the facts? It's just a pity you're going to be too scared to read it as it shatters your illusions."
As for Blair having a backbone? He spends as much time out of the country as possible and doesn't do interviews on Iraq anymore. That's a leader with a spine.
I am upset with you having a dig when l was actually agreeing with your point. I mean look, the republicans have had the first African American Secretary of State in Condi Rice (and what a success she has been!!), and look at all those great African American republican senators there are at the moment. And lets not forget the great republican female leaders like Phyllis Schlafly who have done so much for the womens movement in the US over the years. ;-)
Tru dat.
Thing is, it's kind of fun to pull his leg, and his arguements are so weak that pulling them apart is kind of easy. It does make it feel like i'm pulling the limbs off insects, though.
So what exactly is Frontpage magazine?
FrontPageMag.com = David Horowitz diary. A loathsome, dishonest, orgy of conservative fantasy and closeted bigotry.
And, by the way, am I wrong in thinking that Colin Powell was actually the first black Secretary of State?
Can this @sshole get banned like I was from Frontpage Magazine. He can take my place over there. They don't like the truth and they have a spot in the circle jerk just waiting for him.
It's like the promise land for bizarro world bigots....they will welcome you with open arms.
You got banned from a liberal website?!?!?!?!? Congratulations, that's like a badge of honour for you wingnuts right? Maybe if you tell us all what you posted l could copy it and get banned like you were.
Lord Hailsham, former Speaker of the House Of Commons always had the view that when you are in the majority position you had more chances to speak, and in all the years l ahve been posting here l seem to be part of the majority. Apart from me giving the wingnuts on this site cute nicknames from The Simpsons, can you point to positions and arguements l have made here which is so different to others on this site? Or is it because i'm a different type of Englishman, one who isn't going to kiss the arse of right wingnuts like you have been used too for eight years? ;-)
UKwanker
Well, it could be worse, you could be french after all. I fight with you for very simple reasons.
1. It is amusing. You really have no idea how pompous you sound. You are just an observer, sitting back, watching the show, and then steeping in when we need your advice and correction. LOL….you really crack me up!!
2. Of courseeeee you are in the majority here. This is a far left radical the dems can do no wrong and republicans are all evil people web site. If you would just once……..just once “observe” a MMFA story you thought was ridiculous, or point to one of the many Obama lies, attacks or distortions, you would have some credibility. But I know you can do that. It would hurt your Sadam loving soul to much.
3. Finally, most of the dem attack dogs here say the same thing over and over. You add that British flair which I like. You are kind of like MR Belvedere. If you don’t know who that is, check it out.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088576/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XdJgSkHogw
In fact, I don’t think I will call you Ukwanker any more. I like Mr. Belvedere much better
"2. Of courseeeee you are in the majority here. This is a far left radical the dems can do no wrong and republicans are all evil people web site. If you would just once……..just once “observe” a MMFA story you thought was ridiculous, or point to one of the many Obama lies, attacks or distortions, you would have some credibility. But I know you can do that. It would hurt your Sadam loving soul to much."
This has to be the self-unaware moment of the day. After you complain that Dems here think republicans are evil, you say that Dems love Saddam.
Does that sort of objective, reasoned rhetoric give you credibility here?
I think we have some wires crossed...my joke about banning was for PointofView or whatever his name...he responded to you and I responded to him...it wasn't aimed at you at all.
Frontpage Magazine is not "left"...in fact, Horowitz has been on the forefront of turning "left" into a catchall boogeyman anti-concept. You'll never hear about how Stalin and Hitler were both leftists if you don't visit.
In fact, I don’t think I will call you Ukwanker any more. I like Mr. Belvedere much better
So your naming me after a supposedly British character from a US tv show that was so bad that Fox didn't even try to sell it to the UK? I am so disappointed!! Think of all the fine pompous British comedy characters you could have chosen from; Gil Chesterton from Fraiser, Geoffrey the butler from Fresh Prince, Ian Maxtone-Graham from Suddenly Susan, Niles Crane (i know, but you coul;d see how he's British) hell even Baldrick in all his forms from Blackadder. (Sigh) Such chances missed. I guess the meme you have stuck in your brain is that l love Saddam has blinded you to all other arguements. You remind me of a doctor in a Friends episode who loves Fonzie.
Mr. Belvedere
Until you get a green card and become a citizen, we will have to stick with Mr. Belvedere. The fact that it was a very bad show is just the reason I picked it. That, and I imagine you writing in your little journal each night, wondering why oh why does the world not see things my way. Why am I stuck with these stupid Americans.
Anyway, I am thirsty. I could use a spot of tea Mr. Belvedere.
FYI:
Mr. Belvedere was originally play by Clifton Webb, born in Indianapolis, Indiana.
The character was originally an obnoxious American. Believe it or not, we do have a few over here.
But then again, you've met several in this thread already.
Is this like the elitist New Yorker thing? It's funny to you, but l don't get the link so it's even funnier to you? Are you channeling the spirit of Wittgenstein at the moment or is it more like Rene Descartes?
I would consentrate more but there is this documentary on over here at the moment about a woman who pretended to be at ground zero when the towers fell. It's pretty gripping stuff. By the way, you shouldn't drink tea this late in the day, it's worse for you than coffee.
"The fact that it is a very bad show is the reason I picked it." - Pointy
The fact that it was a a very bad show was the reason that you WATCHED it. Admit it! The other shows that UK mentioned only made you scratch your head.
Now, now, give him a chance. At least he didn't try to name me after someone from Sunset Beach or Jake and the Fatman.
I don't get the irrational hatered of the French though. I have a reason as l was brought up in the UK and it's something you grow up with.
Mr. Belvedere
I just threw the french in for fun.
Ok
that we can agree on!
UK the reason you "don't get the irrational hatered of the French" is you lack context.
The cons here in the USA, in lockstep with Bush, really resented the refusal of the French to sign off carte blanche to our invasion of Iraq.
The fact that it was a very bad show...
You couldn't be more wrong. It was actually quite a good show. And as a conservative, you should have loved it. No sex, no violence, lots of family values, Bob Uecker.
My guess is that media outlets focused on the Republicans because more people were interested in the Republicans, especially Sarah Palin. Even though most of the coverage focused on her, it was negative in tone regarding her experience, infant child, daughter's pregnancy, hunting, etc.
The dems offered only stories on the same boring stuff of the left. No body cared what they had to say about themselves, Americans cared more about a story of mother, wife, governor that they identified with.
What are the networks to do? Show reruns of old leftist images, who's style on par with the Luci and Dezi show or of a revitalized republican party rallying around a conservative that reminds them of the goodness of America? Evidently, even the leftists in media recognize a better story when they saw this.
Now dont go trying to explain reality. Dems never want to hear that!
Dont mention that Palin was picked the Friday after the dems convention.
Dont mention that 4 fewer networks carried the GOP convention.
Dont mention that the media and the public both wanted to know more about Palin.
And finally, dont mention that MMFA does not count how many times the NYT Smears the right on the front page. Like they are doing now!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221343324-tGxa66AkDRYq1tsNYpjoIw&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Sorry Cleetus, but it looks as if you are forcing me to post this:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
I'm sure that there is a guy called Bozzell who, if he's not complaining about people kissing on TV has a media site to report on what you would call left wing bias in the media.
Cleetus, l read that New York Times article you linked too and all l can say is WOW!!!
Palin describes herself as a Pitbull in Lipstick. What l got from that was someone with the siege mentality and attack instinct of Cheaney and the complete cronyism of Bush when it comes to people in important positions. I mean, a LOVE OF COWS gets you a $95,000-a-year govenment job? She has her supporters in the town of Wasilla with good reason if you look at the amount of money they are getting per head and what she originally did for the place BUT she has left them millions of dollars in the red.She's even gone after a local rightwing radio host who criticized her for raising taxes. I'm sure that The Times have said some very unflattering things about Palin in this report but you have to admit they have shown some of the good that she has done. The main question they seem to be asking is "Do you want another person in government who will be stand offish and will give jobs to her friends while going after people who disagree with them"? I'm not sure if you would call those smears.
MR Belvedere
Cone on man....it is late here on this side of the pond. It looks like your were respong to me, but you called me cleetus. I thought I was krusty. Consistency matters man!!
Please stop the ridicule. As it stands now, I've got a good shot at becoming Secretary of the US Air Force, since I've always been fond of paper airplanes and quite frankly, with the economy in the state it is, I could use the pay increase.
If the McCain/Palin transition team has already filled the position, I'd be willing to accept the position of Secretary of the Navy. I'd be the first to admit that my naval experience is not up to my aeronautical abilities, but I've got quite a collection of rubber duckies in my tub at this time. Although, commanding the world's largest fleet might appear to be a daunting task, I assure you I'm up to it and will not blink.
I can even get my mind around the Jesus thing if the money is right.
Thank you
"Now dont go trying to explain reality. Dems never want to hear that!"
Typical emotional conservative response.
"MMFA does not count how many times the NYT Smears the right on the front page."
What are the smears that the NYT is propagating?
Loudcon
The reason that the media are focused on Caribou Barbie is the remarkably prodigious number of LIES she told after being picked by McSame. She hit the ground lying. It usually takes even a Republican politician WEEKS to tell the number of lies that your beloved St Sarah told in her introductory speech.
It was beyond Nixonian.
mescaline,
While looking for all that dirt and lies, the leftists in the media are in a tizzy that 'St. Sarah' has revitalized a party that had little chance of accomplishing anything this fall to maybe regaining Congress and keeping the presidency.
The level of desperation from the left is encouraging. Elsewhere on this site, there is a resignation of defeat seen in their complaints about the electorate not seeing the light that the left has bestowed upon them. So they have moved from blaming the messenger here on Media Matters (for very little) to the now where it is the recepient's fault for choosing anything but left ideology and its candidate. Will they ever look at the message as the problem? Nah, I'm sure some hanging chads are even now beginning to awaken to steal another election!
Erm....
Which election was stolen? It can't be the 2000 election because the US supreme court voted 5-4 to stop the recount and award Bush the victory in a one off ruling which will never be repeated. I've never heard a wingnut say Bush stole the elecion before.
Quite a moment, isn't it UK?
What I noticed is the way Loudcon simply waived Palin's serial lying away, as if that is irrelevant to the criticisms of her. He didn't really dispute it... he just dismissed it. What does he care if she lies like a five year old denying that she got into the candy through a chocolate-smeared mouth? Who cares if she abuses her authority? Who cares if she charges the government per diem for nights that she spends in her OWN HOUSE? She has invigorated those angry, dimwitted, walking wads of cookie dough that make up much of her party's base.
That's because the truth IS irrelelvent to these power-worshipping troglodites.
TIMMEE it reminds me of one of my favorite Simpsons episodes.
The republicans are choosing someone to run against Quimby for mayor and are deciding on candidate. They are told that they have a potential candidate and the door opens to reveal a cooler of water!! There is a gurgling sound that comes from the cooler and one of the republican leaders turns to another and says "He speaks well and has my vote, but what are his policies?".
The grand scheme of the media...to dupe the American public into voting republican...must be working.
The bounce provided by Gov.Palin continues. Today, RCP has moved Minnesota to the toss up category...meaning Obama has lost his once sizable lead in that state.
Using the latest state polling the electoral count looks like this...McCain 270 - Obama 241...with Minn/Mich tied.
I absolutely guarantee you that Minnesota will go to Obama and it won't even be close. Four years ago there were several rounds of delusions about Minnesota being "in play" and it went Kerry pretty handily.
The Palin bounce (novelty factor) is fading. Look at Gallup's daily tracking. It went to a 5 point margin for a couple of days, then down to 4 for a couple, then 3 and now it's been 2 for a couple of days. CNN's poll of polls has been trending pretty similarly. Those national electoral maps always lag the full national trends.
I've never been too concerned about those post-convention polls. I even figured the novelty of Palin would probably extend it slightly longer than a more conventional choice would have. However, I also figured the glow would fade and the trends that existed prior to the conventions would kick back in.
Nationally, Obama will probably win by 4 or 5 percent and a little over 300 electoral votes. Given how dishonest McCain's campaign has gotten, I might be underestimating if that can be successfully pointed out to voters.
-- I absolutely guarantee you that Minnesota will go to Obama -- billj-mn
Such bravado is admirable...and you could easily be right. However, today, the Gov.Palin bounce continues...even in Minnesota.
Daily tracking of the national poll is pretty meaningless at this point. The primaries are over...the candidates selected...and the race is on for the electoral votes.
Will Gov.Palin be exposed or will her popularity hold...I don't know that answer...but today her bounce continues to increase. In just the last few days both Michigan and Minnesota have been classed as toss ups...erasing prior big leads by Obama.
If Obama is to win 300 electoral votes...he better start hustling.
Such bravado is admirable...and you could easily be right. - Wesley
I am. It's not bravado, it's solid knowldege of this state.
Daily tracking of the national poll is pretty meaningless at this point. The primaries are over...the candidates selected...and the race is on for the electoral votes. - Wesley
Broad swings in the electoral vote maps are what are pretty meaningless at this point. As I pointed out before, those always lag national shifts, and the direction of those national shifts is becoming clear.
Will Gov.Palin be exposed or will her popularity hold...I don't know that answer...but today her bounce continues to increase. - Wesley
Increase? No, it's peaked and has begun to go into decline. You guys have spent the last couple of weeks trying to convince yourselves that Palin will save you, and it appears that it's becoming harder to do.
If Obama is to win 300 electoral votes...he better start hustling. - Wesley
Nope, he just has to keep doing what he's been doing. It'll happen as I said.
I wish Obama stood a chance in AZ. This is a red state ... even though McCain is not all that popular here ... the price he pays of going against ear-marking.
What so many voters forget, in their focus on Super-McCain's non-issue of ending earmark budgeting, is that without the power of line-item veto, McCain can't follow through on his campaign promise (assuming for a moment he wins office) without bringing the government to a standstill. Some folks, who don't remember when the government was shut down under Clinton in the '90s, think that would be a good thing ... but those folks are deluded.
Picture, in conjunction with the ongoing depression, bank closures, and continuing housing foreclosures, bringing all matters of the budget to an immediate halt. This includes the defense budget that McCain claims he won't sign ... the money to wage the 100-year war in Iraq.
McCain can't keep this promise, it is mt MT EMPTY!
This article is misleading in that the news tends to follow what we call "the news." and right now, the news seems to be the interesting and even "exciting" choice for republican VP, Mrs. Palin.Though keep in mind that not all attention is "good"attention.
This article would have validity of the statistics were a representation of not just the past few days (which coincidentally follow the GOP convention) but the last few months. And that is including Obamas tour of europe and the middle east.
Also, FOX news is not the only major news station out there. It is only one of several.
I don't doubt that there is a conservative bias to Fox News' coverage but it's necessary to counter the coverage offered by CNN, NBC, MSNBC and ABC.
Funny. How much stumping by the other networks was given to the dummycrats? ANSWERTHAT QUESTION MM! But I know that you won't. None of th elefties will.
Drink up your kool-aid.