A different standard for GOP candidates?

[NCBirdfan]

Peej wrote:

<quoted text>
Check the media research council as they have been tracking this for nearly 15 years.

Isn't the Media Research Council funded by conservatives to keep the idea alive that the media are liberal? Hmm..sounds a bit partisan to me.

[NCBirdfan]

Peej wrote:

<quoted text>

And as to providing sources - the tone of your comments indicate that you would not dismiss any source that supports conclusions different than yours.

"And as to providing sources - the tone of your comments indicate that you would not dismiss any source that supports conclusions different than yours," Peej said as s/he looked into his/her mirror.

[Southern Exposure]

Peej wrote:

Actually, if you check the media coverage of Clinton vs the coverage of McCain or Palin (or most Republicans) you will find three basic differences:
1. When covering Dems, the media will write a story, but not probe too deeply, just so they can say they did so. When covering Republicans, the media will try to dig into every nook and cranny of a real or imagined story.
2. When Covering Dems, the media will treat the action being covered as the whole story. When covering Republicans, the media will try very hard to make leaps of logic such as (If A did this then it is obvious that the entire Republican party is also doing the same).
3. For Dem coverage, the media is usually apologetic. With coverage of Republicans, you can sense the "See! I told you these guys are evil...." in the language, and context that are used.
It is no surprise that the traditional media (print and broadcast) have been losing viewers, readers, etc. for the past 15 years.

I gave you proof before when you asked for it. Please return the favor and give me links to substantiate these accusations.

[Southern Exposure]

Rico wrote:

<quoted text>
Kind of like Obama's admitted cocaine use?

There are reports that Bush used cocaine on many occasions. What is your point?

[NCBirdfan]

Southern Exposure wrote:

<quoted text>
I gave you proof before when you asked for it. Please return the favor and give me links to substantiate these accusations.

Peej needs no proof! How are you attack Peej that way!

[wetzie]

Clinton has sexual relations with a 19 year old intern; on government property; and then lies about it! No digging neccessary, you don't even need to call Miss Utility.
Palin is being dogged in witch hunt by a democrat who has no evidence.

[McCains Economy Plan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/19/mcca...

[larry g]

Rico wrote:

<quoted text>
Larry, I've told you before...do your homework:
The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[25][24] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[28] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[6]
After McCain became a leading Republican contender for the U.S. presidency in the 2000s several retrospective accounts of the controversy contended that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[29][30][31][11] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain, as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[29][31] Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, "that there was no evidence against him."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5

go home little boy

[NCBirdfan]

wetzie wrote:

Clinton has sexual relations with a 19 year old intern; on government property; and then lies about it! No digging neccessary, you don't even need to call Miss Utility.
Palin is being dogged in witch hunt by a democrat who has no evidence.

Clinton had a prosecutor trying to dig up dirt on the Clintons, when he couldn't find anything, he dug some more and after millions and millions of taxpayers money he found a sex scandal. Wouldn't you call that witch-hunting?

And your comment about no digging necessary: There was plenty of digging!

[Stack]

wetzie wrote:

Clinton has sexual relations with a 19 year old intern; on government property; and then lies about it! No digging neccessary, you don't even need to call Miss Utility.
Palin is being dogged in witch hunt by a democrat who has no evidence.

Actually Palin is being dogged by a bipartisan commision made up of mainly Republicans. Most Republicans are aware that her selection was a joke.

[Rico]

NCBirdfan wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't the Media Research Council funded by conservatives to keep the idea alive that the media are liberal? Hmm..sounds a bit partisan to me.

yeah, it is, but they run a nice website:

http://newsbusters.org/

It has links to actual stories, transcripts and videos. You know, actual evidence.

[westmonster]

Peej and Rico, Clinton lied under oath...no shi*. Thats obviously why he was impeached, and had his law license revoked. The argument however, that exactly what he lied about under oath should have no bearing is ridiculous. So, if Mr. Clinton lied under oath about how many Popsicles he consumed in the past week you would consider that testimony as damming as lying to the American public about the rationale for war? Sorry but this is a terrible argument. And Clinton's sexual tyrists were all the Rethugs had to go on to bash him. After all, he presided over the best economy in American history and improved foreign relations, as well as invested heavily in conservation and sustainable resources.

As for measurable standards regarding the violations of the Bush administration: 1. Violations of FISA through use of warrantless wire tapping. The Congressional Research Service concluded that the President does not have the authority to circumvent the law and congressional regulatory procedures when executing wiretaps. The American Bar Association agrees that the NSA program is illegal as well.

2. Clear misrepresentation of evidence leading up to the Iraq war including unsubstantiated claims of Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and the existence of WMD (which intelligence agencies disputed see "downing street memos").

3. Violations of the Geneva Conventions regarding combatant detention in clandestine facilities. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court found Bush's definition of and special treatment of terror detainees illegal. Geneva conventions still apply to persons apprehended under the auspice of terrorist suspect.

4. Violations of extraordinary rendition.

5. Torture of detainees. Bush has repeatedly stated "The United States of America does not torture...". The administration had to change their own definition of torture for this to be true. According to every authoritative source on the matter the CIA techniques used and endorsed by the Bush administration DO constitute torture. The Red Cross has stated that the Bush Administration officials who approved the modified interrogation techniques are guilty of war crimes.

6. Unconstitutional expansion of executive powers, thus rendering that branch far superior to the others. This is pretty self explanatory.

7. Disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina.

8. Politization of offices formerly considered non-political. Thus creating political issues in areas of little scientific dispute. Including areas of conservation, scientific research and education.

[Rico]

Southern Exposure wrote:

<quoted text>
There are reports that Bush used cocaine on many occasions. What is your point?

The tone was that Republicans simply ignores Bush's DUI. I was pointing out that Obama's admitted cocaine use was also met by a yawn. That's all.

[NCBirdfan]

Rico wrote:

<quoted text>
The tone was that Republicans simply ignores Bush's DUI. I was pointing out that Obama's admitted cocaine use was also met by a yawn. That's all.

OK, that's fair enough.:o)

[Angel]

The GOP claims to be the party of conservative family views: anti-abortion, anti-Gay rights, pro-small government, pro-lower taxes. So if members of that party in positions of leadership buck the platform people are going to hold them accountable. Ditto with Democrats the pro-choice, pro-civil rights (racial, ethnic, sexuality), pro-regulation, pro- social program party. If a leader of the party starts behaving opposite of the platform people will pay attention.

[Stack]

Angel wrote:

The GOP claims to be the party of conservative family views: anti-abortion, anti-Gay rights, pro-small government, pro-lower taxes. So if members of that party in positions of leadership buck the platform people are going to hold them accountable. Ditto with Democrats the pro-choice, pro-civil rights (racial, ethnic, sexuality), pro-regulation, pro- social program party. If a leader of the party starts behaving opposite of the platform people will pay attention.

The current GOP certainly isn't for small government.

[westmonster]

There is no party for small government. You see, its impossible to run a large geographic area highly populated with the most diverse people on the planet, with astounding infrastructure, complex economics and strategic influence across the entire globe with a "small" government.

The idea just doesn't make sense. We will always have a big government. It is necessary. What we don't need, and what I think both democrats and republicans can agree on is that the government getting involved in our personal lives and intruding on our legally protected legitimate notion of privacy is unacceptable.

Some people claim we have no right to privacy, and increasingly the government seems to think so as well. However the courts have routinely and consistently held that citizens have a right to expect a "reasonable" extent of privacy. Hence, regulations dictating things like what happens in the bedroom are not only unenforceable but also illegal.

What I don't understand is how conservatives berate big government when it comes to providing services for the impoverished, or medical care for those who can't afford it, however they don't share that outrage when it comes to the government violating private decisions relating to marriage, end-of-life choices or even the private conversations we may have via our telephones. Thats a glaring example of big government gone bad.

[Solomons Island - MD]

Dear Paul, Please share which media is playing hardball with the Democrats. It's certaintly not NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBS, Air American, Arianna Huffington, etc.

Thank you.

[nwkerr2005]

The difference is that when the media finds dirt on a liberal, they report it in as light as terms allowed. They do the story once and leave it alone to die. When scandal or lies hit the Republicans, it is reported in the harshest terms and front page news for days.

I am not saying to be soft on the Republicans, but be just as hard on the left. The same goes with puff pieces.

[nwkerr2005]

Observer wrote:

Dear Thad,
I'm sorry to read you have a terminal case of headupyoass.
Sarah Palin is running for vice- president, not the presidency, but every liberal commentator has repeatedly questioned her qualifications, she is at least as qualified as Obama, but his qualifications are hardly ever mentioned. There is an incredible liberal bias in the media, but your headupyoass afflication keeps you seeing it.

That is too funny..LMAO