I’m not shocked, it’s CNN afterall, but just a few examples:
Q – “Which candidate believes in birth control and why?”
Yeah, no bias there. Newt kills it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEm94oWumNk[/youtube]
“But I just want to point out you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. So let’s be clear here, if we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues it is President Obama, who as a State Senator voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”
This one kills me.
Q – Hi, my name is Ken Taylor (ph) from Wickenberg, Arizona and my question to all the candidates is, how do you plan on dealing with the growing nuclear threat in Iran?
A great question actually, but apparently CNN host John King believed Ken Taylor didn’t know what he was talking about since he proceeded to twist the question to fit into the MSM narrative….it’s all Israel’s fault.
It’s a pressing question at the moment. Mr. Speaker, let’s go to you first on this one. I want to ask you in the context of the president’s and this country’s highest ranking military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey told CNN this last week, quote, “A strike at this time would be destabilizing and would not achieve Israel’s long term objectives.” If you win this election, General Dempsey would still be — would then be your chairman of the joint chiefs.
If the prime minister of Israel called you, said he wanted to go forward and questioned, Sir do you agree — Mr. President do you agree with your chairman of the joint chiefs? Would you say, yes, Mr. Prime Minister, please stand down? Or would you give Israel the green light
As Joel Pollak notes, this question went from “how do you deal with Iran” to “how do you deal with Israel” in 30 seconds flat.
The press has given the President a pass on his weak response to the gay marriage issue. Obama can simply say that his views are “evolving” but the GOP candidates are subjected to being grilled about the nuances of their personal views on homosexuality. The media was very quick to bring up and keep the questions coming about DADT and other gay rights issues in previous GOP debates.
When the President is challenged about social issues he shows contempt to the media and begs, “Come on, guys!” And the media is happy to appease.
The MSM are fully behind Obama and will do all they can, as they did in 2008, to ensure this pitiful excuse for a leader will be elected once again.
See author page
Did anyone else notice the camera angle at the open? When the candidates walked out on stage, the camera shot was from high above, making the candidates all look small. And being as they were all dressed in black, it looked like an undertaker’s convention. CNN gave them the Nixon treatment.
John Cooper As a supporter of JFK I loved the “Nixon Treatment”
I didn’t notice,did all these guys neglect shaving and sweat profusely?
Curt, that was a great soundbite from Newt about infanticide.
But my favorite part was when Newt was asked his own one-word description of himself and he said, ”Cheerful.”
Made my day.
He enjoys these debates.
I was sorry to see Santorum fading in recent days.
He reminds me of the character in the movie, “The Candidate,” who begins switching around his soundbites just for fun, but soon you see how it ends up with him not believing the words that come out of his own mouth.
Because most or all Liberals have no clue what Newt was referring to, here is a clue.
Newton Leroy seems to have somehow missed that the topic of the question was birth control. He also seems to miss the fact that conflating birth control with infanticide won’t play well with a majority of women voters, regardless of their partisan orientation.
Apparently all of these guys are running for something other than the office of President of the United States.
Greg seems to have somehow missed that the question was whether any of the candidates opposed contraceptives, and why. Birth control, contraceptives, emergency contraceptives and various abortion techniques all deal with the same subject…. unwanted pregnancies.
But getting back to the question, and the reason it was boo’ed. It was – as Newt acknowledged in the rest of his response that you chose to ignore, Greg – a set up to portray any or all of the candidates as the extreme oppressors… rather like you, Greg. It was an obvious liberal tactic question, and Newt saw thru it from the onset. In it’s entirety, instead of edited and spun:
The question was also to divert the larger issue of the uproar – that being any government mandating, without authority, what individuals must purchase for health care coverage… especially when it conflicted with their religious beliefs.
So, ya gonna try to play the helpless victim spin here as well, Greg? You know, how those evil religious are trying to “empower” the government to take away women’s free contraceptives? LOL
Only a dense person could interpret anti-government intervention as “empowering” government. duh
Does Joel Pollak watch the news? Israel could jump the gun at any moment. Israel should not think itself to be in a position to declare war on Iran on behalf of the United States of America.
@Greg:
#6. Seriously, Greg? I know I have asked you this before, but are you being deliberately obtuse?
The audience member’s question on this subject did not once mention Israel. His question asked what the candidates would do about Iran. The moderator made the question all about Israel, completely ignoring the original question asked, and yet you seem to support CNN’s John King in changing the question.
The point is, that King, part of CNN which is part of the MSM, changed the question around, focusing the attention on Israel when that wasn’t even part of the original question. Mr. Pollak doesn’t have the problem here, Greg. It’s Mr. King from CNN.
Greggie never disappoints…
@Richard Wheeler:
Only cowards are afraid of open and honest debate in the realm of ideas. Instead, the MSM, through various subterfuges, attempts to paint the opposition to liberal/progressive ideology in a bad light by means that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue or topic of discussion. So, what does that say about you that you are ok with such tactics?
Considering the recent hoopla over Media Matters and their links to the WH and MSM “themes of the day”, don’t you care in the least that the liberal idea itself isn’t winning, but rather, the dishonest tactics being used to tilt the debate in their favor. At what point do you start to question the liberal/progressive ideology itself and the ideas they promote if they cannot win the battle on an even playing field? Is winning at all costs preferable to doing what is right?
@johngalt:
He’s being a marxist propagandist. As I’ve stated before, greg feels the ends justify the means and has no problem lying or distorting. He is very much an alinskyite.
As for rich, J.G., to acknowledge any of what we point out here might lead to introspection on his part. So he goes deeper into to denial to protect his ego. Even now he probably denies that obama is a socialist like he did in 2008. Liberals like rich are narcissists. Their political views are fueled by their need to feel superior to others and good about themselves. Part of the reason they are ok with doing anything to destroy their opponents is because if we are right, then they aren’t the ones with superior intellect and not the wonderful people they think they are. Narcissistic rage pure and simple.
Has anyone seen rich denounce even the most sleazy and disgusting attacks on the GOP? That’s because he agrees with them.
The “Mainstream Media” moniker is apt: the large media outlets that fall under that umbrella are, by and large, representative of majority mainstream American political thought, interests and values. Obviously, a person who finds her or himself out on the right-most one percentile of political thought is, from that vantage point, going to view the MSM as liberal. This makes perfect sense, as they will necessarily view practically anyone who doesn’t share their worldview as liberal. I highly doubt most self-identified “far right” persons take into account the simple fact that they are outside the mainstream when they attempt to define what is conservative or liberal from their vantage point: rather, they see anything to their left, Romney for example, as liberal, regardless of where they or he land in relation to the politically moderate members of society. It’s the same thing with the media and media labeling. This is not an argument that the majority opinion is better, just an articulation of a simple fact: the mainstream is mainly moderate, perhaps even moderate-conservative, in America. But I would also propose the perception by some of MSM bias against the Republicans can be attributed to the Republican Party’s decided drift rightward relative to mainstream American political thought. Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker reported on this disproportionate drift in his recent article on Obama:
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza#ixzz1nGpy9Ahq
@Tom:
Keep telling yourself that.
J.G. Were you old enough to see the Kennedy Nixon debate? My comment was simply a spoof on that, Don’t be so darn serious all the time. I respect your calm and reasoned demeanor. H.R on the other hand rambles incoherently. Good for laughs.
@Hard Right:
What is kinda funny HR is that my feelings on Rich and Greg have completely changed from when I first started engaging in discussions with them.
Greg, for example, at first seemed like the type of unhinged leftist that Huffpo and DailyKos are noted for, and that “the ends justify the means” was a true motto for him. Since that time, though, I believe that Greg is that rare specimen of leftist that is truly sincere. He seems, to me at least, very sincere in wanting what is best for the country. He also seems very sincere in his viewpoint that liberalism is the way to get there. His problem is that his viewpoint is completely upside down, or backwards, from what he should be looking at. Go to the postings on the contraception mandate topics to see what I mean.
Rich, on the other hand, seemed to be that sincere type of liberal at first. However, his recent postings have been geared more towards that motto “the ends justify the means”. Anyone who cheers on such actions as described in the OP here, simply because it gives his side a point or two from nothing to do with an actual, honest debate on an issue is, someone who chooses not to face reality. It’s almost as if those people would rather win, and be the victor, even if it means destroying what they propose to love. In that sense, those kind of people are like the MLB players who used steroids to gain a competitive advantage, and in the process destroyed the game for millions of fans.
John C”mon is Heineken a steroid? I’m a moderate Kennedy Dem.
You wanna jump on that radical,raving far right bus with H.R. so be it.
@Richard Wheeler:
At least John moralized about you in his sermon. How do you think I feel, completely left out?
Tom Maybe secretly he thinks you’re all that.
H.R. Re. the Tucson shootings i think you’ll find my comments were pretty moderated compared to some. Ck it out if you like.
Funny, I’ve had a similar conversion but it’s the exact opposite when it comes to greg. Greg, I used to think he was sincere. But after what I’ve seen of him, I think he understands that if he were to be openly marxist he’d be ignored. By behaving in a more reasonable manner, he gets more attention. IIRC alinsky taught that openly saying you were for communism or socialism was a guaranteed loser. He preached that even though they were devout communists, they should pretend not to be. It opened doors to them that would otherwise be closed. I now see greg as a more clever far left partisan, but far left all the same and anything but sincere.
Rich seemed somewhat sincere, but I had a feeling that he was trying to hide a hatred of Conservatives. Just a “gut feeling”. As I hadn’t seen it proven to my satisfaction, I concluded that maybe he should be given a second chance. I would try to be more civil with him. Then the Tucson shooting happened. Not only did he not condemn or even express an ounce of diasgreement or disgust, he defended the dem smearing of the GOP. He even attacked Republicans for daring to defend themselves and tried to turn the democrats into the victims! That was the point I knew I had been right about him all along. I may not be as old as rich, but I have gotten fairly decent at reading people and I normally listen to my gut. It says moonbat when I think of him.
@Tom: You said:
Sorry, but you are wrong.
According to Gallup:
Here, Rasmussen was even more precise in what people were self-identifying about:
And here is an exit poll, and even though it isn’t as scientifically reliable as the above examples, it does show the same thing:
The Washington Independent comes to the same conclusion:
This study shows that America is a center right country as well, with their data going back to 1972:
Then you said:
How liberal someone’s decisions, actions and politics are cannot be dictated by where the observer lies on the ideological scale of things. In other words, no matter how far right or left someone is, if they are intellectually honest with themselves, they will see another person for what they are. Since you brought him up, we’ll use Romney as an example.
No matter your ideology, you cannot argue away his decision to implement a very liberal, very non-conservative approach to health care.
No matter your ideology, you cannot argue away his decision to allow judges to usurp parental consent of minor girls to get abortions.
No matter your ideology, you cannot argue away his words when he called himself an independent-progressive, or when he publicly distanced himself from Reagan.
Now if you take the route that Greg or Rich Wheeler do, then you can pretend that Romney is a friggin’ unicorn if you wish. But that doesn’t put a horn on his forehead, now does it?
The “mainstream” of America is not liberal, it is center-right. Only a small portion of Americans self-identify as liberal.
Why does the GOP “establishment” leadership (or the candidates for that matter) agree to have these people moderate their debates ? If Carl Rove tried to moderate a Democrat debate the left would go absolutely bonkers. But the GOP lets Stephanoctopus (described as a Democrat hit man by former Clinton White House insider Dick Morris) ask questions as if he were unbiased. The contraception question that he asked (several weeks before the issue came up in national politics) proves this point.
Maybe they should just have Communist Party USA moderate the next debate. [/sarc]
If CNN is so bias then why do they choose to go on? Shouldn’t they stick to Fox, which is of course, fair and balanced? Lol
@Richard Wheeler: “a supporter of JFK”
Why are you libs drawn to men who take advantage of young women in their employ like JFK and Bill Clinton? My theory is that it’s due to suppressed feelings of inadequacy.
@anticsrocks:
I agree with you. You can see in my post that I actually wrote, “This is not an argument that the majority opinion is better, just an articulation of a simple fact: the mainstream is mainly moderate, perhaps even moderate-conservative, in America” (Incidentally, this is why the Far-right assertion that Obama could somehow lead this country irretrievably into Socialism in four years is so absurd. Any turn in either direction that is perceived as too far results in the type of correction we saw in the mid-term elections. The fear-mongering is just silly and has no correlation with reality.)
Now are you claiming that you, or this board in general, is representative of the “center right”? The center right is still comfortably in the fat of the bell-curve and a center right person might well have as much, if not more, in common with a center or center left person than a Far-right outlier. As you can see in post, I am talking about the perception of the MSM from the “one percentile” on the Right, and how their orientation on the fringe will naturally warp their perspective 0n how the majority of the country thinks and feels on these issues. Perhaps you disagree with that, but we should at least get our definitions in order.
I do think it’s possible, but it takes an honest assessment of one’s personal biases. And i think it’s harder for a person on either fringe to put themselves into that objective mindset. I don’t always see evidence of that happening here, or elsewhere in the blogosphere. Rather, I think it’s far more likely that an author or commenter will not only assume he or she is right, but that all other views are equally wrong (and lumped under a one-sized-fits-all term like “liberal” or “socialist”).
I agree that Romney is a good example, but I come to a different conclusion. To you he’s a liberal, I understand that. But to many others, he is simply a moderate Republican, the only kind that can get elected in a state like Massachusetts. It’s a relative thing, and therefore tricky. Compares to other GOP contenders, and compared to the “base”, he is on the liberal end of the spectrum. But take him into a general election against Obama and the perception will shift again. When you put him in front of the nation as a whole, rather than the GOP base, he’s no longer on the liberal end of the spectrum. He’s right in the middle, or middle right, in the place that he’s been navigating towards, tacking back and forth, all along.
@anticsrocks:
Another way of looking at this, one that is more flattering I hope, is that in your far-right ideology you are similar to one who has a “connoisseur’s taste”. A connoisseur will often assume his taste to be superior, intellectually or aesthetically, and sometimes with good reason. The area of interest of the connoisseur will likely be challenging and have certain barriers to entry (a comprehensive knowledge of The Constitution, for example, in your case). Where the analogy falls apart is in how a connoisseur and an extreme ideologue perceive their interests relative to the population at large. You won’t find too many connoisseurs of Swedish Death Metal complaining that their genre was overlooked at the Grammys again. The Swedish Death Metal connoisseur understands that while he might view his musical taste as superior to all others, it is extreme enough that it will never enter the mainstream. It can, however, have a lasting impact as a primary or secondary influence, but will never in and of itself, in it’s purest form, be dominant. I do not detect this type of self-awareness anywhere on the far-right. In fact, the far-right seems to find it absurd that anyone can hold a different opinion. In the world of the far-right, there is only one music, and it is dark, heavy and filled with allusions to Norse gods and the underworld.
@John Cooper:
Liberal misogyny explains it quite well.
Tell me rich, how do you call yourself a Kennedy dem when the current crop of dems would toss anyone with JFKs views from the party? And please don’t say they wouldn’t. Two words: Joe Liberman. He agreed with them 100% on everything but the war in Iraq and they tried to kick him out.
I also laugh that you think you are a Kennedy dem. You are anything but when you enthusiastically support the current group and what they are doing.
Oh, and your Tucson comments may have seemed more moderate when compared to Tom’s rabid bile, but the fact is you agreed with him then and you agree with him now. Before you criticize others for who they “associate” with on this site, you may want to check your own backyard first.
Tom your # 25 is massive projection. Seek professional help. I’m not kidding.
@Richard Wheeler:
It’s simply an observation of mine, Rich. And it is based on what I believe about your postings, where you profess to be supportive of “moderate” political action, yet you support pols like Obama whose actions have been anything but. As I stated in that post, it seems to me that you are more concerned with your chosen side of the political spectrum “winning” rather than having open, honest debate on the merits of liberalism vs. conservatism. As an example, you continually tout polls showing Obama ahead, or that show some negative trait of GOP pols, in discussions concerning specific issues.
It’s not a hostile observation, Rich. Only an observation.
John Cooper #23 Thank you Dr. Your studied diagnosis may explain my beautiful Latin wife 19 years my junior, though she was never in my employ.
@Hard Right:
If Rich and I agree occasionally, it’s simply where our views converge on that specific topic. I hardly see a pattern there. It has nothing of the eager-to-please side-kick element that you continuously display with John Galt, Mata and others. Your need for reassurance and acceptance is touching.
Projection? I considered my analogy might founder under the weight of its own esoteric insight, but I’m not sure what you mean by projection. You should probably stick to the Tuscon shooting, an area where you’re universally recognized as both the preeminent authority and main victim.
@Tom:
#17. I didn’t discuss you, Tom, because you don’t fit the bill as far as the “conversion” of thought that I’ve had concerning Rich and Greg. And the reason I posted that was because I don’t subscribe to HR’s thoughts on Rich.
that is so wrong, and he said he wanted to change the attitude to implement that awful end of babies
left to die, he was unmoved when the nurse said that, it tell of his insight being harden by his young life
upbringnig to become the hard core PRESIDENT OF THIS SO TOLERANT AND CARING NATION,
which he favor the death of future AMERICANS BECAUSE HE WANT TO REPLACE THEM WITH FOREIGNERS WHO WILL DO ANYTHING FOR HIM TO STAY IN THE POWER HE WAS SEEKING ONLY TO PUNISH AMERICA and destroy it so subtle in a calculated time, already accelerating with the ELECTION COMING, yes SANTORUM has a legitimate argument when he called OBAMA A THEOLOGIC EVIL, he must have been informed of that atitude on approving to leave babies to die alone after birth
Tom, I’m not in the mood to spoonfeed obvious answers to you. Besides, why bother? You’re a loony. I’ll not waste any more time on you.
[audio src="http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/looney.wav" /]
@Hard Right:
Since you’re a fan of pop psychology, try this one on for size: you’ve got a ridiculously obvious inferiority complex to Rich, which stems from the fact that he served and you didn’t, and the only way you can deal with it is to constantly and pathologically try to tear him down. I’m sure Rich gets a kick out of it. I know I do. Would you care to offer an alternate theory?
@johngalt:
It’s nice to hear that, John. Perhaps it would be better if you were more direct with HR when you disagree with him. I don’t think the oblique method is registering.
@Tom: So I am “far right?”
@anticsrocks:
That’s a good question. My assumption, based on what I’ve seen from your comments, is that you are, but I certainly haven’t made a comprehensive study of your positions, and would defer to your own interpretation of your political position. How would you describe yourself?
@Tom:
Sorry, Tom, but I’m not HR’s conscience. He is an adult and can speak and think for himself.
@Tom: If believing in our founding documents, if believing in an originalist interpretation of our Constitution, if believing that the smaller the government, the freer the citizen makes me far right, then maybe you are too far left to view me in an unbiased manner.
@Richard Wheeler: Maybe your beautiful Latin (didn’t you mean Latina?) wife 19 years your junior can explain the meaning of cabrón to you.
John Coop Listen guy I’m sorry my joke about The Nixon Treatment sent you off the deep end. If you got a thing for “Your President is not a crook” tricky Dick I apologize for causing you to become unhinged.
BTW You must really be morally outraged at Newt—-the mistress to wife scenes one and two thing.
@Richard Wheeler: Seems as if you dislike Newt damn near as much as you love Romney.
Anticsrocks #41 I give all four credit for having the guts to be in the race. I continue to believe Romney/Rubio has the best chance of beating BHO.
I think Newt hurt himself touting the moon while the others were propounding austerity.
Richard Wheeler
you should know by now that the MOON PROJECT IS PROSPERITY FOR THE US,
NEWT GINGRICH is seeing grand for AMERICA, and that’s who AMERICA IS,
SHE HAS PROVED IT AND THE PEOPLE NEED TO COME OUT OF MEDIOCRE PROPOSALS OF JOBS ELABORATED TO THEM which wont work it also was proved not to work, AND the people need to start on positive possible dreams they have left behind in these last years of hard time, where the only one going
in vacations was OBAMA and more than what THE PEOPLE CAN AFFORD.
THE AFGHANS KILLED HIGH RANKING MILITARYS, SEND A NUKE AND CLEAN UP THE VARMIN.
@anticsrocks:
Are you surprised?
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I think it’s time we left except for a small footprint for the spec ops people to do their thing.
Get this, in Pakistan a bunch of Korans were thrown into a sewage cannal. Any protests there or anywhere for that matter? Nope.
So if Muslims “violate” a Koran, no big deal. If an “infidel” does it, then it’s an excuse to murder them.
johngalt
on 27 yes it’s a true observation, it has been confirm by many here
bye
Hard Right
I like it when you find truth story like that, because it re-enforce the fact that our reaction
on the killing the TROOPS BY THIS MOB incited by TALIBANS, it does show we are right to ask for extreme measures to extreme attacks, as oppose to following the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN A STRAIGHT LINE,
which is so false, because no straight line in WAR is not straight, they the enemies are not on a straight line strategy, they move with any thing come to take advantage of it, and it’s about time the military get more flexible and trust those on the line of fire to decide when the curb is necessary to be activate, for how long it’s needed before returning to the rigid ROE,If THE GENERALS send you to train BUNCH OF DOGS and some are bound to attack you from the back, it will bring all the dogs to join them,
even the well behave dog already trained, which demand the eradication of all the dogs, and the termination of the training session further, because the trainers are more important than all the dogs, they have to stay alive at all costs, the GENERALS HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP THE TRAINERS ALIVE, REGARDLESS OF THE RULES, REGARDLESS OF THE COUNTRY AGENDA AND DEMANDS AND RULES OF ENGAGEMENT,
@Hard Right: Nope, just pointing it out. 🙂
Antics, I figured as much.
Bees, the ROE in Afghanistan are ridiculous to the point of being criminal.
I found out yesterday my friend’s husband is being sent back. I’m sick over the thought because it’s clear obama has no desire to win and things are getting even more dangerous over there.
I just saw somewhere that our drone strikes have almost enirely killed jihadists. Except for one strike where we did hit some civilians, we have done a remarkable job of keeping civilian casualties down. So when Karzai screams about drone strikes, I’d like to tell him where to go.
Anticsrocks and Hard Right It doesn’t matter what I think about Newt.It’s obvious he’s finihed He loses big tomorrow in Mich. and Ariz. then gets clobbered in Wash.
On S.T he gets a single digit win in his home state of Ga. and loses Ohio,Va.,Tenn.,Ok.,Mass. and Vermont.
Other S.T.contests Alaska,N.D.,Wy,Id. may give him one or two small wins but he’ll be a distant 3rd with no momentum going forward.
BTW Tomorrow Mich. is Huge. If Santorum can pull the upset he’ll win Wash. and Ohio and take front runner status.If Romney holds Mich. he’ll stay frontrunner through S.T and most likely secure the nom.with winner take all victories in Cal and N.J in early June.
Control of Senate could flip to Repubs.Some great races coming up.