Slashdot Mirror

I suggest that you do some reading; you have it *exactly* backwards according to everyone except the Heritage Foundation.

Can't find a really good link right now, but this basically confirms what I've read and heard in the past, and provides quite a few links and numbers.

"Wow, just wow" yourself.

--Jeremy

Ah, the myth of McCain.

Yes, he was badly out-slimed by Bush/Rove in 2000. Yes, he does have a habit of departing the text and saying things that aren't in the talking points. Yes he has a history of indulging the press with unprecedented access and massive charm.

Those things don't make him honorable now or 8 years ago.

A couple articles to consider: http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9365

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Almost all of the coverage of Palin has been negative

Well, that's what happens when you report the facts on Republicans. Otherwise you end up with "balanced" coverage, like how the Washington Post calls states with a 13.8% Obama lead a "battleground state" yet a state where McCain has a 2.2% lead "leans Republican".

most coverage of Obama has been positive

This talking point was debunked months ago. Obama received fawning media coverage, yes - ask anyone who supported Edwards in the primaries - but only until he passed Hillary Clinton. Since then the media coverage of Obama has been constantly negative, because the media loves a horse race and loves trashing Democrats.

The facts are NOT unfair in themselves (there's plenty of legitimate complaints to make of her) it's that there's been no other reporting at all.

Fixed that up a bit for you.

What hypothetical question did she pose to the head librarian in Wasilla?

You don't ask about banning books three times if you don't want to ban books. That fact thing again.

What job did Palin hold between being mayor of Wasilla and becoming governor, and why did she quit? I would bet that the majority of average news consumers can answer the first question, while not one in 10 can answer the second

And how many voters know that Obama was head of the Harvard Law review vs how many know who Rev. Wright is?

despite the fact that the answer to the second question is the most significant political story about Palin explaining the foundation of her popularity and subsequent political success in Alaska, and that it is at least as revealing of her character and motivations as the first.

That she was a rat fleeing a sinking ship? Her record as mayor and governor proves that far from being a corruption fighter, she epitomizes corruption. She's just like Newt Gengrich, who forced Jim Wright to resign as Speaker of the House over Wright's book deal, only to have his own shady book deal when he was speaker, plus a bushel of other ethics violations.

Reporting on an opponents criticisms, and making criticisms yourself are somewhat different things.

Reporting on an opponents criticisms, and making criticisms yourself are somewhat different things.

No, it's called blatant double standards. Like how the media obsessed over Rev. Wright for two months, yet ignored John "the Catholic Church is the Great Whore" Hagee until he said that Hitler was sent by God to drive the Jews to Israel. Just imagine the response if one of Obama's daughters was 17, unmarried and pregnant.

On those occasions where reporting negative stories about Obama has become unavoidable they've largely been written in the form of an apologia. Witness the NYtimes story on his associations with Ayers. Somehow I doubt Palin would have gotten the same "inconsequential crossed paths" treatment if an abortion clinic bomber had hosted a fundraiser for her and served with her on a charitable board.

Because they should be, because this "associations" game is crap, and the Republicans who play it are firing howitzers in a big glass house:

"My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, To

Some ad slots more expensive, of course: a single airing in the 4 pm-12am slot in 90036 (LA) on Fox News runs $1750. Something we'll need to figure out is how to aggregate smaller amounts of contributions to get these big ticket items; it might make sense for us to partner with Accountability Now or somebody else. Details TBD, but think about the possibilities: A 25-second high-quality "Don't let our Constitution die" ad running on FOX News. That'd raise some awareness.

In terms of getting things right, geez, I'd think on Slashdot of all places people would understand the idea of a prototype. Get FISA Right has only existed for a month, and we got the ad together in less than three weeks -- we wanted to get something up in time to help (at least a little) with Strange Bedfellows' August 8 money bomb. There's plenty of room for improvement, and we'll have plenty of chances to apply the learnings.

The standard narrative for Dem caving is that they fear for their electability or whatever. It's also possible that they just believe what they vote for.

There's a lot more information about the Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right my.barackobama.com campaign on the Get FISA right wiki. Check it out, and please join the group! Mike Stark's Will Obama feel the sting of social networking? on OpenLeft gives some great context on the campaign. And there's a Facebook group too. Are we web 2.0 or what?

It gets complicated because it's more than just direct contributions from PACs to individual campaigns. There are various PACS like the ones belonging to Blue Dogs caucus and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, that collect corporate contributions and distribute to House members.
The Blue Dogs are a group of about 30 fiscally conservative Democrats in the House. They're reliably in the pocket of corporate lobbyists, so right off the bat, the Democrats were 30 votes behind on stopping immunity.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6422