Decision 2008

All Categories >> Politics

04/11/2007 12:27 pm

Scott's Archive

Rate this Blog

Yours:

Rated 0 times.

I think it's time that NutCan officially endorses someone for the Presidency. Well, not really, but I read something interesting today. John McCain has missed 42 of 126 Senate votes (about 33 percent), while campaigning, which is the most of any Senator/Presidential hopeful. Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama have each missed only 3.

Now I'm a fan of John McCain (I actually wrote him a letter a few months ago and was pleased to get a response back), but he does seem to be the guy that you never hear a bad word about. I wonder if the media will play his missing so many senate votes the same way the media played John Kerry missing senate votes. Here is one issue where can truly identify whether or not the mainstream media (i'm basically talking about ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) has a liberal bias or not. Because on these stations and news websites, I hear a lot of controversial topics regarding Clinton and Obama, and relatively none regarding John McCain. This will be interesting to monitor.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 04/11/2007 @ 12:34:15 PM
'Liberal media' is a term thrown around by right wingers who see only what they want to see.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 01:42:02 PM
"Right wingers" is a term thrown around by the liberal media who broadcast only what they want you to see.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 04/11/2007 @ 01:42:22 PM
A reason why you haven't heard many "bad words" about McCain is because he has been a media favorite for opposing the President and the Republican Party on certain issues. This gives him the "Maverick" label and allows the media to play a little bit into their bias by showing a high profile republican dissent from the party (It also doesn't hurt that he can be a pretty funny guy at times). As McCain goes for the Republican nomination however, the press will grow more hostile to him than normal (it may even be starting already) as: 1. The press ups the scrutiny on all Presidential Candidates 2. McCain will probably need to show more of his Republican side (as he always has in backing Bush and the war) to gain support for the primary. 3. He may be one of the liberals' favorite Republicans, but he's still a Republican and if he's up against Hillary or Obama or Edwards, he'll look a lot less favorable to some in the media.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Matt edited this at 04/11/2007 1:43:23 pm

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 04/11/2007 @ 02:02:58 PM
It's the media's job as the fourth estate to be critical of who ever is in power. The right has been in power for quite some time now. If you were to list the members of the media, who are outwardly liberal or conservative, by popularity how many liberals would be on that list by #20? The fact of the matter is a large portion of the national media's sole existence is to constantly 'remind' us how liberal the media is. (The irony being lost on them that there are 500 other nationally broadcast programs who are telling us the same thing.) As for the "you only see what THEY want you to see" argument: The war is a classic example. The fact that you see more of what is going wrong then right is two fold. 1) More is going wrong than right. Why people have this attitude that the media has to split its stories 50/50 positive/negative on a war that is 5/95, or else they are "liberal" is beyond me. 2) Since the dawn of time the mantra for news has been. "If it bleeds it leads." You get more viewers with death counts that you do with warm fuzzies. As for McCain if it does get negative it's because many people liked him for speaking his mind in a world where everyone (on both sides) is just falling rank and file behind party lines. Recently he has started to cozy up to those he spent time in his past lampooning. People don't like that because they don't like watching "politics being played" not because "he's aligning more towards the enemy"		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 04/11/2007 2:03:40 pm

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 04/11/2007 @ 03:50:37 PM
1.) I'm not quite sure what you mean by your popularity list statement. 2.) I don't have time to get into the war coverage right now so I'll reserve my time for later. 3.) The points I brought up about McCain had to do with his relationship w/ the media, you turn it into his realtionship w/ the people. Either way, what he's doing now may be partly "trying to cozy up" to the base (all candidates have to do it), but it is more so that his Conservative side that has been there all the time will get more play as it won't be in the media/liberals' interest to ignore it anymore since it will be less about Bush, and more about McCain vs. Hillary/Obama/Edwards.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Matt messed with this at 04/11/2007 3:51:42 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 04:06:04 PM
1) The number of conservative pundits in op/ed columns, on the radio, and on television FAR exceeds the number of liberals. It isn't even close. 3) I meant the people in the media. It isn't actually a machine, you know. "Liberal Media" is just one of those things that gets said so often it has to be true. Like "the great wall of china is visible from space". You try to tell someone that isn't true and they look are you like you're the biggest fool on God's green earth. EVERYONE KNOWS it's visible, it's one of the more wildly spouted "factoids." People read into things what they want to read into them and almost everything can be taken more than one way. If you are looking to find something you'll find something, that doesn't mean you're being objective in your analysis. When you see something that goes your way you forget it, when you see something that doesn't you're outraged and you remember it. That's why there are 32 teams in the NFL and every single one of them is the "unluckiest" while their chief rival "catches all the breaks." That's why everyone at North is convinced the Leader Telegram has it in for North High School. They gloss over the paper when North is on the front page and scoff at the paper in indignation when Memorial is on the cover. Has anyone bothered to simply TRACK the coverage? No. It's irrelevant because half the town KNOWS there's a bias. "One time North won their game, and Memorial LOST and was on the front page."		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 04/11/2007 @ 04:57:11 PM
What Jeremy's saying (I'll expand on your point), is that just because one 24 hour news outlet utters the words "balanced" and "fair" 34235 times each day doesn't actually make them "balanced" or "fair". But people hear that and assume it to be true. Saying that there is a liberal bias doesn't mean there is a liberal bias. I could assume a conservative bias in the media, then do my study, and find all the facts I want because I'm just going to cherry pick the conservative points. This isn't journalism, this isn't good research, but unfortunately, this seems to be what most news channel commentators do for a living.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 05:19:57 PM
That wasn't really my point, per se. However adding to your comment: Not to mention there's bias in how you determine bias. A reporter's take on a story might be biased, or their story might be completely fair and factual, but someone takes umbrage with the fact that the story was reported at all. It's in conservative hosts' best interest to push this myth out there because it's a way of a) saying "you can't trust anything anyone who's not me says" and b) It's a way of making the media actively lean conservative, due to not wanting to be labeled. The myth is propaganda, meets cherry picking, meets human psychology. You don't remember the 5 times your favorite NFL team got away with an obvious hold, you remember the one time the ref called a non-existent hold. You don't remember all the times the Packers DIDN'T give up 26 yards on a fourth down, you just rem.....nevermind.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 04/11/2007 5:29:46 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 05:25:12 PM
0 nut. And I think you know why.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 05:31:26 PM
On second thought; it's unfair to even qualify it as cherry picking. That would imply someone actively setting out to deceive someone else. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think most of the time the people honestly believe their points. I think it's more psychological than anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 04/11/2007 @ 06:46:04 PM
I'm sure the Great Wall of China is visible from space if you use a telescope. I'm not sure why my previous comment got only 2 nuts. I was just trying to keep the nutcan balanced and fair. The facts are that its very hard to prove any facts about any of this stuff. Ergo, who gives a poo about "liberal" or "right-wing" bias. Everyone only sees what they want to see.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 04/11/2007 @ 07:13:57 PM
When discussing the media and bias, you have to take account for the difference between straight news (Newspapers, Big 3 newscasts, etc.) and opinion journalism (O'Reilly, Op Eds, Talk Radio, Olberman [even though I think, he thinks he is giving straight news]). The conservative problem with media bias is that so much of liberal opinion is presented as straight, "just the facts" type journalism.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 04/11/2007 7:15:12 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 07:19:11 PM
Alex Wrote - 04/11/2007 @ 06:46:04 PM I'm sure the Great Wall of China is visible from space if you use a telescope. I'm not sure why my previous comment got only 2 nuts. I was just trying to keep the nutcan balanced and fair. The facts are that its very hard to prove any facts about any of this stuff. Ergo, who gives a poo about "liberal" or "right-wing" bias. Everyone only sees what they want to see. Exactly EVERYONE sees what they want to see. It's just that one side has 90% of the mouth pieces to discuss the way in which they see it. Edit: My house is visible from space. I think the old adage refers to looking out the window of an orbiting craft with the naked eye. Edit²: I felt your comment got an unfairly high rating, and mine an unfairly low one, despite the fact that they both carried an equal weight of content and contribution to the discourse of the page. So I balanced it.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 04/11/2007 7:35:25 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 07:28:56 PM
Matt Wrote - 04/11/2007 @ 07:13:57 PM When discussing the media and bias, you have to take account for the difference between straight news (Newspapers, Big 3 newscasts, etc.) and opinion journalism (O'Reilly, Op Eds, Talk Radio, Olberman [even though I think, he thinks he is giving straight news]). The conservative problem with media bias is that so much of liberal opinion is presented as straight, "just the facts" type journalism. O'Reilly thinks he is giving people straight news as well(same as Olberman), hence the "No Spin." He admits that he is giving opinions, but he claims that because he is "not putting a spin on things" (which he usually does anyway), his opinion is the only correct one, and therefore it is trustworthy news. It basically comes down to this: there is no bias-free news, and there is no bias free person. Now, I don't mean that all news is biased, and that all news-type persons are biased. Instead everyone will perceive a bias in anything, whether they are trying to or not.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott messed with this at 04/11/2007 7:35:39 pm

	Micah - 584 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 07:42:36 PM
To respond to the original post, its a funny time that you mention it, because McCain has just started to take flack for comments he made on his recent trip to Iraq. He toured Baghdad and then gave an interview in which he stated that people can safely walk the streets unprotected just as he did. But he failed to mention that he was trailed by something like a dozen troops that were securing the area. There was a 60 minutes interview about it on Sunday and its been given quite a bit of press coverage. The basic gist of the McCain campaign is that he is hitching everything to the success of this "troop surge." No one really thinks that a supporter of the Iraq war can make a legitimate run at the nomination. But if the surge is somehow successful, he stands to get a big gain from it. Its a pretty scary basket to put all your eggs in, but it seems like it's what he truly believes, which is to be admired, even if its wrong. I'm also really tired of the newspapers being labeled only liberally biased. If you want a liberal bias, you read the NY Times or the Washington Post. If you want conservative news you read the Wall Street Journal or the NY Post. The same goes for TV....it's CNN vs. FOX. I think the problem that a lot of moderate news-watchers have is that CNN has a bias that is more subtle; ingrained in the inflection of the reporter or the slight favoritism of one side of an argument. FOX, on the other hand, is extremely blatant and outspoken with its bias. Whereas CNN might favor one side, FOX might not even present the other side to begin with. I can pick out the bias in a CNN article and make my own assumptions about the information. But if I'm not given all the facts to begin with, I can't form my own opinions. The real problem I have is that after 9/11 and in the lead up to the Iraq war, both sides of the television media stopped questioning anything from the mouths of the government. Even Bob Woodward's first book on the Bush administration was more of a regurgitation of the administration's talking points rather than the real investigative journalism he was known for. Public opinion had to turn first before the networks would begin to give time to issues that went against the administration. Anyways, it really doesn't matter if the news is 80/20, 60/40 or 50/50. If you want news that supports your point of view, you can find it in tons of places. And if you're sick of hearing bias, just read www.bbcnews.com		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 07:45:15 PM
The thing too is that even if more stories are reported one way than another, that doesn't mean the media is inherently biased. Take my North/Memorial example. Lets say for the sake of argument that Memorial sends a Hockey, Soccer and Basketball team to state while North's sports teams combine for 3 wins among them. Why in the world WOULD there be a balanced amount of news over that span? North isn't making any news. You might not be looking at a long enough period of time to say anything one way or another.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 04/11/2007 7:45:41 pm

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 04/11/2007 @ 08:24:40 PM
Micah Wrote - 04/11/2007 @ 07:42:36 PM And if you're sick of hearing bias, just read www.bbcnews.com I don't know how much, if any, interaction the news and programming divisions of BBC have with one another, but they recently cancelled production of a movie about the first living British soldier since 1965 to recieve the Victoria Cross (equivalent to our Medal of Honor). Their reason? The story was too positive about the Iraq War. Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 04/11/2007 8:26:53 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 08:42:19 PM
maybe the BBC doesn't want to have a "positive bias", because even a positive bias can be bad if it is seen as propaganda.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 04/11/2007 @ 11:50:07 PM
As for the original issue(s) brought up by scott, my original thought while I was reading it was that I don't think the MEDIA or the people in the media, if you choose to play semantics, were the ones that made a big deal of the Kerry/Edwards voting absences. To me, I always looked at it as the Bush campaign making that an issue. I could be wrong, but I don't remember newspeople really ever "running with" the story beyond the point of relaying what the campaign said and what the stats were, as they do with the things campaigners say. So I guess to me, the comparison of media coverage would have to be made when and if the democrats' nominee chooses to make that an issue when and if mccain gets nominated (which is what, a 33% chance at this point?). Beyond that, it's not really the same thing, at least to me, but I understand the overall issue you're presenting. Beyond that, I'm not sure what to say about biased media. I get all my news information from unbiased sources. See, I start the day by listening to Rosie O'Donnell on the View. Then I mix a little Hannity and a little Bill O'Reilly on the radio. But during commercials I read a little James Carville. The most important part, though, is that I keep a Danny Glover movie going in the background the whole time. As the evening winds down, I tune into the Daily Show, which after all is comedy, so it can't have a bias, and end it all with Hannity AND Colmes, because biases cancel each other out if you want them to. In other words, it's nothing but the facts for me. Honestly, I'm actually not trying to make a political point with that last paragraph. I just felt like being dumb. I don't like listening to any of them, whatever viewpoint they supposedly represent. It makes me sad/annoyed/vomity. Anyway, has anyone noticed how cool this election could be? Not because it's starting about 12 months too early (which will probably cause the entire country to have a stroke by July next year) It's the names. Seriously, we have a race that already includes Barack, Mit, and has a strong possibility of a Newt. Now, maybe none of those will get the nod for their party, but if so, look at the trend it will break. The elections of my lifetime which I can remember have featured the names of George, Michael, Bill, Bob, George, Al, and John as major party candidates. And then all of the sudden, we might have Barack vs. Mit? Or Newt? Or Rudy even? Or Nomar? (he's formed an exploratory committee) No wonder Jeb Bush isn't running. He's got no edge in this race. Anyway, I'm sure some political humorist has already brought this up, but I haven't noticed, so don't call me a hack if you've heard it already.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 04/12/2007 @ 12:41:47 AM
Jon Wrote - 04/11/2007 @ 11:50:07 PM we have a race that already includes Barack, Mit, and has a strong possibility of a Newt. [...] And then all of the sudden, we might have Barack vs. Mit? It's Mitt		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 04/12/2007 @ 12:44:09 AM
you know, I was a little unsure of it, and I have, in the past scolded people for not looking things like that up, but when it came time to do it, I lazily put it off until I forgot.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/12/2007 @ 12:46:25 AM
Jon Wrote - 04/11/2007 @ 11:50:07 PM Or Nomar? (he's formed an exploratory committee) Also (because I know everybody was wondering), Nomar Garciaparra would turn 35 on July 23rd of 2008, and thus would be eligible to become President.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 04/12/2007 @ 12:51:05 AM
Actually Jon, I think it was because you are Anti-Mormon. Pretty soon we'll have the Mormon equivalent of Al Sharpton calling for a Nutcan boycott.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 04/12/2007 12:51:18 am

	Jon - many posts 04/12/2007 @ 01:11:04 AM
Great information on the 35 thing. Seriously, that's going the extra mile. Of course, I never mentioned it was THAT Nomar that I was talking about. Also, the misspelling of Mitt really got me thinking. Have I never actually read an article with his name in it? I mean, I'm pretty sure I would have known the spelling if I had seen it in print at least once or twice. But I don't think I have. I've heard his name tons and even had conversations about him, but I don't remember seeing his name in print. Of course, I don't seek out political articles or blogs or whatnot, but still, I feel like I would have come across it somehow. I know this isn't interesting and really has no point, I just felt like sharing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this at 04/12/2007 1:21:25 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/12/2007 @ 08:09:57 AM
FYI - The Daily Show rips on the democrats when they do something absurd, the absurdity is just coming from one direction these days. When the Fox News chairman made the joke about Obama I heard about it on the Daily Show when Jon both a) said the joke was funny and b) chastised the democrats for canceling the debate over something so benign. They also rip on John Kerry pretty ruthlessly.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 04/12/2007 @ 08:26:08 AM
Jon, who what "Bob" ran for president?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/12/2007 @ 08:27:48 AM
oh, Bob Dole. nevermind.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 04/12/2007 @ 08:40:49 AM
Dob Bole? Teve Torbs? Lamar Alexander 2? Tuck off!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 04/12/2007 8:47:17 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/12/2007 @ 08:52:25 AM
"I don't think Grenator Dole is handling the pressure very well."..."Grenator"? I don't know why the author felt he had to disguise the word "Senator"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 04/12/2007 @ 06:49:47 PM
In regards to bias in the news, there is a pretty interesting study from the 80's regarding subtle bias in the news. Essentially, they took short segments of the three main news anchors (Jennings, Rather and Brokaw) and performed a study in which participants rated the facial expressions' happiness on a large scale. What they found was that Peter Jennings had an almost imperceptible smile when he was speaking about Reagan as opposed to Mondale. The other two did not show any difference. They then performed a second study using a basic poll of which news broadcast did you watch more and who did you vote for. There was a significant finding that people who watched Jennings voted more for Reagan. There was no significant bias found in the actual content of any of the broadcasts. Its a pretty interesting finding into how something that is not even consciously noticeable can have an effect on behavior. Anyways, its called "Newscasters Facial Expressions and Voting Behavior of Viewers." Its from a journal so you probably can't find it online but I have a copy if anyone likes reading boring academic study papers.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 04/12/2007 @ 10:04:05 PM
Here is an interesting study I found about media bias comparing different major news sources and what the viewers/readers perceive about the world. The study asked people what their primary source of news was, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Print Sources, and PBS/NPR. It then asked people pretty simple questions pertaining to Iraq and WMDs, links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and world opinion on the Iraq war. The results showed that viewers of Fox News most often had misperceptions of the issues that the survey focused on. NPR/PBS listeners were least likely to have misperceptions. CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN all fell somewhere in the middle. I found the poll on PIPA. FYI. The poll itself didn't seem to have any hidden agenda that I could find. I found it quite interesting. But please, read it for yourself.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/12/2007 @ 10:45:59 PM
I've seen that one before, and overall it's probably accurate. Of course, if you ask different questions (like was WTC building 7 was brought down by explosives planted by the government) the results would probably be reversed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 04/12/2007 10:48:05 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/12/2007 @ 11:38:47 PM
To be fair though the WTC question isn't one with an answer. "Misinformed" means you believe something that is "quantifiably" not true. As preposterously unlikely as 9/11 being an inside job is, we don't know for certain it wasn't. You could call those people misguided perhaps, but not "misinformed." It's a fact WMD's haven't been found. The conspiracy people do raise some good points that beg some looking into. Not in a "conspiracy" light, but perhaps it isn't as open and shut as a few planes. What if terrorists did in fact plant charges? What if a missile was hijacked and not a plane for the Pentagon attack? Maybe it was bigger and even more well organized than we think. There's a middle ground between "it was only 4 planes" and the government organizing and executing demolitions of our own buildings with our own people in them. (According to the conspiracy theory the plane in Pennsylvania, didn't actually crash. Those people are still alive. Somehow a plane full of people, with family members that think they are dead, are keeping quiet about a conspiracy that would fluster Jack Bauer) The thing with the study Scott brought up is this: Is Fox News actually misinforming people, or are people who are predisposed to think that way to justify their opinions on the war just tuning into watch Fox News. Chicken or the Egg, if you will.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 04/12/2007 11:48:40 pm

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/13/2007 @ 12:13:23 AM
1.) I could say the same thing about WMDs... They actually did find lots of them in Iraq, yet the Russians are blackmailing the U.S. government to keep it quiet. It may be preposterously unlikely, but we don't know for certain it's not true. 2.) Popular Mechanics did a whole debunking the 9-11 myths special awhile back, I'll try and find the link later. 3.) The point of my response wasn't really to bring up the WTC thing, it was to posit that you could get any result you want by asking questions that play to the natural tendencies of a certain group of people.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 04/13/2007 12:13:41 am

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 04/13/2007 @ 12:15:31 AM
Debunking The 9/11 Myths		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 04/13/2007 @ 03:07:30 AM
Jeremy Wrote - 04/12/2007 @ 08:09:57 AM FYI - The Daily Show rips on the democrats when they do something absurd, the absurdity is just coming from one direction these days. I know we've personally talked about this multiple times and honestly, it's barely even worth talking about again, but if you're taking the position that the Daily Show isn't skewed left, I really can't agree at all. Obviously they make fun of everyone, that's what they do. But even if they were to theoretically make equal numbers of jokes one way or the other, that still doesn't really say anything about whether they are biased or unbiased. To put it another way, a joke is not a joke is not a joke. I mean, for anything to be a joke in the first place, there has to be some buying in of the concept. The Daily Show works on kind of a "that's ridiculous!" basis. It's making fun of all the stupid, ridiculous things people say/do/etc. A lot of stuff the show makes fun of is just obviously ridiculous to almost everyone regardless of views. But beyond those, the rest of the jokes almost have to imply a stance one way or the other. Not necessarily a political stance, but just some sort of value statement, however minimal. Something's got to be the "reasonable" and something's got to be the "ridiculous." So, each joke has a message implied in it by what's given each "label", if you will. I'm not saying Jon Stewart is embedding subliminal messages in his jokes in some grand scheme. I'm stating that any joke, by anyone, based on the idea of something being ridiculous or stupid HAS to be based on a view, even if it's as simple as the view being "that statement was dumb." So, sometimes the idea of the joke is that "John Kerry is boring" or "Bush is stupid" and sometimes it's that "that person's view of issue "x" is ridiculous" or "this group of people with these views are completely hopeless and totally off base" The magnitude of the implication is different for different jokes. So, if you were to track the implied view that each joke works off of and create a general "world according to the daily show," I think it easily comes down more on the side of liberal views being more reasonable and conservative views being closer to ridiculous, regardless of quantity of jokes. (Though really, I doubt the quantity would even be balanced.) I actually think that's WHY the Daily Show works. For those jokes to work, there has to be some sort of shared view of things between the joke teller and the audience. Otherwise, it's just someone calling something stupid and the people hearing it disagreeing. If they had a balanced approach, everyone would be half amused and half annoyed everyday and I'm not sure anyone watches that hypothetical show. It doesn't work from a comedy standpoint. Not for as long as the Daily Show's been on. Anyway, the whole topic of determining if someone or something leans one way or another ends up being kind of tough to nail down because everyone brings their own views into the judging and it comes down to a perception thing. But a few anecdotal questions will have to be sufficient: Really, do you think the show will change if there is a Democratic president? Even if that president screws up over and over again? Granted, it will allow more opportunities to single out a high profile democrat that everyone knows, but do you really think the overall tone of the show's jokes will change that much? Do you think the balance of implied messages of the jokes will start to label liberal views/ideals as ridiculous? I doubt it. I think they would make fun of screwups and actions and statements, but I doubt it would change the basic "worldview" that most jokes are based off of. I mean, will anyone go, "man that Daily Show is really right wing."? It's not even imaginable, is it? Because that's not who Jon Stewart is. It wouldn't work even if he tried. Anyway, I'm not accusing them all of something terrible. I like that they point out tons of stuff that everyone usually just allows as normal even though it's practically insane. My beef with the show isn't that it's left-leaning. It's that it is viewed, and more or less presented, as if it's not. And the fact that it's a comedy show is an easy way to deflect from that. Jon Stewart does that all the time. But to me, the fact that it's a comedy show, and specifically that type of comedy show, almost ensures that it HAS to give off a "bias" one way or the other. As I said before, I don't think it would work if it didn't. So I don't fault them for giving off a bias, intended or not. But I don't like the idea that they can get credit for being neutral.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jon screwed with this 4 times, last at 04/13/2007 3:18:54 am

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 04/13/2007 @ 09:25:45 AM
Matt Wrote - 04/13/2007 @ 12:15:31 AM Debunking The 9/11 Myths		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 04/13/2007 @ 09:26:21 AM
I basically agree with Jon, for the most part. They do poke a lot of fun at the media in general though, usually for stupid things people say, or stupid things broadcasters do. And usually it has to do with what stupid conservatives like Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell say. And when John Kerry says something stupid, the reaction is "Don't lose this for us, John." But I still think it's funny. And does anyone really take what that show says for the truth? A poll came out within the last few years that stated that more Daily Show viewers had college degrees than the O'Reilly Factor and other news-type shows. I remember that because O'Reilly was on the Daily Show shortly after that study was released and Jon Stewart wanted an apology for O'Reilly calling the Daily Show viewers "stoned slackers."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 04/13/2007 @ 09:26:59 AM
Hey Jon, don't do so much hardcore thinking at 3:00 in the morning. It's not safe.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 04/13/2007 @ 11:08:18 AM
There have also been lots of studies on the fact that a reporter leaning one way or another doesn't mean the story does. I'm not trying to argue the show isn't leaning to the left, but you're off your rocker if you think they wouldn't/haven't pointed out hypocrisies and moronic behavior from democrats. If a Democratic president "screwed up" (a gross understatement by the way) over and over again they would be doing the same thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/13/2007 @ 11:14:55 AM
Scott Wrote - 04/13/2007 @ 09:26:21 AM I basically agree with Jon, for the most part. They do poke a lot of fun at the media in general though, usually for stupid things people say, or stupid things broadcasters do. And usually it has to do with what stupid conservatives like Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell say. And when John Kerry says something stupid, the reaction is "Don't lose this for us, John." But I still think it's funny. And does anyone really take what that show says for the truth? A poll came out within the last few years that stated that more Daily Show viewers had college degrees than the O'Reilly Factor and other news-type shows. I remember that because O'Reilly was on the Daily Show shortly after that study was released and Jon Stewart wanted an apology for O'Reilly calling the Daily Show viewers "stoned slackers." Of course having a college degree and being a stoned slacker are not mutually exclusive these days. I would assume that part of the whole viewers who have college degrees difference is due to the differences in age between the two audiences. I would think that O'Reilly probably has an older audience and Daily Show a younger audience. Since fewer people went to college back in the day, and today they seem to be giving out degrees, the difference is to be expected. (Of course, I may be wrong about this, but it seems reasonable)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 04/13/2007 11:15:47 am

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 04/13/2007 @ 11:22:32 AM
What does [most of] this have to do with who should represent us in 2008?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 04/13/2007 @ 11:22:59 AM
Scott Wrote - 04/13/2007 @ 09:26:21 AM And when John Kerry says something stupid, the reaction is "Don't lose this for us, John." This is a good point, but the fact remains they could just not be showing it at all. If their primary objective was to get Kerry elected they wouldn't have played their part in playing all his bungles to their audience. They made no bones about who they wanted to win that election, but they hardly buried the stupid things that could have cost Kerry the election either. If that makes sense.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 04/13/2007 @ 11:34:58 AM
As for 2008, since as Carl pointed out that's what this is about. I'd like to see Al Gore in there. If not him, I like Obama, though in all honesty I know nothing about him politically. I'm not thrilled about Hillary, because she "plays politics" way too obviously and wont "out" herself on a lot of issues. I'd still vote for her though. I would love if McCain was the republican candidate, because he's the better of the whatever evils. Rudy/McCain or vise versa would be good too.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 04/13/2007 @ 11:42:29 AM
Jeremy Wrote - 04/13/2007 @ 11:22:59 AM Scott Wrote - 04/13/2007 @ 09:26:21 AM And when John Kerry says something stupid, the reaction is "Don't lose this for us, John." This is a good point, but the fact remains they could just not be showing it at all. If their primary objective was to get Kerry elected they wouldn't have played their part in playing all his bungles to their audience. They made no bones about who they wanted to win that election, but they hardly buried the stupid things that could have cost Kerry the election either. If that makes sense. This is a good point as well. They still show the screw-ups, even if they want a certain outcome.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 04/13/2007 @ 11:44:40 AM
My choice for Dems: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Russ Feingold, Bill Clinton My choice for Republicans: John McCain, Rudy G., and that's it.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 04/13/2007 @ 11:46:12 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 04/13/2007 @ 11:22:32 AM What does [most of] this have to do with who should represent us in 2008? The original Blog was pointing out the top candidates and the amount of Senate votes each as missed. Indirectly, it is about who should represent us, I think.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 04/13/2007 @ 11:47:02 AM
As a preemptive strike against the "why would you vote for someone you don't like just to vote Democrat"comments: I used to think it was lame that people would do this. Especially the people that just voted straight democrat or straight republican at the polls. As time passed though I came to the realization that this is pretty much what you have to do. In a Utopian society you could hyper analyze exactly what the candidates stand for, and what they plan on doing once elected and make your pick. However, that just isn't the way the world works. If a candidate says how they feel on an issue it's more likely because they work shopped that issue, and found they would gain more support than they'd lose by picking a side on it, than it is they have strong convictions on that issue. Every word out of their mouth is carefully scripted to gain two votes for every one they might lose. How they actually feel, and what they are saying might not jive at all. Once elected a president really has very little power to make good on promises they made anyway. All they can do is prod congress to do their bidding. Besides, any candidate that gets elected just tows the party line anyway. There are very few exceptions. In the end you just have to pick which party is more along your mind set and go with them. Edit: I forgot about Feingold.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 04/13/2007 11:48:26 am

	Micah - Bring down the Beast!!! 04/13/2007 @ 05:43:26 PM
Why no love for Edwards? I think he was the best democratic candidate in 2000, and still is today. In response to Jeremy's last post, he's spent the last two years trying to fight poverty, which anyone can tell you doesn't win you votes anywhere. Plus he is extremely strong in Iowa and has a great chance to win the state. Obama is intriguing, but if he signed on as a VP to either Hillary or Edwards prior to the primaries, the ticket itself would get a huge bump against any Republican candidate, and would avoid a battle at the convention.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 04/13/2007 @ 09:13:35 PM
word		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 04/13/2007 @ 10:12:38 PM
Scott Wrote - 04/13/2007 @ 09:26:21 AM I basically agree with Jon, for the most part. They do poke a lot of fun at the media in general though, usually for stupid things people say, or stupid things broadcasters do. And usually it has to do with what stupid conservatives like Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell say. And when John Kerry says something stupid, the reaction is "Don't lose this for us, John." But I still think it's funny. And does anyone really take what that show says for the truth? A poll came out within the last few years that stated that more Daily Show viewers had college degrees than the O'Reilly Factor and other news-type shows. I remember that because O'Reilly was on the Daily Show shortly after that study was released and Jon Stewart wanted an apology for O'Reilly calling the Daily Show viewers "stoned slackers." I don't think there can be much doubt that Jon Stewart's personal views are more aligned with the left than the right. That's not to say that the Daily Show is hardcore leftwing propaganda. Just that at times the rhetoric favors Dems over Reps. I don't see what's so bad about conceding that. I don't really no anything about any of the candidates, so I have no useful comments in that regard. Public Enemy is on MTV Hits saying I should "fight the power". So I might have to vote for myself this year. Oh snap, it's Ol' Dirty on the mic now. Needless to say this is Busta Rhymes Hitlist and I need to get outta hur.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/16/2007 @ 12:29:10 PM
Another study about people's preceptions and where they get their news. It comes from a liberal website, but the study was done by a neutral party. Basically, Daily Show viewers have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, while Fox News viewers rank nearly dead last. So, I could watch the daily show and not get any of my "news" from it, but then do my own research elsewhere, whereas Fox News viewers think they are getting real news and don't do anything in terms of "studying-up".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/16/2007 @ 12:36:24 PM
Well I think the Daily Show is just as much "news" as anything else. They are taking recent events you might not have known about and telling you what happened. Just because they are making fun of it as they do it doesn't mean there isn't a valuable exchange of information.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 04/16/2007 @ 05:49:38 PM
Other than checking out Yahoo news on my lunch break, the Daily Show and Colbert Report are pretty much my only source of political news or current events that aren't sports related. And according to that study, that makes me knowledgable. At least about the dangerousness of bears.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/16/2007 @ 06:32:06 PM
Well, I think you could conclude not that the Daily Show actually makes people informed, but the people who watch the daily show actually care about being informed, because they understand that watching the Daily Show is not exactly a great source of real news. Sure, it may make a person aware of what's going on, but to call it a legimate source of news is questionable. The point is that Daily Show viewers care to be informed, and Fox news viewers think that Fox News is sufficient, so they don't go out of their way to be informed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 04/16/2007 @ 06:57:10 PM
Or you could conclude that The Daily Show/Colbert Report, probably isn't as funny if you don't really care too much about (and/or don't already have a grasp of) the current events, politicians, etc. that are in the news.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 04/16/2007 @ 07:02:00 PM
Obviously Scott you have completely disregarded my last comment, so I'll conclude that you must be a Fox News reporter who only hears what they want to, you don't listen hard, Don't pay attention to the distance that you're running, To anyone, anywhere, I don't understand if you really care, I'm only hearing negative: no, no, no... Also to take Matt's comment further those shows probably aren't as funny if you're a few cans short of 30 pack either, and you almost have to be a little tipsy if you're watching Fox News.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/16/2007 @ 07:20:03 PM
Alex Wrote - 04/16/2007 @ 07:02:00 PM Obviously Scott you have completely disregarded my last comment, so I'll conclude that you must be a Fox News reporter who only hears what they want to, you don't listen hard, Don't pay attention to the distance that you're running, To anyone, anywhere, I don't understand if you really care, I'm only hearing negative: no, no, no... Is this the lyrics to a song? Am I to take it seriously? Does anyone love me?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/16/2007 @ 08:53:57 PM
Hey, Scott. Did I see you out walking when I went to get a haircut? I did a double take and actually stopped for a second. Then you, or whoever it was, gave no reaction so I kept going. I'd guess the distance was 30 feet. ps It's Lisa Loeb		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 04/16/2007 @ 09:16:54 PM
Yes, I saw you, and I did a double take and actually stopped for a second. Then you gave no reaction so I kept going. It was funny, because I probably did my "woa, is that Jeremy" just seconds after you did your "woa, is that Scott", and alas our looks never met. I was walking to Pick 'n Save from my apartment.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/16/2007 @ 09:18:22 PM
Ha. Though if I remember correctly you had sunglasses on, and if super hero movies tought us anything it's that a pair of glasses makes someone look completely different. What's your excuse?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 04/16/2007 9:19:45 pm

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 04/16/2007 @ 09:21:52 PM
By the time I recognized you, you were already through the door of the F. Sam. I figured chasing someone down in a Fantastic Sams would just be weird.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 04/16/2007 @ 09:54:30 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 04/16/2007 @ 09:18:22 PM Ha. Though if I remember correctly you had sunglasses on, and if super hero movies tought us anything it's that a pair of glasses makes someone look completely different. I'm not sure if this is still "canon" but I believe one of the explanations of nobody recognizing Clark Kent as Superman, is that as Superman, he vibrates his face enough so that it appears blurry on film, and I guess in person.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 04/16/2007 @ 10:02:04 PM
is that true?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/16/2007 @ 10:07:51 PM
As I said, I'm not sure if it still is, or was ever, an "official" explanation, but yeah that was the reason I remember hearing/reading about.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/25/2007 @ 06:53:56 PM
John McCain on the Daily Show I do not endorse the website towhich this video is linked. But, I do like seeing John McCain on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart seems to have a great sense of respect for John McCain, but this interview got a bit spirited.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 05/12/2007 @ 03:54:11 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2868485 This guy won't be getting the majority of the votes in Wisconsin, and it's not just because he's a republican.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/12/2007 @ 05:24:29 PM
That's worse than John Kerry refering to the Packers stadium as "Lambert Field".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 05/12/2007 @ 05:33:09 PM
For all the people who dislike when candidates "play politics", they sure get angry when one actually tells the truth.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 05/13/2007 @ 11:56:55 AM
Scott Wrote - 05/12/2007 @ 05:24:29 PM That's worse than John Kerry refering to the Packers stadium as "Lambert Field". I disagree. Kerry was cheesily trying to score points with the home crowd. This guy was just talking when Wisconsinites' "you can't even imply a compliment about another QB without prefacing it by saying Favre is better" alarm went off in his face.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/13/2007 @ 04:50:20 PM
Well, if a guy is that clueless about his campaign techniques, how can we trust him with our national security. I strongly question his judgement. This is also mostly joking, but you would never give a speech in Boston with the goal of winning over a crowd by saying how good Alex Rodriguez is doing this season. Pandering or not, you gotta relate to the crowd to a certain degree.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott screwed with this at 05/13/2007 4:52:23 pm

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 05/13/2007 @ 05:06:29 PM
Free publicity!!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 05/14/2007 @ 02:12:22 AM
You know the Republican party officials really should have briefed him beforehand. Because of this lack of support, Brownback is demanding a trade to a different party.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/28/2007 @ 09:22:18 PM
I just watched the Republican debate on CNN. I'll tell you my opinion of the Republican candidates. There were two guys that really stuck out to me, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Among the talks about the Iraq war, I really respect John McCain the most. In spite of the fact that he wants to stay in Iraq, I respect his view. All the candidates that say we should stay in Iraq do so seemingly because that's what their voters want to hear. Mitt Romney does not sound sincere by any definition of the word when it comes to this. He seems like a guy that has figured out what people want to hear and is pumping the war drum because of it. John McCain on the other hand is a guy who really seems sincere in his reasons to stay in Iraq. While the other candidates want to stay in Iraq because that's what Republican voters want, McCain seems to want to stay for no other reason than he is 100% confident that it is the right thing to do. Anyway, that's my take. McCain and Huckabee are the two candidates I trust. I lost almost all trust in Romney, and Rudy is about where he was before I watched this debate.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/28/2007 @ 10:37:19 PM
Please remember that when it comes to "Staying in Iraq" you have many schools of thought. A lot of people want to schedule a date and be out by then, come rain or shine. While this will accomplish a complete withdrawal (what EVERYONE wants) in a specific time frame, you are opening a can of worms. Let's say you want to kill as many American's you can- and will jump at the opportunity. President Yettobedetermined says by August 21 all troops will be gone. This means you now have a good solid 2 months of heavy American convoy traffic on 3 or 4 main highways. What do you do? Set your bombs and wait. Kill another 2-3000 troops, and praise Allah. When most people who are accused of wanting to "stay in Iraq" are really saying that they want to downsize as warranted. Up the Iraqi investment in security, divest the American. Peace in 80% of the country? Well, turn those areas over and concentrate on the destable regions. I'll tell you very personally what happens when the enemy knows where you will be and when. They set a bomb and blow you up. I know this personally- this is a point that is easily made, but not easily taken into consideration when candidates are making promises they can't/won't keep.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/28/2007 @ 10:39:47 PM
Different post, different subject- My impression of Huckabee is that he positions himself to be a Conservative Republican simply and only because he is pro-life. Ask Arkansas about his voting when it comes to taxes... up up up up up and up. then up up up and up again. He grew the State Employment numbers 20% (this is not "how many people are employed in Arkansas" but how many people does the State directly employ). Sounds like a Pro-life Democrat to me.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 11/29/2007 @ 04:20:46 AM
Pro-life Democrat may be going to far. Big-Government Republican may be more apt.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/29/2007 @ 05:30:10 PM
You, sir have a point.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec perfected this at 11/29/2007 5:30:27 pm

	Sarah - So's your face 02/14/2008 @ 06:52:56 PM
Obama's coming to Eau Claire on Saturday, woot!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/14/2008 @ 06:58:44 PM
take a picture of him for me. I watched his rally in Madison.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - Well you can get this lapdance here for free. 02/14/2008 @ 08:05:46 PM
Scott Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 06:58:44 PM take a picture of him for me. I watched his rally in Madison. Give him a lesson in economics for me.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 02/14/2008 @ 08:20:59 PM
Scott Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 06:58:44 PM take a picture of him for me. I watched his rally in Madison. I think Jon is available if you want him to get you a picture. He has experience in this type of work.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 02/15/2008 @ 12:36:42 AM
And he can give him that econ lesson....though I'm not sure what that means.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 02/15/2008 @ 05:56:46 AM
Matt Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 08:20:59 PM Scott Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 06:58:44 PM take a picture of him for me. I watched his rally in Madison. I think Jon is available if you want him to get you a picture. He has experience in this type of work. We should go... but I nominate someone else to take a picture....		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/15/2008 @ 06:53:40 AM
Read the original blog at the very top, then read this. It appears I was a little bit prophetic.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower." 02/15/2008 @ 07:50:31 AM
I too will be in Wisconsin on Saturday, but doubt I'll go see Obama. I may though, it would be interesting.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/15/2008 @ 09:16:52 AM
Scott Wrote - 02/15/2008 @ 06:53:40 AM Read the original blog at the very top, then read this. It appears I was a little bit prophetic. How, exactly?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 02/15/2008 @ 05:47:52 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/15/2008 @ 09:16:52 AM Scott Wrote - 02/15/2008 @ 06:53:40 AM Read the original blog at the very top, then read this. It appears I was a little bit prophetic. How, exactly? Well, just that Obama's voting record is suddenly being called into question, but the same report doesn't mention that McCain didn't have enough votes to even make it into that study. To be fair, if you are going to mention one candidates voting record, you better at least mention the other guy's record and how it relates to the same study you were just referencing. It's a little bit of a stretch, but the key is that Obama's voting record is getting scrutinized and McCain's isn't getting touched (in this case, anyway).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/15/2008 @ 05:55:06 PM
Oh, I see. Well, it's that liberal media! Actually, it's the same lazy media we're used to. Repeating what McCain said: 10 seconds of research. (Assuming you even want to quote word for word, which is often not even the case.) Looking to see if what McCain said has any merit: minutes of research.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 02/16/2008 @ 02:26:30 PM
We've got pics, but right now i'm too cold to do anything, more comments later!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/16/2008 @ 03:31:17 PM
where was the event? Zorn?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/16/2008 @ 03:36:58 PM
[Click to Enlarge] Yes, The line was 3 deep and when we got there we got in line at the top of the hill, 30 minutes after they had starting letting people in already.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/16/2008 @ 03:43:21 PM
He spoke outside?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 02/16/2008 @ 03:59:20 PM
Only for a few minutes, we didn't make it in and he addressed the "overflow" before the "main" event.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 02/16/2008 @ 05:05:31 PM
I would like to hear the "Ombudsman" break down the three candidates of any note, pro's/con's. I need to make a decision.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 02/16/2008 @ 05:42:37 PM
I think you will get an unfair bias from the "Ombudsman." Know who you are and make your decision that way. Besides, haven't you all been debating this for the past 6 months or so?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 02/16/2008 @ 05:56:47 PM
Scott Wrote - 02/15/2008 @ 05:47:52 PM Jeremy Wrote - 02/15/2008 @ 09:16:52 AM Scott Wrote - 02/15/2008 @ 06:53:40 AM Read the original blog at the very top, then read this. It appears I was a little bit prophetic. How, exactly? Well, just that Obama's voting record is suddenly being called into question, but the same report doesn't mention that McCain didn't have enough votes to even make it into that study. To be fair, if you are going to mention one candidates voting record, you better at least mention the other guy's record and how it relates to the same study you were just referencing. It's a little bit of a stretch, but the key is that Obama's voting record is getting scrutinized and McCain's isn't getting touched (in this case, anyway). Jeremy Wrote - 02/15/2008 @ 05:55:06 PM Oh, I see. Well, it's that liberal media! Actually, it's the same lazy media we're used to. Repeating what McCain said: 10 seconds of research. (Assuming you even want to quote word for word, which is often not even the case.) Looking to see if what McCain said has any merit: minutes of research. According to the article, Media Matters is upset that CNN showed a clip of (and NY Times quoted) McCain criticizing Obama's voting record, and neither news organization countered with a look at McCain's own voting record. Now I didn't see the the CNN broadcast or read the Times article, but depending on the context/purpose of the stories, I don't think that it was necessarily "wrong" of them not to comment on McCain's record. If the basis of your story is to show what the current "tone" of the campaigns are, which I think is probably close to the case here (and actually, I just looked up the Times article from the link in the Media Matters article, and it seems I would be right as the title is "McCain and Obama Turn Fire on Each Other"), then just letting the people know what was said is, I think, perfectly acceptable. Fact checking every statement for these kinds of stories would be a waste of time, you would never be able to write/show anything. So, in other words, I don't think this was a case of the media picking on one candidate over the other (not that it doesn't/won't happen). I also think it was a pretty big reach for Media Matters to describe it as such. P.S. I just watched the CNN clip (at the top of the Media Matters article) and it's the same as the Times article, they both just present clips/quotes from the candidates to show whats going on on the campaign trail and how they are attacking each other.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Matt messed with this at 02/16/2008 5:58:01 pm

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 02/16/2008 @ 06:06:17 PM
Sarah Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 05:42:37 PM I think you will get an unfair bias from the "Ombudsman." Know who you are and make your decision that way. Besides, haven't you all been debating this for the past 6 months or so? I have been collecting as much information as possible. I am personally biased towards the Clinton campaign so I wanted to be as informed as possible. I know the Ombudsman will be biased, however, I'll just skip the McCain part.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 02/16/2008 @ 06:15:20 PM
PackOne Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 05:05:31 PM I would like to hear the "Ombudsman" break down the three candidates of any note, pro's/con's. I need to make a decision. Sarah Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 05:42:37 PM I think you will get an unfair bias from the "Ombudsman." Know who you are and make your decision that way. Besides, haven't you all been debating this for the past 6 months or so? The quotes around Ombudsman are not necessary. PackOne Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 06:06:17 PM the Ombudsman See, that's better. PackOne Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 06:06:17 PM I am personally biased towards the Clinton campaign so I wanted to be as informed as possible. I know the Ombudsman will be biased, however, I'll just skip the McCain part. Well, if it's just between the two Democrats, I don't think there is much difference between them, policy wise. Also, I don't think its appropriate for the Ombudsman to favor one candidate over the other. The MBL, on the other hand, endorses John McCain.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Matt edited this 2 times, last at 02/16/2008 6:16:15 pm

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 02/17/2008 @ 07:08:24 AM
In case anyone is wondering, I am actually split between McCain and Obama. What's drawing me away from McCain is that he is, in my opinion, turning into a Republican's Republican simply because he needs to get support from his party. I guess that makes sense, but what I always liked about him was that he seemed to be a Republican in name only and a little more like a independent somewhere in the middle. This was probably inevitable and it's probably not that big of deal in the long run, but it is worth mentioning.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Since 1980! 02/17/2008 @ 12:49:22 PM
I saw Obama drive down Clairmont yesterday. I think we spend about 250k a month on his security. Pretty cool though, I would have liked to hear him speak.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 02/17/2008 @ 12:54:47 PM
His whole speech is on weau.com in case anyone does want to watch it. (i.e. scott)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 02/17/2008 @ 12:58:35 PM
Scott Wrote - 02/17/2008 @ 07:08:24 AM In case anyone is wondering, I am actually split between McCain and Obama. What's drawing me away from McCain is that he is, in my opinion, turning into a Republican's Republican simply because he needs to get support from his party. I guess that makes sense, but what I always liked about him was that he seemed to be a Republican in name only and a little more like a independent somewhere in the middle. This was probably inevitable and it's probably not that big of deal in the long run, but it is worth mentioning. McCain still seems like someone that is at least a little less likely to play the whole partisan game. Which is why I kind of liked him a couple months ago, but then I watched some of the debates and realized that many of the things that he wasn't "Republican" on are things that cause me to usually vote Republican in the first place. So that kind of put a damper on things for me. Why does there have to be one person at the top anyway?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 07:29:22 AM
are you suggesting a co-presidency?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 12:03:19 PM
I think he wants an oligarchy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 01:31:05 PM
Matt Wrote - 02/18/2008 @ 12:03:19 PM I think he wants an oligarchy. Not exactly. Maybe a democratic oligarchy. A triumvirate even. One Democrat, one Republican, and one "other" who can never have been registered with or run under either of the other parties. Anything that the president can currently do would require the approval of 2 of 3. Which would probably make the "other" the most important? Intriguing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - Well use me, use me, 'caus you ain't that average groupie. 02/18/2008 @ 02:30:24 PM
How about the loser of the general election becomes Vice President?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 02:38:17 PM
That used to be how it worked, or at least whom ever got the second most Electoral votes was VP.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 02:56:23 PM
Sarah, I took a picture on Saturday too. Here it is.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Jon perfected this at 02/18/2008 2:56:45 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 03:07:36 PM
Classic.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 02/18/2008 @ 03:41:23 PM
		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 05:07:46 PM
Breaking News! http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/15744362.html Edit: If the link has stopped working, here's the story(Edit: the story was updated, but this is how it originally looked): BREAKING NEWS: Hillary Clinton Coming to Eau Claire at 5:30 p.m.! Save Email Print Posted: 4:48 PM Feb 18, 2008 Last Updated: 4:48 PM Feb 18, 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A \| A \| A Clinton's campaign tells NewsCenter 13 the Senator is coming to Eau Claire at 5:30 this evening. The Eau Claire County Democrats say she plans to visit Mike's Smokehouse off Clairemont on the city's west side. NewsCenter 13 will cover the event live on weau.com and on TV-13.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this 2 times, last at 02/18/2008 5:56:40 pm

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 02/18/2008 @ 05:17:19 PM
It's a little known fact that Hillary Clinton is campaigning almost exclusively for voters who have no other lives. After all, if they can up and get out to see her speak on 30 minutes notice, then chances are they aren't doing anything important on election day either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 05:18:51 PM
Mmm chicken and rib combo. Jeremy, it's a nice media play.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 05:27:37 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/18/2008 @ 05:17:19 PM It's a little known fact that Hillary Clinton is campaigning almost exclusively for voters who have no other lives. After all, if they can up and get out to see her speak on 30 minutes notice, then chances are they aren't doing anything important on election day either. That's me! Hillary, you've got my vote! Now pass the Texas toast and tell Bill to stop eyeing my cole slaw.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - infinity + 1 posts 02/18/2008 @ 05:31:04 PM
Update, I just heard on the news (WEAU), that the local democrats say the visit is on and will be closer to 6 but her state campaign headquarters say the visit is off due to bad weather. I'll try to find a link if there is one.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this at 02/18/2008 5:34:38 pm

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 05:31:12 PM
When I had dinner with Bill, he had crab stuffed flounder, head and skin on. Oh, and a root beer. If anyone cares to know.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - You analyze me. Tend to despise me. You laugh when I stumble and fall. 02/18/2008 @ 05:31:41 PM
I heard they might not land.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 05:40:19 PM
Not coming. People leaving were chanting Obama Obama.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - many posts 02/18/2008 @ 05:45:16 PM
I see you are correct (at least that she wasn't coming). For uniformity, here's the story: http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/15744362.html Copied from that website: BREAKING NEWS: Clinton's Visit WILL NOT HAPPEN Save Email Print Posted: 5:34 PM Feb 18, 2008 Last Updated: 5:36 PM Feb 18, 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A \| A \| A Senator Hillary Clinton was planning a visit to Eau Claire tonight. Mike's Steakhouse was filling up with people piling in to see the senator. However, shortly after 5:30 p.m. a Clinton staffer announced the visit was cancelled. Her state campaign tells NewsCenter 13 the visit has been cancelled due to bad road conditions. The last-minute announcement that she was even planning a trip came at 4:45 p.m. this afternoon. Shortly before 5 p.m. NewsCenter 13 learned from her Wisconsin campaign office that the trip had been cancelled due to road conditions. The Eau Claire County Democrats, however, were not informed of the cancellation until around 5:30 p.m. We will have a report on the cancelled visit on NewsCenter 13 at 6 p.m		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 02/18/2008 5:48:24 pm

	Jon - 3443 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 05:51:33 PM
PackOne Wrote - 02/18/2008 @ 05:31:12 PM When I had dinner with Bill, he had crab stuffed flounder, head and skin on. Oh, and a root beer. If anyone cares to know. from a different thread: PackOne Wrote - 10/30/2007 @ 11:07:15 PM Having had dinner with the Clintons on several occasions, go Hill. So, I'll bite; Is there any shred of truth or is it a joke or, uh, am I missing something?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 06:12:06 PM
Nope, I actually have had dinner with Hillary and Bill. My grandmother Irene Samuel-Cook, worked with them when Bill was Governer. She was also the executive secretary for the WEC which was instrumental in integrating Arkansas public schools. There is a link to some of her achievements, she also was voted libertarian woman of the year at some point. She married my mom's father Lt. Colonel Wayne R Cook. http://www.isjl.org/history/archive/ar/littlerock.htm Her picture is on the left 1/2 way down or so. http://libinfo.uark.edu/SpecialCollections/manuscripts/integration1957.asp If your an avid researcher more can be found here. http://www.jnpa.com/Prod-157-1-600/DVD-The-Giants-Wore-White-Gloves.htm http://sandrahubbard.com/giants.html In case you want the DVD. Samuel, Irene Gaston (1915-1999) (Activist) Ms. Samuel worked for the United States Housing Authority during the New Deal. She was the first to recruit African Americans for clerical positions in Washington, D.C. She administered the civil service tests at Dunbar, Horace Mann, and Jones High Schools (schools for blacks). Ms. Samuel served as the executive secretary for the Women’s Emergency Committee to Open Our Schools and was a former member of Dale Bumpers’ Gubernatorial and Senatorial staffs.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
PackOne messed with this 4 times, last at 02/18/2008 9:13:40 pm

	Jon - 3443 Posts 02/18/2008 @ 06:39:34 PM
very cool, thanks for sharing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - You analyze me. Tend to despise me. You laugh when I stumble and fall. 02/18/2008 @ 06:43:10 PM
I was only 12-14 years old at these times. It has always been one of those if I had known what I know now kinda things.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 02/19/2008 @ 09:05:20 AM
If I were running for President and I wanted people to attend my events, I would only announce what was set in stone. "The President will be here at 5:30...." "Sorry Mr. Prime Minister, it will be closer to 6" "Sorry, the Pres couldn't make it"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/19/2008 @ 09:34:52 AM
Interesting strategy of Hillary's by scheduling two appearances in one town on one day, including one people had to drop everything and run to, the day before the election, and canceling them both. Let's wait and see how it plays out.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 02/19/2008 9:38:24 am

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 02/19/2008 @ 09:37:15 AM
Me "Uh, yes, I'd like to apply for a job. What time can I come and interview?" You "Come at 5" Me "Ill be there. wait, sorry, can't. How's 6?" You "Sure, 6 is fine." Me "Sorry, can't make 6. I'll just cancel."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 02/19/2008 @ 12:54:20 PM
Politician "If you elect me I promise I'll do so-and-so" Politician "If you re-elect me I promise I'll get around to so-and-so" Politician "Sorry, I lied" Why would she go to Mike's anyway? Or was there a massive expansion/rebuild that I don't know about?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 02/19/2008 @ 02:14:04 PM
It's just where "visiting officials" go when they come to EC. It's "local cuisine" that's locally owned. It's not all that great though.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tag This 02/19/2008 @ 04:19:28 PM
Mike's Smokehouse sucks. I mean, it's just not good food.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 02/20/2008 @ 07:59:08 AM
At the risk of sounding like a bad poet or something, I do want to mention one thing. I thought the experience of voting Tuesday was given extra significance, as it occurred the same day that I learned Fidel Castro announced he would be retiring from his post as Cuba's leader. I was reminded again of how blessed we are to live in a country where I could go to a polling place and take a real part in choosing a leader. Without fear. From a list of multiple candidates. And I'm reminded of how our country has been blessed to have peaceful transfers of power according to who was elected by the people. And not just once every 49 years. I'm no expert on Cuba, but I feel comfortable in concluding that freedom, in its many forms, isn't something that flourishes there. Our country isn't perfect, but we've got so much going for us and it's good to be reminded of that. It felt good to experience that freedom and to be a participant in the process.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this 2 times, last at 02/20/2008 8:03:54 am

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 02/20/2008 @ 09:47:52 AM
Jon Wrote - 02/20/2008 @ 07:59:08 AM Our country isn't perfect What an unpatriotic post. Edit: Also, here's a picture we took of the line after we were in it for 30 mins or so. [Click to Enlarge]		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 02/20/2008 9:52:19 am

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 02/20/2008 @ 10:00:59 AM
for which event is that, Obama? and is that Campus?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/20/2008 @ 10:07:19 AM
Yes		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Wendy - 163 Posts 02/20/2008 @ 02:32:13 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 02/19/2008 @ 04:19:28 PM Mike's Smokehouse sucks. I mean, it's just not good food. That is just not true		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Wendy - 163 Posts 02/20/2008 @ 02:36:16 PM
Here's an interesting piece of info we just discovered from yesterday's primaries These are the election results from Wisconsin, 100% precincts reporting: President Dem - Primary 3,570 of 3,570 precincts - 100 percent x-Barack Obama 646,007 - 58 percent Hillary Clinton 452,795 - 41 percent John Edwards 6,673 - 1 percent Dennis Kucinich 2,644 - 0 percent Uninstructed 859 - 0 percent Joe Biden 756 - 0 percent Bill Richardson 535 - 0 percent Mike Gravel 518 - 0 percent Chris Dodd 498 - 0 percent President GOP - Primary 3,570 of 3,570 precincts - 100 percent x-John McCain 224,226 - 55 percent Mike Huckabee 151,201 - 37 percent Ron Paul 19,210 - 5 percent Mitt Romney 8,082 - 2 percent Fred Thompson 2,705 - 1 percent Rudy Giuliani 2,087 - 1 percent Uninstructed 849 - 0 percent Duncan Hunter 799 - 0 percent Tom Tancredo 187 - 0 percent I am flabbergasted at the sheer number of people who went to the polls and thought to themselves "I am torn on who to vote for today. Mike Gravel? Or Chris Dodd." More than TWO-THOUSAND PEOPLE voted for Fred Thompson and for Dennis Kucinich!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 02/20/2008 @ 02:43:58 PM
I voted for Micah, but that wasn't worth a mention. Talk about biased! Good info Wendy, what are you, a reporter for cryin out loud?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 02/20/2008 @ 02:54:43 PM
Wendy Wrote - 02/20/2008 @ 02:36:16 PM I know, in hindsight it makes sense, but I was sort of surprised when I even saw all those names on the ballot. I mean, they don't total much percentage wise, but 27,192 people made a conscious decision to go out in the cold to vote for someone who had officially dropped out. That's not even counting nearly 20 thousand more who voted for Ron Paul, who clearly has no shot. Indeed, the mind does wobble. Edit: I mean, what would you have expected Kucinich to get even if he was still in it? 3000? 4000? Edit 2: He got 3,919 votes in New Hampshire.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 02/20/2008 3:05:40 pm

	Wendy - 163 Posts 02/20/2008 @ 03:06:54 PM
I guess they were on the ballot because you have to pay to get your name taken off, so all the candidates who dropped out early, either didn't want to write the check, or they just didn't bother. Which lead to nearly 50,000 stupid people wasting their votes. Voting is a privilege, and you can certainly vote for whomever you want, but I would love to know who picked the already-out-candidates out of stupidity, and who did it out of protest.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Wendy 02/20/2008 @ 03:10:31 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/20/2008 @ 02:54:43 PM Wendy Wrote - 02/20/2008 @ 02:36:16 PM Edit: I mean, what would you have expected Kucinich to get even if he was still in it? 3000? 4000? If Wisconsin had an earlier primary or I wasn't so attached to the candidate I did vote for, I might have voted for Kucinich because he's a nice little man. In '04, when I was working as an intern for WI Public Television, we gathered the Democrats together for a debate in Milwaukee, and as I was walking ol' DK into the studio, I almost tripped on a cord hidden under a rug. But he saved the day by grabbing my arm and warning me of my impending doom. I thought that was very gentlemanly. Not that that says anything about his ability to lead the country. But it is just the primaries after all.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/20/2008 @ 03:15:56 PM
Sometimes in MVP voting when a certain candidate has it wrapped up people give out feel good votes as a "nod" to other players. Maybe that's what some Republicans were doing. There are lots of them who don't like McCain, but then Huckabee is the obvious choice. Maybe people are just stupid. I do like Kucinich, somehow he's been labeled a wackjob even though he has very pragmatic views, at least from what I can remember. He'll never be the president though. Did you get to see his wife? Edit: Is it possible people are trying to denote who they'd like to see as a VP?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 02/20/2008 3:33:46 pm

	Micah - Bring down the Beast!!! 02/20/2008 @ 07:21:45 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 02/20/2008 @ 02:43:58 PM I voted for Micah, but that wasn't worth a mention. Talk about biased! Good info Wendy, what are you, a reporter for cryin out loud? Thank you for your support....497 more and I am in Chris Dodd territory Jeremy Wrote - 02/20/2008 @ 02:54:43 PM Wendy Wrote - 02/20/2008 @ 02:36:16 PM I mean, they don't total much percentage wise, but 27,192 people made a conscious decision to go out in the cold to vote for someone who had officially dropped out. That's not even counting nearly 20 thousand more who voted for Ron Paul, who clearly has no shot. But Ron Paul wins the "Almost as much fun as watching him debate as Al Sharpton when he runs for president" award. Jeremy Wrote - 02/20/2008 @ 03:15:56 PM Sometimes in MVP voting when a certain candidate has it wrapped up people give out feel good votes as a "nod" to other players. Maybe that's what some Republicans were doing. There are lots of them who don't like McCain, but then Huckabee is the obvious choice. Maybe people are just stupid. I do like Kucinich, somehow he's been labeled a wackjob even though he has very pragmatic views, at least from what I can remember. He'll never be the president though. Did you get to see his wife? Edit: Is it possible people are trying to denote who they'd like to see as a VP? I am assuming that is a "Did you see Tiger Woods' wife?" type comment and not a "Did you see Kurt Warner's wife?" comment or even a "Did you see Jason Kidd's wife kicking his ass?" comment		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 02/20/2008 @ 07:41:53 PM
It was a "for a freaky elf like dude he bagged a pretty hot wife", comment. [Click to Enlarge]		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 02/20/2008 @ 08:15:44 PM
Sorry, Jerm, (and no offense to him or her...) but he can keep her.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 02/20/2008 @ 08:27:32 PM
Here's a thought. "Everyone" hates the BCS. The way the candidates are selected reminds me a lot of the BCS, except worse.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 02/20/2008 @ 08:59:22 PM
Except that millions of people vote on the candidates and only like handful of people vote in the BCS. I do kind of think the idea of a closed primary or a caucaus is sort of unfair. I understand that if you are a registered republican you should be bound to vote for the republican candidate, and the same goes for registered democrats. But why do registered independents (like myself) get excluded from the primary process? Does this seem a little bit unconstitutional? Because I have the gumption to register as an "I'll vote for the best candidate regardless of party" voter, I get pushed aside in a state like Florida where there is a closed primary. All I got to vote on on election day was some property tax amendment that may indeed be judged as unconstitutional anyway. I was going to vote for McCain (the dems had their delegates stripped in Florida) because I thought he was the best candidate. I didn't get to have my voice heard, and it kind of upset me.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/20/2008 @ 09:03:41 PM
You know you can vote for the best candidate and not declare anything, right? Independent is an actual party.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 02/20/2008 @ 10:52:09 PM
I meant more like there's a system in place that limits the eventual "championship" matchup and not everyone really gets a say as to who ends up in that matchup. The Republican race was basically over after Super Tuesday, so anyone that hadn't voted by then didn't really get the same opportunity as those that had voted. People can still vote for Romney, but according to previous posts here that amounts to stupidity at this point in the game. McCain was pretty much toast a while back, but then early primary victories catapulted him up. What if the states went in a totally different order? Maybe McCain would've been the first one to drop out. So, yes more people are getting their votes counted than in the BCS, but the selection process of whose votes really matter is even more arbitrary than the BCS. I'm far from an expert here, but I don't think primaries and such are in the constitution at all. Official Party Candidate isn't really an elected position and further I don't think the constitution was necessarily written with the fairly strict 2 party system that has evolved in mind.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 02/21/2008 @ 02:45:45 AM
I don't really think it's all that odd to vote for one of the other candidates. I wouldn't call it a waste. Especially since this is a primary. I mean, if you don't like the person or people who are the frontrunners, why not vote for someone who you do believe in? It's not going to have the same kind of effect that a third party vote would in the general election (if you believe in that kind of negative effect theory). Anyway, there are lots of ways to view your part in any election, some people go with levels of strategy on top of strategy where you consider how everyone else is going to vote and all that. And some people just choose who they think is the best, and some, if not most, are in the middle. I kind of think (again, especially in a primary situation) that there's some validity to a lot of the perspectives. I mean, on the republican side, it's all but sewn up for McCain, so you could push him over the top to be sure and shore it up for the general election. Or you can say that the fact that it IS decided provides the perfect time to make a statement about who you would really prefer. As Jeremy noted, some might feel it could play into vp selections. Also, candidates like Dennis Kucinich, and possibly even more so, Ron Paul, are all about holding to principles despite the unpopularity or apparent futility of them. People who went out to vote for them would likely say it would be more of a wasted vote to select one of the mainstream guys who doesn't hold to the principles they find important. And I can't say I entirely disagree with them. Plus, maybe people took it to heart when Hillary told them experience was the factor to vote on so they voted for Richardson, Biden or Dodd. Seriously though, I can see how someone wouldn't feel comfortable voting for either of the major candidates on the democratic side too. So, yeah they could stay home and save themselves the 10 minutes (for lots it's probably more, but that's about all it took me and likely many others) or they could spend the time and do something they believe is important and vote for someone who they think is great like Biden. I dunno, I mean I guess if you really value your free time it could be considered a waste. Anyway, my little diatribe here probably makes it seem like I voted for one of the "other" people. Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't. Ok, I'll tell you. I voted for Raul Castro. I love me a frontrunner.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 02/21/2008 2:54:52 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 02/21/2008 @ 07:30:30 AM
Well, I'm registered as "no party affiliation".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 02/21/2008 @ 01:26:35 PM
I agree with Jon's thoughts mostly and to take it a step further, I wish the "other" candidates that have dropped out wouldn't have. Why not take the whole thing down to the wire at the conventions? It seems like the reason that is given is so that "the party can rally behind their candidate and get started on the national campaign". To me, half this reason is just plain smoke and mirrors and some people actually drop out just to try and save face (and/or money, but they could say they are still in the running and not necessarily campaign anymore). The rest of the reason seems to be based in 1840 when it probably did take a lot time to mobilize and galvanize the party. It's 2008. News is pratically reported before it even happens. If the party races went down to the convention, everyone who cares will be able to quickly find out who won for both parties and there will still be plenty of time left after that for the chosen candidates to try and bring down their opponent.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 02/21/2008 @ 02:59:16 PM
Isn't that really semantics? Would the percentage of votes really shoot up for a candidate who stopped trying but didn't technically withdraw? It's winner take all on the Republican side anyway. Not to mention, those still ARE votes for a person, even if they have dropped out. If Mitt Romney went on a winning streak after he dropped out you don't think he'd hop right back in? The "rally behind their candidate" BS is just so they don't have to say "I'm getting my ass handed to me, and this just isn't worth the effort or getting my hopes up anymore." I don't really care how the parties do their primaries. When it matters you don't HAVE to vote for either of the two winners. The real concern is that it would be nice to have more than two viable candidates for president when the primaries are all over with.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/22/2008 @ 09:39:14 AM
Eau Claire Results By Ward Sarah and I live in 23. Interesting. Huckabee DESTROYED McCain in Eau Claire.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 02/22/2008 9:40:14 am

	Carlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." 02/22/2008 @ 10:45:24 AM
Wonder why- do you think it has something to do with how religious Eau Claire is, or is it something else?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 02/22/2008 @ 11:05:49 AM
Huckabee came and spoke at the University on Monday, and it was shown live on the local channels. Since the nomination is pretty much wrapped up for McCain, I think a lot of people decided to show their appreciation of his appearence, and voted for him.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 02/22/2008 @ 11:58:28 AM
Yeah, though I don't know if it's out of "appreciation" so much as it might show the "power" of hitting up a town in person. There were only a handful of wards that McCain won. Side note: Is it a law congress passed that every government website has to be a pile of ugly, disorganized, crap?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 02/22/2008 @ 04:04:56 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/22/2008 @ 11:58:28 AM Is it a law congress passed that every government website has to be a pile of ugly, disorganized, crap? Well, not everyone can afford Webteam.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Micah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons 02/23/2008 @ 07:39:42 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/22/2008 @ 09:39:14 AM Eau Claire Results By Ward Sarah and I live in 23. Interesting. Huckabee DESTROYED McCain in Eau Claire. Carl I am going to find the district results for where you live and there had better be a write-in vote there, or you lied to me. Huckabee winning EC doesn't surprise me at all		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tag This 02/23/2008 @ 10:10:09 PM
Do you know where I live? Go ahead and try...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 02/24/2008 @ 10:46:22 AM
So, someone tell me something about NAFTA. There's an outcry about somethings Obama has said about Hillary's views towards NAFTA, but like many people, I don't know much about it other than what it stands for. Anyone care to put NAFTA in regular person terms?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 02/24/2008 @ 04:05:46 PM
NAFTA is an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. which eliminated many tariffs and trade restrictions between the three countries (as always, I say check Wikipedia for more details). While I don't know enough to comment on the effectiveness of the deal, most economists, I believe, would say that free trade is, on the whole, beneficial to all parties involved over the long run. As I understand it, this is because it allows for better specialization and easier trade for goods in which each country has a comparative advantage in producing (i.e. everyone makes what they're good at and then trades the surplus for what they need). Of course this is theory, not practice. There may be (and probably are) details of NAFTA that make it so it doesn't quite work out this way, but again, I would say that the mainstream economic consensus is that the more free trade, the better.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this 2 times, last at 02/24/2008 6:13:57 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/24/2008 @ 11:53:14 PM
The reason it's not popular among working-class-folk is because the lack of tariffs makes it that much more financially sound to take your manufacturing jobs to Mexico. Though it may indeed be for the greater good, that doesn't give much solace to Johnny AssemblyLineWorker. Though that's a can of worms for a different time.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.