The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes

[ristin]

The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/the-week-that-should-have_b_111983.html
This is the week that should have effectively ended John McCain's efforts to become the next president of the United States. But you wouldn't know it if you watched any of the mainstream media outlets or followed political reporting in the major newspapers.

During this past week: McCain called the most important entitlement program in the U.S. a disgrace, his top economic adviser called the American people whiners, McCain released an economic plan that no one thought was serious, he flip flopped on Iraq, joked about the deaths of Iranian citizens, and denied making comments that he clearly made -- TWICE. All this and it is not even Friday! Yet watching and reading the mainstream press you would think McCain was having a pretty decent political week, I mean at least Jesse Jackson didn't say anything about him.

But let's unpack McCain's week in a little more detail.
(more in the article)


An interesting run down of the free pass McCain has been getting with the mainstream media in the US. Compare that to the constant scrutiny and accusations leveled at Obama (and any non-Republican candidate), right down to micro-analysis of Obama's bodylanguage and the way he did a pound (aka "terrorist fist jab") with his wife...yeah...this bias and one-sidedness is why people don't buy it when someone says America has a 'liberal media'.

Comments

[gsfuchs.livejournal.com]

Ohh it is very much a "liberal media", its just owned by the curent administartion.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

The current conservative administration?

[gsfuchs.livejournal.com]

yes, Bush had the begining of Impeachment placed agenst him but few americans knew about it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061003087.html

plus all the adds and whatnot showing what a thret iraq was before we invaded to get the publics sway.

Its realy a ill let you run around and be happy liberals but i need you to do a few things for me

[ristin.livejournal.com]

I find the American media portrays the Republican interests (gods, guns, gays) in a conservative way. They portray the Republicans favorite scapegoat groups the way the conservatives want them portrayed (gays as promiscuous girlie STD spreaders, blacks as criminals and gang members, each and every Hispanic person as an illegal immigrant, abortionists as evil murderers, Christianity as the state religion and under attack by other faiths, unions as corrupt and unnecessary, and so on). Democrats and liberals are deionized and the conservatives are portrayed as heroes...

...so when people claim it's a liberal media I want to know "what part is liberal?" I suppose the fact Will and Grace isn't censored for having openly homosexual characters makes American media liberal?

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

To say that America has a "liberal media", or to deny it, is missing the big picture. Both ways.

America has a media that likes to make a story, even when there is none. To this end, they usually report in such a way as to undermine whoever is on top, and they back the underdog. When Bush was comfortably in power, and both of the other two branches were Republican too, you bet there was a liberal media. When Obama was behind Clinton, they gave Obama a free ride. Now that the scene is entirely different, and Obama's clearly ahead of McCain, they preferentially bash Obama.

It's they way they do business and attract viewership and readership. Not too many people would spend time watching or reading something that systematically tears apart someone who is losing or has no power anyway, but throw rocks at whoever is on top and you attract everyone's attention. The problem occurs when this influences the outcome of the race - it pressures it towards 50/50.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

I do disagree, I think what you say is true only for spplicable targets, but that the Republicans are clearly sacrosanct. They weren't attacking any of the republican candidates during the republican primaries, and aren't attacking McCain now. But the Democrats have been fair game the whole time.

Or in other words they are cutting down the tall poppies to make a story, but only the tall poppies that aren't Republicans (or other conservatives, for example Limbaugh).

It looks a lot more like they are part of McCain's campaign, hushing up his bad moves and doing their level best (including misinform) to make the leading Democrat candidate look bad.


Anyway across the board the media is conservative, not liberal. Coverage of all sorts of social issues are conservative-biased...at least it looks that way to me.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

They weren't attacking any of the republican candidates during the republican primaries

Well, why bother, when it is nowhere near 50/50?
And besides, no matter who it was was initially perceived as destined to lose to an "unnamed Democratic candidate", so the principle of not attacking the loser still does come into play in a more forwarding looking sense.

The situation was reversed in 2000, but had the same underlying motives on the part of the media, when there was considerable media favouritism to McCain (then the underdog, and close enough to seriously threaten Bush for a time) while there very little favouritism or bias shown in the Democratic contest.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

There are significant differences. McCain's voting record shows he sided with the neocon agenda every time he voted...but more telling is his lackluster attendance for votes. That spells "figurehead" to me. The man opposes civil liberties and favors war over diplomacy.

Obama isn't perfect but he is significantly better than the alternative. And if there were a better choice who actually stood a chance of winning then obviously they would have my support.

And that's important, a chance of winning. People need to deal with the system that exists, and if that's a two party system then no amount of third-party options means a damn.

You should try not to fall into the "default to McCain" camp, seeing one slight flaw in the opposition meaning suddenly they are unacceptable so McCain gets a free pass. The news is full of real and fantasy accusations against Obama (just like it was for Hillary when she was the Democrat front runner), and the expectation that people will find Obama imperfect and not vote for him. Somehow McCain gets zero scrutiny the whole time...he wouldn't last a day under the same spotlight his opposition are subjected to.

At worst Obama is the lesser of two evils. He may not be a shining paladin or pure righteousness but that doesn't mean people should let McCain walk it in unopposed. There's no doubt McCain is the worst choice, and will be very destructive to America, which is already weakened and wounded by two Republican terms.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

The bipartisan system is what is in place. It sucks but we have to deal with reality. If I could choose the political system I would not choose that, and it is bad in more countries than just America (Australia for instance).

Sure neither is perfect but I would accept Obama over McCain.

As to the lack of difference you cite, first off don't buy into the misinformation and secondly someone actively campaigning for those things you disapprove of is worse than someone who the media claim supports those things. For example with the Iraq war the difference is McCain wants to stay and Obama wants to withdraw but not throw Iraq into chaos doing so. So I see a huge difference between an indefinite occupation and a carefully organized withdrawal.

And when have I ever supported McCain? Everything he stands for, much like Obama, goes against everything I believe in.
Because you turn a blind eye to McCain and let him go un-scrutinized. You perpetuate the 'free pass for McCain' mentality that could end up getting McCain elected while responsible voters are split between the better alternatives.
If you want to do some good then try spreading the word about each candidate's problems proportionally. If you just say "Obama is no good" it boosts McCain and you'll be another tool of the bipartisan system you (and I) hate.

There are other choices out there, many of them far more in touch with the common American. Revolution now!
How?
Simple question but I haven't seen a solid answer yet. How?
How to organize people? How to select targets? How to force change? How to fight? How to rebuild afterwards? What to rebuild afterwards?

Do you even know what you want in place of what is? What is your better vision? Will the other revolutionaries share your vision? How will you select between all the competing visions?

What are you going to do? How will you organize? Who will you fight? What will you build in place of what is? Where will you get authority (and not just be criminals)? How will a revolution change the way things are run?

The reason there has been no revolution yet is that no-one knows how. All the potential leaders calling "revolution now" don't know what to do or how to do it. No matter how bad things get, there will be no revolution until someone comes up with a plan and starts spreading it and motivating people.

Once again, that is the reality of the situation. Until that changes, revolution is a pipe-dream.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

And you act like revolution must be violent and bloody. Well guess what... it doesn't have to be unless it necessarily needs to be. Revolution can be peaceful. It is not a crime to use the 1st Amendment. Have you even heard of movements such as We Are Change or Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty? Both are just two of many similar movements trying to spread awareness through word of mouth and the written word that we the American people still have many more choices an the power to decide.

Politics is no longer "liberal" vs. "conservative," it is now libertarian vs. authoritarian, and your frame of mind is currently allowing the authoritarians to constantly win.

Wake up. Revolution is not a pipe dream.

That sounds lovely but there is no substance there. The question remains "How", can you answer it?

[ristin.livejournal.com]

No. I read it and (as far as I can determine) it didn't even touch upon how this could be done.

If anything it's less clear, you said revolutions don't have to be bloody. Great. What I was asking for was planning and maybe even some specifics.

You did say this though:
Have you even heard of movements such as We Are Change or Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty? Both are just two of many similar movements trying to spread awareness through word of mouth and the written word that we the American people still have many more choices an the power to decide.
So at least someone is trying to get organized.