Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Dear God let election day be over!

I'll also be going after work. We in America like to think that our system is superior to all others, but the more I hear about other democratic countries, the less I like the way we do it. No bullshit smear ads? A fine if you don't vote? No stupid goddamn electoral college? It's hard not to think that those in power (not just Bush, but ALL the rich old white guys) wouldn't all be much happier if we still had the good old rules--if you're not a white Christian property owner, take off.

I voted at lunch. I'm here in Northern Virginia and all the newsies are reporting heavy voter turnout and two hour waits. Me and my wife were in and out in less than 10 minutes. I don't know what the newsies are talking about.

Thanks Bevis... You saying CNN and other (I'm assuming ABC, NBC, and CBS at this point) news agencies are even handed was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

Don't get me started on CNN... they are very biased towards the left. Anybody who says different, probably isn't interested in hearing both sides anyway. If I do watch the news, it's usually Good Morning America on ABC. I haven't watched Fox news with any regularity, but I will say that they live up to fair and balanced better than CNN or any of the big three networks.

Really if Fox were so enamored with conservative reporting, there is no way they'd have Alan Colmes on every night debating the liberal side on a show he co-hosts. Can you name one conservative debater that CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC put on every night with their own show?

I've listened to all sides in this country for awhile. I used to listen to Rush, but grew tired of his high falootin' attitude. I used to listen to Alan Colmes when he was on the radio back in the early nineties and his radio graphitti segments. I've never really listened to Hannity's radio show. I listen to G Gordon about once a month these days, but that's mainly because I'm an old military dog myself. I'm telling you this so you don't just say, "He's defending Fox News, he must be evil." I've listened to all sides and will continue to do so. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, but don't kid yourself into thinking that CNN and the other three networks are even handed.

Uh, Colmes does not defend the liberal side on that show. He is only there to be Hannity's manufactured and scripted whipping boy. So congratulations. Rupert Murdoch has won again.

I'm not saying the other news networks are evenhanded, but Fox is nothing but thinly-disguised propaganda. After the last debate, they went on for HOURS about Mary Cheney, and how Kerry was such a horrible, horrible man for bringing her sexuality into the debate... the unsaid implication, of course, that being a lesbian is such a horrible, shameful thing.

If FOX news wants to impress upon me their fair, balanced ways, let them give Al Franken a 2-hour show on primetime. Then we'll see. Colmes is NOT evidence of evenhanded journalism. He's a placebo, manufactured to make people feel better about themselves as they absorb Fox's right-wing-rhetoric-as-actual-news.

I hate Fox News more than Go-Bots.

Wow! Now those are some pretty strong wrods coming from you.

I have to agree with you on this Prime. How about the time Ann Coutler was on the Today Show to promote her first book where she called Couric the liberals Eva Braun? I happened to be scanning the news channels that day and saw Coutler being "interviewd" on FOX news about an hour after the today show interview. What did they talk about? Was it some important news topic for the day? Was it the book? Was it the interview that Coutler had just finished on NBC?

No, it was about what Couric was wearing!

Whatever Fox News. What don't you make another montage of night time bombings aganist Irag and put some classical music behind so we can all have fun watching it!

all of the Big Nedia are corporate puppets -- thinly coated with 'flavoring' to be painted in degrees of 'liberal'.

I have never seen any newscast in the US that doesn't cowtow to the established power structure to some degree--- a true opposing view is ALWAYS lacking.

You and I will never agree on this point. I may not agree with Mr. Colmes too often, but I give him a little more credit than just being Hannity's side kick and/or whipping boy.

Not only does Colmes defend the liberal side, he has been a long standing champion. The fact remains that he is on Fox every night with his own show and the freedom to talk about what he wants to talk about... and that message is pro-liberal and anti-conservative. I still can't think of a pro conservative that is on air every night with his own show on the other networks. Al Franken could get a 2 hour show on any of the other networks, any night of the week and twice on Sundays. Quite frankly I think he'd have a better chance of getting a show on Fox than G. Gordon would have of getting his own show on CNN or NBC or the likes.

Fox is more fair and balanced than CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. That doesn't take much and it doesn't mean that they are completely fair and balanced either.

It is important to have both sides represented through mass media. Whether you like it or not and whether I like it or not, the people of this country are better off hearing both sides than what passed for media coverage for darn near forty years in this country. From the 1950's to the early 1990's the mass media reported regularly how evil conservatives wanted to starve children and make the elderly sick. That is patently ridiculous and I am glad that they can not get away with that type of "reporting" anymore without being called on it.

I went to the polling place at 6:40 do be early in line, only to find out that the custodian of the building hadn't shown up, so even the volunteers working the polls weren't able to get in. Finally, another guy showed up at 7:15 to open the doors, and we still had to wait another 30 minutes for them to get set up. Most everyone stayed in good spirits, even though it was raining...of course, there were some conspiracy theories going around, since we're a mostly Kerry neighborhood...LOL!

Heh heh heh. OK, now it's my time to snigger. Do you *really* believe that? OK, so the other stations do have a more liberal bias from what I saw (and bear in mind that on satellite TV here the only American news channels we have are Fox and CNN so I only have a very little experience of the other networks) but Fox being more balanced and fair? That's just one of the biggest jokes I've ever heard. However as RTVU2 says, it's more about the fact that they claim to be so unbiased while being so blatantly for one side that bugs me. They may have liberal viewpoints but while we were there they pretty much completely ignored the whole thing about the missing explosives in Iraq (regardless of whose fault that was, and most of the other networks were also questioning Kerry's glee at that piece of news) and were still banging on about Kerry and Cheney's daughter as if he'd actually said something awful (and again as has been said the implication not being that it was really awful that Kerry was vicously attacking Cheney's family but how awful it was for him to actually remind everyone of Cheney's shameful daughter).

It's something we'll probably have to agree to disagree on, but it just makes me laugh how pitiful Fox news is. Not just in the election though, generally too. One of the most piss poor news channels I have ever seen. But then again it's owned and ruled over with an insane iron rod by Murdoch, one of the most disturbing and disturbed men to ever get a grip on the media system. (Excuse me, I'm going off on one again. I'll shush now.)

Jack

Minesurfer, I guess it is all about degrees. I would have to say CNN is fairly liberal-when compared to FOX News. But then you can say Fox News is fairly conservative compared to CNN. Two sides of the same coin. I think both points of view are valid and that we need both points of views out there so everyone can make their choice. So we can agree on that point.

My problem goes to the Fox slogan of being fair and balanced. Because I don't think they are. Fox seems to actively support Bush and actively dismiss any stories that come against him or the Iraq War. They seem to want to discredit Democrats and attack others that aren't pro-government. All their news story about any item that is not favorable to bush or his policies seem to have a tinge of doubt in their readings and that they aren't willing to explore the validity of the stories at all.

It's that slogan that gets me every time. I have no problem with FOX coming down on any liberal (which they happen to do a lot), but to say that it is fair and balance is subjective and inaccurate. No news station can be fair and balanced, as hard as they try to be. Every station is going to have some inherent bias –left or right. But for FOX news to say that they are fair and balance is what irks me.

And the funny thing about Colmes—I always thought he was fairly conservative.

Oh, gawd. I forgot to add that the local NBC channel was filming all of us locked out of the voting place, and a friend just emailed me that he saw me on TV. Eeeeek!

Is Tennessee goign to replace Florida this year?

It totally wouldn't surprise me, RTVU2. It's been ugly here...in my neighborhood alone, someone went around spray painting swastikas on the Bush signs in people's yards. Not that I like Bush AT ALL, but that's still not cool.

Minesurfer, Colmes does NOT have his own show. It's Hannity's show. Colmes draws a paycheck to present a milquetoast somewhat-moderate view which Hannity can easily torch without much thought or effort. The entire show is designed to make liberals (or anyone who doesn't share Hannity's views) look foolish.

Don't even get me started on Ann Coulter.

You have the right to your opinions regarding Fox News, but I'm not going to sit here and let blanket statements about how Fox News is more fair and balanced than other news organizations go while they continue to employ people like Hannity and Coulter on their shows, people who have made it their life's goal to tear down and destroy the way I wish to live my life, and the love I share with my partner Lee. I truly am sorry I have to disagree with you so vehemently, but I am not going to let people like Coulter and Hannity have one inch, and I will do everything I can to prevent them from influencing the naive. I speak out against Fox News on a regular basis whenever I see it playing at any bar or on any Tv, really. These people are not going to destroy my chance to live my life.

Hey Jack, same here in Austin to a lesser extant. Someone put Liar on all the Bush sign in my hood. Funny thing to share. My neighbors have a Kerry/edwards sign in their yard. Well, some one kept stealing it for some reason. So the guy jury rigged an alarm to go off if someone else took it. Well it went off and he ran outside to see two 12 year olds trying to make off wiht the sign. If it was just something for fun or they really hate Kerry, we will never know.

Go for it Prime! I am right behind yeah!

The reason that that is such a big deal is that for the longest time in this country, it was understood that one candidate did not bring the other candidate's family into the campaign process. Sort of an "honor among theives" type of thing. Sure sling mud about the candidate, but it was just understood that it was crossing a line to talk about the other candidate's family. Times are a changin'.

Why is Kerry bringing up the daughter in the first place? There are many skeletons in the Kerry closet too, but I don't hear Bush and Cheney bringing up Kerry's first marriage. It really is a big deal that Kerry brought up the family, and Fox should be commended for commenting on it. Can't say that I've seen that on the other channels.

Illegal immigration in this country is something that Bush was getting bashed for alot a few years back. Fox News' morning team and O'Reilly were hyper-critical of Bush at that time. Somehow that issue went away, even with the other news networks as well. Hannity was very critical of Bush on that subject too.

As for the missing explosives, it has been reported (story) that it was pretty much a non story that Kerry would have been better suited to have received all of the facts before speaking. They could not confirm that the explosives were actually there when the American Military Demo Unit arrived. Kerry claims that it was looted after the military arrived, but can't prove it. I know the source is the "conservative" Washington Times, but they do quote sources from the Kerry campaign, so it at least looks like they did their homework and got the facts. Seems to me like restraint on reporting about the "looted" explosives was well justified on Fox's part.

RTVU2: My turn to chuckle again. Colmes conservative? Not in the least... I've been listening to that man since he was shilling to get Clinton elected the first time. The man is basically James Carville with hair and glasses. They always seem to be saying the same thing. You wouldn't call Carville conservative would you?

You know for a country which in so many other ways can be a standard bearer for democracy and the right to speak your mind, if that staement is true it is very sad.

Even the BBC, which in many respects is part of the established power structure, can and does feel free to report opposing views. to the extent that the Goverment makes huge attacks on it and its directors

Having just read about that dutch film maker who was murdered after reciving death threats because he made a film about violence against muslim women I do start to wonder just how much freedom of speech is left in the world nowadays?

I had expected things to be a little worse than they were when I went to the polls today. I see RTVU2 mentioned it, and I can confirm that people around here are getting a little insane. I've heard all kinds of things from both sides. One of my classes has a very political-minded professor and all semester, it seems like every third lecture just ends up being students and the prof all yelling at each other over Bush.

Yesterday I was rather nervous and twitchy, but now I feel... oddly relaxed. But I wouldn't be surprised if we hear about polls getting torched or attacked before the election's over.

I brought my stuffed Krypto with me to the polls for good luck.

Minesurfer,

Maybe Kerry bringing up Cheney's daughter is to expose the hypocrisy of the Bush Government. Bush has come and said that he wants a constitutional admenendt to ban same sex marriages and define marriage as only being between a man and women. Yet we have Cheney whose daughter is gay and has said quietly that he supports marriage for everyone. How can you say something just to appease a certain part of the population (in this case the religious right) while alienating another? Especially one that you know? It's like biting the hand that feeds you.

You said this earlier and I have to agree with you that we are never going to agree on this topic or our views. You are firmly behind your side and I am firmly behind my side. And that is another thing old George has done to America. Driven a huge wedge between the American people. Either you love or you hate him. There doesn’t seem to be an in between. I am from Texas and I never voted for Bush when he was Governor and haven't voted for him today.

I don't see anywhere in The Constitution that says the Vice President has to believe what the President believes. I don't see how two grown men differing on beliefs equates to hypocrisy in the government. That is a tremendous leap of logic. Even so, Kerry is the last man to point out hypocrisy... look at his military record. Look at his first marriage.

Talk about driving a wedge between America... George Bush could not have done that alone. It's the nature of the two party political system. Equal blame goes to Republicans and Democrats alike. I can expound on that, but I don't think it's necessary. Look I'm not here to try and change your views, I'm interested in the truth. The truth is that all politicians lie. It's up to us to decide who's lies we like better.

Prime:

I know you feel strongly about this topic, but the facts remain undisputable. Colmes does have a show on Fox. He is the co-host. His name is in the title. He is liberally biased on what many here believe to be a "conservative" news network. The other facts are that the liberally biased news networks do not give equal time to a conservative host. These are all facts. If Colmes ends up looking "foolish" then he should prepare better debates. I've listened to him for over 10 years now, he is an intelligent man.

I'm not here to contend that Fox is fair and unbiased. I do contend that they are more fair and less biased than CNN and the other big three. When I start hearing conservatives spouting off their nightly rhetoric on their own shows on one of those networks, then I'll review my conclusions.

Well, part of the problem is our election laws... towards the end of the elections, ads by non-candidates aren't allowed to include a call to action (i.e., "Vote for X" or "Don't vote for Y") so they usually have to say bad thing about the candidate they oppose. (I think they also can't talk about candidates at all in the last two weeks, at which point it all becomes about issues, a topic which seems to go negative in most cases.)

It's hard for me to write about negative campaigning in 2004 without linking to Joshua Green\'s profile of Bush\'s campaign manager, Karl Rove . I found the portrait rather fascinating and infuriating at the same time. Rove probably has succeeded most at negative campaigning, but so many strategists succeed this way. I wish the people in power had more incentive to fix this.

Unfortunately, negative advertising often discourages people from voting (because they think 'what's the point if both options are bad', which ends up supporting incumbents, making it an easier process to turn to. Grey Davis relied on this when he was re-elected as Cali governor... then it backfired because a low voter turnout made it easier to get the recall qualified.

I'm sad that since I'm no longer a San Franciscan I can't participate in their first attempt with Instant Runoff Voting. IRV is a system that has voters picking their first, second and third choice, eliminating the need for runoff elections (unless odds go badly). Because a negative campaign can hurt more than help in that system (since the "where else are you going to go" factor is eliminated) it supposedly makes a better campaign. I hear the city elections have been much calmer, tho some of the business advocacy groups were playing the old game, not having any goal other than defeating certain incumbents.

I certainly hope the first IRV election goes well so that it spreads to other places.

It's not stupid, really. but lazy.

I'll be honest, I was there myself until two years ago. Perhaps it's what we should expect but we've gotten to accept that everything we hear in the news is true. There is a lot of noise... sometimes the cable news channels are wall-to-wall people yelling at each other... it's easy to hear all that yelling and take a side instead of evaluating what people say.

That's one thing I really like about talk radio host Randi Rhodes. She emphasizes primary-source research a lot and makes it seem less intimidating. I don't like it when she's yelling at a caller but I just love her when she reacts to a call by doing some on-air research.

Between Rhodes and some of the poli-bloggers, I've learned to research quotes that get passed around (I'm quick to agree that some of those Bushisms are only funny when presented out-of-context) to read more articles carefully and research things that sound wrong. Hell, with some of the bloggers out there fact checking becomes a game.

This year I actually gave the text of the ballot initiatives a read. I still relied on endorsements to help me decide my position, but it was interesting to combine the opinions with the source text. I also looked up incumbents' records to see why various advocacy groups liked or didn't like the candidate, instead of letting talking heads tell me what their record is.

Quote

Here in the UK all parties are very closely goverened as to what they can and can't say. The kind of half-turths and negative spin that the US ads are filled with would never be allowed here. Sure you get attacks from all sides about everyone else, but the majority of it is about what said party will actually *do*. It's about information rather than disinformation, which seems to be severely lacking in the US.

I'm curious about the British system... I'm told that Greg Pallast is a more credible journalist because he works in Britan and what he writes falls under a much stricter law than in the United States. I'm told that there isn't a right to free speech there, which makes it easier to make people liable for the truth of what they say, but for an American like me I can't imagine any civilized nation not having free speech. Would you mind clarifying this for me Bevis?

As a side note, I’ve been regularly visiting factcheck.org forever, they’re a good guide for how to research things. They give me a lot of leads.

Quote

All that being said I do hope as many people as possible vote. Regardless of whether you are one of the groups that has been completely ignored by both parties (gay, black, women, working class, poor... uh, everyone apart from middle to upper class white men really. ) it's your chance to make a difference. Personally I want to see the back of Bush as soon as possible (not that Kerry is exactly an angel mind...) but as long as you vote you're doing your bit.

There's been a lot of discussion of if voting is a right or a privilege, lately and I've realized that I don't think of it as either... I kinda see it as a duty. I've felt that way since before my first election, even if I've had periods when I've been more lax in my duties. I mean, being vigilant and knowing what your elected officials are up to and voting based on that information seems a small price to pay for freedom and democracy.

Quote

Oh, and one more thing about political coverage in the US, does anyone actually believe Fox News? I've never seen such a pile of partisan drivel from a supposedly impartial news station before. Most of the others (CNN and so on, including the smaller local stations) were pretty much even and seemed to be reporting the facts fairly evenly but Fox should really have just sat there and said 'yeah, OK, we're part of the BUsh campaign, live with it' and at least then everyone would know where they stand.

Personally, I've become pretty frustrated with most news media sources, save NPR. Last August, the Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland where people were asked a quiz on the Iraq war and analyzed where the respondents got their news. Fox News viewers were the most likely to answer questions wrong, and this was the most reported part of the study. However, the supposedly liberally biased CBS came in second for misinformed viewers, with NBC, ABC and CNN falling not far behind. NPR/PBS audiences did best by answering questions correctly by a pretty far margins.

Pretty much all of them have failed in performing the due diligence the media is supposed to provide. Why is Jon Stewart the only person on TV pointing out the contradictory statements of the Bush administration? “But yesterday you said…” should be a question that’s being asked by journalists and not a joke of comedians.

I voted this morning too. I'm having some connection problems so I didn't get to "sign in" earlier.
"All politics is local"
- Tip O'Neil -

Issues that affect you (a general "you") closely and intimately may not be the same things that affect me that way.

I stated my view on marginalizing the gay population of the US and I stand by it.

btw- the entire drummed up controversy just makes ME wonder what right states have in legitimizing marriage at all. It's none of their damned business who I choose to live with.

-also-
Families have ALWAYS been part of American politics during my lifetime. Ever heard of Billy Carter or Eleanor Roosevelt?

And Jackie O. and Clinton's brother, or Chelsea or Hillary, or Barbara, or Nancy and on and on. That's not what I said.

I didn't say that family isn't part of politics. I said that it is traditionally understood that "family" is off limits between the candidates during the campaign process.

When you say fox is fairer and less bias then CNN is it because of what you already personally believe? If you are already thinking that CNN and the other news outlets are liberal, then of course FOX is what you would want to watch. Fox is presenting the news to people who do feel that the "liberal" media is running rampant.

But what is so wrong about questioning our leaders? What is so wrong about want to know the truth? What is so wrong about questioning the motives of our leader’s actions? Is any of that wrong? Isn't it our duty to question our leaders? Isn't that is why we have a system of checks and balances? That is what the media is supposed to do.

But then again it does come out to what lies we want to believe in. You have chosen FOX while I have not.

And I am sorry, but GW has been the catalyst that his driven a wedge in the American people. His stance on Iraq has polarized the nation. I have not meet one person who has come out and say they don't care about this election. Or that they are blah on Bush. Either you love him or you hate him. And he is then one who did it. He is the one ultimately (but we can also debate that) decided to invade Iraq and his government’s shortsighted view on how the invasion would pan out.

That's not it at all. I've tried to be very clear. I say Fox is less biased and thereby more fair because they make an attempt to get both sides of the story out. The other networks don't give equal time to conservative views. Those are facts. I'm being as objective as possible here. For instance, when Reagan was in office all the press (Fox and conservative talk radio was not around at the time) could talk about was how he didn't care about the homeless. They pasted him day after day. Same with Bush Sr. Once Clinton got into office, the homeless story just went away. The homeless were still there, the story wasn't. That is bias. And besides I told you before, and it's the truth, that I watch GMA on ABC more than any other news show. The other fact is that the "liberal" media did run rampant in this country from the early 50's to the early 90's. There were no mass conservative media outlets during that time.

I don't know where this argument came from. I never said don't question leaders. My entire body of posts on this subject have been about the importance of having both sides shown.

It's not about what lies to believe in... It's about what lies you can live with. Like I said before, I usually don't watch any news agencies these days and when I do, it's GMA on ABC. If I'm in the truck, the news channel I have on is WTOP which is affiliated with one of the big 3 (abc I think). I have not chosen Fox, I have merely pointed out that you guys stated they have a conservative bias, but they still put a liberal view out every night through Colmes. The other networks do not put out conservative views every night.

You and I will probably not see eye to eye on this either, but this country was divided long before Bush got into office. Clinton did as much to polarize this country as Bush did, only he did it before. Carter was fairly polarizing and so was Nixon. You want to blame it on Bush, but the truth is this country was polarized long before he was a "player". He might not have been able to unite the country... I'll give you that, but I don't see anybody on the political scene who has the charisma to pull it off.

Then I guess we are going to have disagree then because while you say that FOX goes out to get a conservative view to make it "fair and balanced" all I see is FOX only presenting the conservative view and not examining all sides of the story. That is fine, but that is not fair and balanced view in my opinion.

And I am sorry if I presumed too much from your earlier posts. That was not my intention.