Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Despite your Palin Derangement Syndrome, the polls clearly showed Palin helped McCain
    with quite a bump after she was selected



    And then down down down down.

     

     



    You can't lay that at Palin's feet.  McCain was a poor choice from the jump. 

    What hurt him the most is his zealotry about supporting TARP.  Obama played that well, hanging back, while McCain went "all in" to bail out the Wall Street Fat cats.  That's what killed him, with his base, and with the independents.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:


    You can't lay that at Palin's feet.  McCain was a poor choice from the jump. 



    Yes, I can. She provided a bump until they put microphones in front of her. Republicans only liked her to the extent that the vapid diahrea she gargled out appeared to annoy Democrats.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     

    Chris Christie's answers every question in some variation of the following:

    "Let me tell you something. I'm from New Jersey. And in New Jersey, we give straight talk. We don't beat around the bush like politicians. I'm a regular guy from New Jersey. I'm not going to give you some soundbite answer. I'm going to tell it like it is. Next question."

    I'm with ACC on this one.  I don't see him getting the nomination. 

     




    I don't know. A politician who seems to genuinely mean everything he says and appears to act on it is likely to be appealing for that reason.

     



    He may be acting on it, but it ain't working.  The NJ unemployment rate is among the worst, he promised to close the deficit - its rising, Big Pharma companies are taking off, tolls have gone up, and he raided the teacher's retirement funds.......oops, he'll score points in the GOP for that.



    Why did he get 60% of the vote, if "it aint working"?

    Even Democrats knew someone had to take on the pinky-ring public unions and their looting of the Treasury. Christie had the guts to do it, and his poll numbers werent too good at the time.

     No doubt many liberals like WDYWN who have faux bipartisanship,  will feign shock when Christie actually runs as a Republican.  Christie , like Huntsman , will be their pet GOP fav guy until he is actually a threat to win.

    I think Christie is smart enough to not be dazzled by the liberal media's current crush on him. He knows they will turn on him soon enough.



    I may have voted for huntsman over Obama, I'm an independent the people you need to win an election.....

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    You can't lay that at Palin's feet.  McCain was a poor choice from the jump. 

     



    Yes, I can. She provided a bump until they put microphones in front of her. Republicans only liked her to the extent that the vapid diahrea she gargled out appeared to annoy Democrats.

     

     



    +1

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    You can't lay that at Palin's feet.  McCain was a poor choice from the jump. 

     



    Yes, I can. She provided a bump until they put microphones in front of her. Republicans only liked her to the extent that the vapid diahrea she gargled out appeared to annoy Democrats.

     

     



    Bad reading of the facts.  You are deep in Palin Derangement Syndrome.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    You can't lay that at Palin's feet.  McCain was a poor choice from the jump. 

     



    Yes, I can. She provided a bump until they put microphones in front of her. Republicans only liked her to the extent that the vapid diahrea she gargled out appeared to annoy Democrats.

     

     



    +1



    Well, you progressives never liked her anyways, so you will gladly point the guns at her rather than face facts that McCain slit his own throat, particularly on TARP.  

    that's the truth. Stop being so emotional, and look at what the facts said at the time:

    "Immediately after the election, 69 percent of Republican voters said Palin helped McCain.

    It’s important to put things in context. Based on the data, it seems clear that Sarah Palin did not hurt John McCain."



    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/did-palin-send-mccains-campaign-into-a-deadly-political-tailspin/#ixzz2jydm5DlY

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    You can't lay that at Palin's feet.  McCain was a poor choice from the jump. 

     



    Yes, I can. She provided a bump until they put microphones in front of her. Republicans only liked her to the extent that the vapid diahrea she gargled out appeared to annoy Democrats.

     

     



    +1



    Well, you progressives never liked her anyways, so you will gladly point the guns at her rather than face facts that McCain slit his own throat, particularly on TARP.  

    that's the truth.



    Think what you want, maybe try learning from a mistake will make you less likely to repeat it though. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?


    Christie won a big victory, a credit to his political skills and leadership.
    But this was a blowout election, not a close contest, and Democrats pretty much conceded the result. Christie ran up the score. It is a bit much to claim he can attract Democrats, women and minority voters nationally to the extent he did in this specific election.

    Kind of like if the Patriots win one game 55-0. The next contest may be a close one, and the 55 points from the previous game do not help much.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    You can't lay that at Palin's feet.  McCain was a poor choice from the jump. 

     



    Yes, I can. She provided a bump until they put microphones in front of her. Republicans only liked her to the extent that the vapid diahrea she gargled out appeared to annoy Democrats.

     

     



    +1



    Well, you progressives never liked her anyways, so you will gladly point the guns at her rather than face facts that McCain slit his own throat, particularly on TARP.  

    that's the truth.



    Think what you want, maybe try learning from a mistake will make you less likely to repeat it though. 



    69% of Republicans interviewed right after the election thought Palin was a net plus.

    Think what you want, but don't be ignorant of the facts and follow this absolutely silly progressive/media notion that Palin sunk McCain.  The surveys at the time tell the OPPOSITE story.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    You can't lay that at Palin's feet.  McCain was a poor choice from the jump. 

     



    Yes, I can. She provided a bump until they put microphones in front of her. Republicans only liked her to the extent that the vapid diahrea she gargled out appeared to annoy Democrats.

     

     



    +1



    Well, you progressives never liked her anyways, so you will gladly point the guns at her rather than face facts that McCain slit his own throat, particularly on TARP.  

    that's the truth.



    Think what you want, maybe try learning from a mistake will make you less likely to repeat it though. 



    69% of Republicans interviewed right after the election thought Palin was a net plus.

    Think what you want, but don't be ignorant of the facts and follow this absolutely silly progressive/media notion that Palin sunk McCain.  The surveys at the time tell the OPPOSITE story.



    Not quite.

    Except that you forgot about the independents who formerly liked McCain but ran screaming once he tapped Palin for a post she had no real business fulfilling.

    The independents turned the tide in that election, and Palin was the primary reason.

     

    On the other hand, she helped birth the tee partee, so you can thank her for that, at least.

     

     

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    I read a good article this morning bottom line this election cycle proved that pragmatism won and that puts Christie in a good place.  Who else on a national level can say that they have worked well with both sides of the aisle.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    Chris Christie's answers every question in some variation of the following:

    "Let me tell you something. I'm from New Jersey. And in New Jersey, we give straight talk. We don't beat around the bush like politicians. I'm a regular guy from New Jersey. I'm not going to give you some soundbite answer. I'm going to tell it like it is. Next question."

    I'm with ACC on this one.  I don't see him getting the nomination. 

     

     

    But, still don't like Christie for the nod.  I think the press wants him, will endorse him in the primaries, and "McCain" him in the general.

     



    Are you blaming the press for McCain's loss and not his horrendous pick for VP?

     

     



    Yes, at least in part.  There were many arrows in that quiver, in particular being a terrible selection by the Republicans to begin with.  And, the pick wasn't the most horrendous pick.  I mean, Joe Biden?  Besides, Palin was responsible for the only uptick in the polls for McCain:

     

    "In the general election against Democratic nominee Barack Obama, McCain trailed most of the time, only gaining a lead in national polls for a period after the Palin announcement and the 2008 Republican National Convention. "

    I hope you are not going to deny the press turned  on McCain in the general?  Perhaps Palin was the fuel, but the press was just itching for a reason.  But, consider this:

    "In July 2008, the McCain campaign shifted to a much more restrictive attitude toward the press, virtually ending the former time for open-ended questions.[382] McCain's press conferences became infrequent and, as one reporter stated, "He no longer ventures to the press section of his campaign plane to talk to reporters."

    Something drove this, and it is fairly obvious they new the press had turned on him in favor of Obama.

     




     

    Awwww, look at all the wingnuts playing their collective victim cards.

    It's just not fair to print anything bad about them because it's just sooo dang unfair and everything.

    So apparently, according to this post, every single voter in the country is uninformed...the wingnuts for voting for their failed candidate and the dems for voting for someone other than the wingnuts failed candidate.

    And only the handful of neo-con nitwits on this board are smaht enough to know the 'truth'.

    You people are freakin hilarious!!!



    Mark Halperin is a "wingnut" , too, I guess..

    Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

     

    "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

     

    Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

     

    "The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

    The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from steven11. Show steven11's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    He has as much as a chance as anyone at this point

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    You can't lay that at Palin's feet.  McCain was a poor choice from the jump. 

     



    Yes, I can. She provided a bump until they put microphones in front of her. Republicans only liked her to the extent that the vapid diahrea she gargled out appeared to annoy Democrats.

     

     



    +1



    Well, you progressives never liked her anyways, so you will gladly point the guns at her rather than face facts that McCain slit his own throat, particularly on TARP.  

    that's the truth.



    Think what you want, maybe try learning from a mistake will make you less likely to repeat it though. 



    69% of Republicans interviewed right after the election thought Palin was a net plus.

    Think what you want, but don't be ignorant of the facts and follow this absolutely silly progressive/media notion that Palin sunk McCain.  The surveys at the time tell the OPPOSITE story.



    Not quite.

    Except that you forgot about the independents who formerly liked McCain but ran screaming once he tapped Palin for a post she had no real business fulfilling.

    The independents turned the tide in that election, and Palin was the primary reason.

     

    On the other hand, she helped birth the tee partee, so you can thank her for that, at least.

     

     

     

     



    Show me some stats on that.

    But you won't becasue, they don't exist.  Palin was a net plus for McCains campaign. period.  all this progressive blathering is simply rewriting history to justify their move form the supposed "maverick" candidate to Obama.

     

    OK, couldn't wait.  Here's a stat from CNN:

    CNN's 2008 national exit poll, for example, asked voters whether Palin was a factor when they stepped into the voting booth. Those who said yes broke for McCain 56 percent to 43 percent.

    Kinda disproves your assertion, doesn't it?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Chris Christie's answers every question in some variation of the following:

    "Let me tell you something. I'm from New Jersey. And in New Jersey, we give straight talk. We don't beat around the bush like politicians. I'm a regular guy from New Jersey. I'm not going to give you some soundbite answer. I'm going to tell it like it is. Next question."

    I'm with ACC on this one.  I don't see him getting the nomination. 

     

     

    But, still don't like Christie for the nod.  I think the press wants him, will endorse him in the primaries, and "McCain" him in the general.

     



    Are you blaming the press for McCain's loss and not his horrendous pick for VP?

     

     



    Yes, at least in part.  There were many arrows in that quiver, in particular being a terrible selection by the Republicans to begin with.  And, the pick wasn't the most horrendous pick.  I mean, Joe Biden?  Besides, Palin was responsible for the only uptick in the polls for McCain:

     

    "In the general election against Democratic nominee Barack Obama, McCain trailed most of the time, only gaining a lead in national polls for a period after the Palin announcement and the 2008 Republican National Convention. "

    I hope you are not going to deny the press turned  on McCain in the general?  Perhaps Palin was the fuel, but the press was just itching for a reason.  But, consider this:

    "In July 2008, the McCain campaign shifted to a much more restrictive attitude toward the press, virtually ending the former time for open-ended questions.[382] McCain's press conferences became infrequent and, as one reporter stated, "He no longer ventures to the press section of his campaign plane to talk to reporters."

    Something drove this, and it is fairly obvious they new the press had turned on him in favor of Obama.

     




     

    Awwww, look at all the wingnuts playing their collective victim cards.

    It's just not fair to print anything bad about them because it's just sooo dang unfair and everything.

    So apparently, according to this post, every single voter in the country is uninformed...the wingnuts for voting for their failed candidate and the dems for voting for someone other than the wingnuts failed candidate.

    And only the handful of neo-con nitwits on this board are smaht enough to know the 'truth'.

    You people are freakin hilarious!!!



    Only pointing out the facts in your fairy-tale about Palin. 

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Chris Christie's answers every question in some variation of the following:

    "Let me tell you something. I'm from New Jersey. And in New Jersey, we give straight talk. We don't beat around the bush like politicians. I'm a regular guy from New Jersey. I'm not going to give you some soundbite answer. I'm going to tell it like it is. Next question."

    I'm with ACC on this one.  I don't see him getting the nomination. 

     

     

    But, still don't like Christie for the nod.  I think the press wants him, will endorse him in the primaries, and "McCain" him in the general.

     



    Are you blaming the press for McCain's loss and not his horrendous pick for VP?

     

     



    Yes, at least in part.  There were many arrows in that quiver, in particular being a terrible selection by the Republicans to begin with.  And, the pick wasn't the most horrendous pick.  I mean, Joe Biden?  Besides, Palin was responsible for the only uptick in the polls for McCain:

     

    "In the general election against Democratic nominee Barack Obama, McCain trailed most of the time, only gaining a lead in national polls for a period after the Palin announcement and the 2008 Republican National Convention. "

    I hope you are not going to deny the press turned  on McCain in the general?  Perhaps Palin was the fuel, but the press was just itching for a reason.  But, consider this:

    "In July 2008, the McCain campaign shifted to a much more restrictive attitude toward the press, virtually ending the former time for open-ended questions.[382] McCain's press conferences became infrequent and, as one reporter stated, "He no longer ventures to the press section of his campaign plane to talk to reporters."

    Something drove this, and it is fairly obvious they new the press had turned on him in favor of Obama.

     




     

    Awwww, look at all the wingnuts playing their collective victim cards.

    It's just not fair to print anything bad about them because it's just sooo dang unfair and everything.

    So apparently, according to this post, every single voter in the country is uninformed...the wingnuts for voting for their failed candidate and the dems for voting for someone other than the wingnuts failed candidate.

    And only the handful of neo-con nitwits on this board are smaht enough to know the 'truth'.

    You people are freakin hilarious!!!

     



     

    Mark Halperin is a "wingnut" , too, I guess..

    Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

     

    "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

     

    Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

     

    "The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

    The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.

     

     

     




    And how did the wingnut media like Faux News, Weekly Standard, NRO, and WSJ report the election?

     

    I'm sure they were 'fair and balanced'.... heh, heh, heh.

    Sorry that the wingnuts don't control every media outlet in the country but sometimes life ain't fair spanky but that doesn't mean that it makes for a valid excuse.

    Funny how ya'll keep screaming about the poor and how they need to just grab their bootstraps and work harder to overcome the myriad of institutional biases and hurdles in their way but you wingnuts start folding like a cheap card table when someone just writes an unflattering story about a neo-con candidate.

    Life is just soooo unfair to the neo-cons .... oh the humanity.

     

    And by-the-by, did ya notice this tidbit in his screed?

    "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war"


    Geez, I wonder who benefitted from that media bias ... 

    Here's a hint, it wasn't the 4000 dead and 30,000 wounded soldiers ... I can tell you that much.



    Actually, Fox News was considered the most balanced, as reported by the Pew Research center, a research house:

    BEST (FOXNEWS)
    Positive Obama Stories  25%
    Positive McCain Stories  22%
    Negative Obama Stories  40%
    Negative McCain Stories  40%

    WORST (MSDNC)
    Positive Obama Stories  73%
    Positive McCain Stories  10%
    Negative Obama Stories  14%
    Negative McCain Stories  43%

    TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
    Positive Obama Stories  36%
    Positive McCain Stories  14%
    Negative Obama Stories  29%
    Negative McCain Stories  57%

     

    Man!  I'm just slaying this progressive myth with the facts.  do oyu think any ofthem will actually admit it, or will they stay locked into the fairy tale they created, ignoring the truth?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    Proof that Christie is the GOP frontrunner:

    The cheap shot that liberal Time magazine gives Christie on its cover this week: (compare to the dozens of Obama-worshipping covers on display from Time); Of course, the content of the articles may say some nice things, but really, calling him an "elephant" on the cover?

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Chris Christie's answers every question in some variation of the following:

    "Let me tell you something. I'm from New Jersey. And in New Jersey, we give straight talk. We don't beat around the bush like politicians. I'm a regular guy from New Jersey. I'm not going to give you some soundbite answer. I'm going to tell it like it is. Next question."

    I'm with ACC on this one.  I don't see him getting the nomination. 

     

     

    But, still don't like Christie for the nod.  I think the press wants him, will endorse him in the primaries, and "McCain" him in the general.

     



    Are you blaming the press for McCain's loss and not his horrendous pick for VP?

     

     



    Yes, at least in part.  There were many arrows in that quiver, in particular being a terrible selection by the Republicans to begin with.  And, the pick wasn't the most horrendous pick.  I mean, Joe Biden?  Besides, Palin was responsible for the only uptick in the polls for McCain:

     

    "In the general election against Democratic nominee Barack Obama, McCain trailed most of the time, only gaining a lead in national polls for a period after the Palin announcement and the 2008 Republican National Convention. "

    I hope you are not going to deny the press turned  on McCain in the general?  Perhaps Palin was the fuel, but the press was just itching for a reason.  But, consider this:

    "In July 2008, the McCain campaign shifted to a much more restrictive attitude toward the press, virtually ending the former time for open-ended questions.[382] McCain's press conferences became infrequent and, as one reporter stated, "He no longer ventures to the press section of his campaign plane to talk to reporters."

    Something drove this, and it is fairly obvious they new the press had turned on him in favor of Obama.

     




     

    Awwww, look at all the wingnuts playing their collective victim cards.

    It's just not fair to print anything bad about them because it's just sooo dang unfair and everything.

    So apparently, according to this post, every single voter in the country is uninformed...the wingnuts for voting for their failed candidate and the dems for voting for someone other than the wingnuts failed candidate.

    And only the handful of neo-con nitwits on this board are smaht enough to know the 'truth'.

    You people are freakin hilarious!!!

     



     

    Mark Halperin is a "wingnut" , too, I guess..

    Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

     

    "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

     

    Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

     

    "The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

    The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.

     

     

     

     

     




    And how did the wingnut media like Faux News, Weekly Standard, NRO, and WSJ report the election?

     

    I'm sure they were 'fair and balanced'.... heh, heh, heh.

    Sorry that the wingnuts don't control every media outlet in the country but sometimes life ain't fair spanky but that doesn't mean that it makes for a valid excuse.

    Funny how ya'll keep screaming about the poor and how they need to just grab their bootstraps and work harder to overcome the myriad of institutional biases and hurdles in their way but you wingnuts start folding like a cheap card table when someone just writes an unflattering story about a neo-con candidate.

    Life is just soooo unfair to the neo-cons .... oh the humanity.

     

    And by-the-by, did ya notice this tidbit in his screed?

    "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war"


    Geez, I wonder who benefitted from that media bias ... 

    Here's a hint, it wasn't the 4000 dead and 30,000 wounded soldiers ... I can tell you that much.

     



    Actually, Fox News was considered the most balanced, as reported by the Pew Research center, a research house:

     

    BEST (FOXNEWS)
    Positive Obama Stories  25%
    Positive McCain Stories  22%
    Negative Obama Stories  40%
    Negative McCain Stories  40%

    WORST (MSDNC)
    Positive Obama Stories  73%
    Positive McCain Stories  10%
    Negative Obama Stories  14%
    Negative McCain Stories  43%

    TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
    Positive Obama Stories  36%
    Positive McCain Stories  14%
    Negative Obama Stories  29%
    Negative McCain Stories  57%

     

    Man!  I'm just slaying this progressive myth with the facts.  do oyu think any ofthem will actually admit it, or will they stay locked into the fairy tale they created, ignoring the truth?

     

     

    Media coverage of the 2012 election was fair and balanced after all




    obamaromneymediagraph

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    2008: If you're gonna make a fool of yourself then you can expect the media to cover it.

    For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain’s reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama’s character did hurt Obama’s media coverage, but McCain’s was even more negative.



    "Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama’s character did hurt Obama’s media coverage"

    McCain never attacked Obama's character or his dubious associations with terrorist Bill Ayers and Rev Wright, so whoever wrote this was full of it.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Christie The GOP Front-Runner for 2016?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Chris Christie's answers every question in some variation of the following:

    "Let me tell you something. I'm from New Jersey. And in New Jersey, we give straight talk. We don't beat around the bush like politicians. I'm a regular guy from New Jersey. I'm not going to give you some soundbite answer. I'm going to tell it like it is. Next question."

    I'm with ACC on this one.  I don't see him getting the nomination. 

     

     

    But, still don't like Christie for the nod.  I think the press wants him, will endorse him in the primaries, and "McCain" him in the general.

     



    Are you blaming the press for McCain's loss and not his horrendous pick for VP?

     

     



    Yes, at least in part.  There were many arrows in that quiver, in particular being a terrible selection by the Republicans to begin with.  And, the pick wasn't the most horrendous pick.  I mean, Joe Biden?  Besides, Palin was responsible for the only uptick in the polls for McCain:

     

    "In the general election against Democratic nominee Barack Obama, McCain trailed most of the time, only gaining a lead in national polls for a period after the Palin announcement and the 2008 Republican National Convention. "

    I hope you are not going to deny the press turned  on McCain in the general?  Perhaps Palin was the fuel, but the press was just itching for a reason.  But, consider this:

    "In July 2008, the McCain campaign shifted to a much more restrictive attitude toward the press, virtually ending the former time for open-ended questions.[382] McCain's press conferences became infrequent and, as one reporter stated, "He no longer ventures to the press section of his campaign plane to talk to reporters."

    Something drove this, and it is fairly obvious they new the press had turned on him in favor of Obama.

     




     

    Awwww, look at all the wingnuts playing their collective victim cards.

    It's just not fair to print anything bad about them because it's just sooo dang unfair and everything.

    So apparently, according to this post, every single voter in the country is uninformed...the wingnuts for voting for their failed candidate and the dems for voting for someone other than the wingnuts failed candidate.

    And only the handful of neo-con nitwits on this board are smaht enough to know the 'truth'.

    You people are freakin hilarious!!!

     



     

    Mark Halperin is a "wingnut" , too, I guess..

    Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

     

    "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

     

    Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

     

    "The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

    The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.

     

     

     

     

     




    And how did the wingnut media like Faux News, Weekly Standard, NRO, and WSJ report the election?

     

    I'm sure they were 'fair and balanced'.... heh, heh, heh.

    Sorry that the wingnuts don't control every media outlet in the country but sometimes life ain't fair spanky but that doesn't mean that it makes for a valid excuse.

    Funny how ya'll keep screaming about the poor and how they need to just grab their bootstraps and work harder to overcome the myriad of institutional biases and hurdles in their way but you wingnuts start folding like a cheap card table when someone just writes an unflattering story about a neo-con candidate.

    Life is just soooo unfair to the neo-cons .... oh the humanity.

     

    And by-the-by, did ya notice this tidbit in his screed?

    "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war"


    Geez, I wonder who benefitted from that media bias ... 

    Here's a hint, it wasn't the 4000 dead and 30,000 wounded soldiers ... I can tell you that much.

     



    Actually, Fox News was considered the most balanced, as reported by the Pew Research center, a research house:

     

    BEST (FOXNEWS)
    Positive Obama Stories  25%
    Positive McCain Stories  22%
    Negative Obama Stories  40%
    Negative McCain Stories  40%

    WORST (MSDNC)
    Positive Obama Stories  73%
    Positive McCain Stories  10%
    Negative Obama Stories  14%
    Negative McCain Stories  43%

    TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
    Positive Obama Stories  36%
    Positive McCain Stories  14%
    Negative Obama Stories  29%
    Negative McCain Stories  57%

     

    Man!  I'm just slaying this progressive myth with the facts.  do oyu think any ofthem will actually admit it, or will they stay locked into the fairy tale they created, ignoring the truth?

     

     

    Media coverage of the 2012 election was fair and balanced after all




    obamaromneymediagraph

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    2008: If you're gonna make a fool of yourself then you can expect the media to cover it.

    For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain’s reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama’s character did hurt Obama’s media coverage, but McCain’s was even more negative.



    How did we transition from McCain to Romney?  From 2008 to 2012?  My facts were on McCain.  They have nothing to do with Romney. I'll take that as evidence that you went looking, and found I was right.  In order to try to cover your fantasy abourt Palin, you now rope in the Romney campaign.  Sigh.

    The fools are the progressives that cling bitterly to this Palin narrative that she sunk McCain whihc is just not factually supported.

    Your little editorial there just does not square with the facts at the time.  Must be "new" facts, i.e. myth-making, that the you are using.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share