Specter proposed the single or magic bullet to explain one gunman for Kennedy's murder in the 60s. People sometimes bring this up to disparage Specter. I know I'm politically out there and all, but I find this to be less distasteful that the much loved Ted Kennedy being involved in the death and cover-up of a woman in the 60s.

I know, I know, I'm crazy.

Chappaquiddick is certainly not worse than the Columbine shootings so I don't count it.

The Columbine shootings aren't beloved.

Go watch some election. I hear Mississippi has a special runoff for the comptroller.

jeff2sf wrote:Specter proposed the single or magic bullet to explain one gunman for Kennedy's murder in the 60s. People sometimes bring this up to disparage Specter. I know I'm politically out there and all, but I find this to be less distasteful that the much loved Ted Kennedy being involved in the death and cover-up of a woman in the 60s.

I know, I know, I'm crazy.

I take your point. This is a blatant example of justice being dependent on how much wealth and power you have. Ted had quite the playboy rep during Bobby's campaign and was a real lightweight for the early part of his life. He has worked to redeem himself and Americans love a good redemption story, although he never really accepted responsibility/accountability. I see him as very similar to W. Still remember the sense of entitlement of he and his political handlers as he challenged Carter for re-election. Very much the flavor of this year's Clinton campaign.

jeff2sf wrote:Joining late here, and of course it's no surprise that partisans aren't big fans of Specter, but I voted for him in 2004 and it may be the vote I'm most proud of (though ultimately I think it was my Bob Casey for Treasurer vote, which lead to him ultimately unseating Santorum).

Look, Specter doesn't dance for nobody, and he's a jerk (the magic bullet is certainly not worse than the beloved Kennedy's Chappaquiddick, so I don't count it), but he's done some good things for us and tried to not just vote ideologically. He's a great American.

I've voted for Specter 3 times for Senator and generally like him, but the past week has definitely not been his finest hour. Other than saying he was strongly committed pro-choice long-term, he really didn't say anything that spoke of principle. He was going to lose the primary, so he switched. The Dems took him, but he was still going to do what he wants to do. Not sure he can win based on that. Sort of pisses off both parties, while being too personally opportunistic for many independents. I am in the camp that says we Dems would have been better off leaving him in the Republican party. I'm going to guess he is not re-elected. Hope that doesn't give the Republicans another Senate seat in 2010. Especially not Toomey, who was my local Congressman.

A top CBS executive responsible for the network's evening newscast says President Barack Obama has had a "great" start to his presidency.

"Everybody, including Republicans, would have to say that his first 100 days have been great," CBS Evening News Executive Producer Rick Kaplan told the Associated Press.

"You cover what's out there," Kaplan told the AP. "Everybody gets upset. If you cover somebody too hard, his supporters think you're being unfair. If you cover somebody too soft, his opponents think you're too soft. Across his four years, or eight years, whatever it is, there will be plenty for people on all sides to not like or love. It will balance itself out inevitably."

Kaplan, who stayed overnight twice at the White House as guest of the Clintons, was dogged by reports that he was an informal adviser to President Bill Clinton. He denied being an adviser or being biased by the contacts.

I know media bias debates are dumb, and get nowhere, but this is pretty special.

jerseyhoya wrote:

A top CBS executive responsible for the network's evening newscast says President Barack Obama has had a "great" start to his presidency.

"Everybody, including Republicans, would have to say that his first 100 days have been great," CBS Evening News Executive Producer Rick Kaplan told the Associated Press.

I know media bias debates are dumb, and get nowhere, but this is pretty special.

That's pretty depressing. While I don't have any big problems with Obama's first 100 days, "great" would hardly pop into my mind, and I'm just guessing there are a few republicans who might be even a tad more hesitant.

At least in this quote ( I believe from the same article) the source doesn't pretend to be objective, although it has it's own humorous content:

The conservative Media Research Center is doing its own study. While not quite done, its conclusion is already clear: The media "are completely in the tank, working overtime to help (Obama) succeed," said Brent Bozell, the organization's president.

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

A top CBS executive responsible for the network's evening newscast says President Barack Obama has had a "great" start to his presidency.

"Everybody, including Republicans, would have to say that his first 100 days have been great," CBS Evening News Executive Producer Rick Kaplan told the Associated Press.

I know media bias debates are dumb, and get nowhere, but this is pretty special.

That's pretty depressing. While I don't have any big problems with Obama's first 100 days, "great" would hardly pop into my mind, and I'm just guessing there are a few republicans who might be even a tad more hesitant.

At least in this quote ( I believe from the same article) the source doesn't pretend to be objective, although it has it's own humorous content:

The conservative Media Research Center is doing its own study. While not quite done, its conclusion is already clear: The media "are completely in the tank, working overtime to help (Obama) succeed," said Brent Bozell, the organization's president.

I'm quite sure the majority of the media do want Obama to succeed. Bringing the severe recession/mild depression to a conclusion is in everybody's interests, other than die-hard partisans who would like to see the country tank so they can regain power in 4 years. It may be my advancing age, but 4 years is a lot of economic trouble and lost opportunity to happily sacrifice for the sake of getting your party back in power. Just as hoping for other terrorist attacks or a military defeat is too painful to rationally hope for for political advantage. For this reason, the media as a whole were also very supportive of President George W Bush and had scant investigation or negative reporting on the run up to Iraq, the wiretapping, torture, or political use of threat alert levels. What criticism existed was primarily liberal web-based and a few columnists, but the investigative reporting was absent and the mainstream media mainly played cheerleader. Also, the mainstream press was supportive of President Bush's and Paulson's and Bernanke's efforts to get the credit markets restarted. The stark negatives, in fact, came from the conservative radio and webs. Most media and indeed even a higher percentage of citizens want any President to succeed, because when the country succeeds, they do better personally. Not a lot of folks willing to suffer privation for whatever political cause.

The only real, systemic and durable media bias is status-quo. Journalists (add the scare/sarcasm quotes around the word, if you want) seek to ensure access, and the entities with other business arms--which at this point is all of them--want a favorable regulatory climate.

edit: Reporters being human, they're probably more susceptible to being charmed by charismatic types such as Reagan and Obama than those such as Bush I, who was just a cold fish, or Clinton, whom they seemed to regard as a detestable hayseed/lecher.

I agree with Goldberg's assertion that journalists tend to go to school with and be surrounded by people who live a certain way and see the world through a certain lens with little diversity. Network/NY journalists don't know many stay at home moms, they don't know many pro-lifers, they don't know many pro-gun types, etc. This creates a tendency to skew their outlook of what is "middle of the road". There's nothing diabolical about this and I don't know how you fix it, but it's reasonable and easy to believe.

Great American, Arlen Specter:

Mr. Specter continued: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."

VoxOrion wrote:I agree with Goldberg's assertion that journalists tend to go to school with and be surrounded by people who live a certain way and see the world through a certain lens with little diversity. Network/NY journalists don't know many stay at home moms, they don't know many pro-lifers, they don't know many pro-gun types, etc. This creates a tendency to skew their outlook of what is "middle of the road". There's nothing diabolical about this and I don't know how you fix it, but it's reasonable and easy to believe.

I don't disagree with any of that. But "they" also don't know many manufacturing workers, immigrants of dubious legal status, veterans, (private-sector) union members, or working poor people. So basically they're more socially liberal and economically conservative than the dead middle of the country.

My favorite amusing/infuriating example of this was the Obama/Clinton debate last (I think) April, in which Charlie Gibson harangued Obama about the capital gains tax. I don't think Gibson is a right-winger by any stretch, but it really sounded like he was reading off AEI talking points, and it was obvious that his concern was personal.

For a limited time, you can be the proud owner of these stylish commemorative Barack Obama sneakers...+ backpack & basketball

Sessions will be the ranking Republican on Judiciary.

The move is likely to please conservative organizations around Washington who are gearing up for a fight over the eventual nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. The departure of Specter, who had long been one of the leading GOP voices on judicial appointees, had robbed the Republican conference of an obvious spokesman.

Conservative groups, who have already held conference calls to begin organizing a response to President Obama's eventual nominee, were wary of putting Grassley atop the Judiciary Committee if a fight were to break out. The organizations viewed Sessions as the better spokesman, and more likely to lead the Republican charge in questioning the nominee.
...
Leading conservative legal strategists have admitted they have little chance of pursuing a filibuster — even facing only a slim deficit, Democrats were unable to block either Roberts or Alito — though that has not stopped them from gathering intelligence on leading contenders for the nomination.

Already, those groups have spread around opposition research on top contenders like Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh.

More on Sessions here.

The complete commericialization of Obama through every imaginable bit of merchandise is thoroughly depressing.

gr wrote:The complete commericialization of Obama through every imaginable bit of merchandise is thoroughly depressing.

I've been pretty pro-Obama vis-a-vis his policy positions as well as his electability since early in the primary process, but I absolutely loathe the very cynical marketing campaign that got him there. Particularly that damned "HOPE" poster, it looks like something right out of the Chairman Mao playbook.

dajafi wrote:I don't disagree with any of that. But "they" also don't know many manufacturing workers, immigrants of dubious legal status, veterans, (private-sector) union members, or working poor people. So basically they're more socially liberal and economically conservative than the dead middle of the country.

I have trouble imagining how journalists would be very economically conservative. We're talking about the "influencers" here in network news, the big two or three news papers (NYT, LAT, WSJ) and the news magazines - mostly people clustred in NYC and DC and I would imagine a disproportionate number live in urban areas (compared to the rest of the US population). I don't disagree that "they" would know few veterans, laborers, or working poor - but I don't see how that supports an economically conservative viewpoint in and of itself. I presume that you're coming from the angle that if they were they'd be more supportive of subsidies - I'd argue they always are - it doesn't require knowing these folks, this falls into worldview territory. They don't know poor folks, but it fits their worldview to support them. They don't know pro-lifers AND it conflicts with their worldview to support them (after all, they don't know any "reasonable" people who are pro life) - if you get my drift.

VoxOrion wrote:I have trouble imagining how journalists would be very economically conservative. We're talking about the "influencers" here in network news, the big two or three news papers (NYT, LAT, WSJ) and the news magazines - mostly people clustred in NYC and DC and I would imagine a disproportionate number live in urban areas (compared to the rest of the US population). I don't disagree that "they" would know few veterans, laborers, or working poor - but I don't see how that supports an economically conservative viewpoint in and of itself. I presume that you're coming from the angle that if they were they'd be more supportive of subsidies - I'd argue they always are - it doesn't require knowing these folks, this falls into worldview territory. They don't know poor folks, but it fits their worldview to support them. They don't know pro-lifers AND it conflicts with their worldview to support them (after all, they don't know any "reasonable" people who are pro life) - if you get my drift.

Not "subsidies" (I'm actually not certain what you mean by that), but labor rights--the media framing of the EFCA debate, in almost entirely pro-business terms, is a great example--retraining/support for labor market-relevant education as the driver of economic opportunity, financial regulation, etc. Generally speaking, these are all things that your average journalist or producer is uninterested in (since we know the other "bias" is for stories that angry up the blood... which is why abortion is always front-page material) or just willing to accept as they are. To be fair, that status quo has held for a generation under political leadership of both parties.

If by "subsidies" you mean social safety net programs, I disagree: the fact that journalists themselves are unfamiliar with the lived experience of folks on those programs makes it very easy for them to (maybe unconsciously) adopt the view that anyone on, say, public assistance or Medicaid is there as a result of character flaws, and thus when they're cut, it's no biggie. Programs with broader support and reach, like Social Security and Medicare, are less stigmatized, and thus more broadly supported; when a Gingrich or Bush comes along to attempt to alter them, stronger pushback is likely. (As Bush's Social Security privatization effort foundered, Tom DeLay essentially gutted welfare reform in the 2006 Deficit Reform Act passed through reconciliation, pushing through measures that even conservative experts thought were idiotic. If you missed that, well, there's why.)

As for "the poor," I understand your point but would suggest (as someone who has had to face this problem) that the form of "sympathy" journalists show for their plight is itself supportive of the status quo. When you read a story about someone who works but is poor, almost inevitably the focus is on that individual: her circumstances, her choices, her prospects. Systemic considerations--how the individual started off in a bad spot because of lousy schools, neighborhood dysfunction, etc, or how the few jobs for which she's qualified offer lousy pay and no security--are left out, and the reader is probably moved to feel compassion but not to conclude that larger forces are in play and contemplate whether or not they're really for the best.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I don't disagree with any of that. But "they" also don't know many manufacturing workers, immigrants of dubious legal status, veterans, (private-sector) union members, or working poor people. So basically they're more socially liberal and economically conservative than the dead middle of the country.

I have trouble imagining how journalists would be very economically conservative. We're talking about the "influencers" here in network news, the big two or three news papers (NYT, LAT, WSJ) and the news magazines - mostly people clustred in NYC and DC and I would imagine a disproportionate number live in urban areas (compared to the rest of the US population). I don't disagree that "they" would know few veterans, laborers, or working poor - but I don't see how that supports an economically conservative viewpoint in and of itself. I presume that you're coming from the angle that if they were they'd be more supportive of subsidies - I'd argue they always are - it doesn't require knowing these folks, this falls into worldview territory. They don't know poor folks, but it fits their worldview to support them. They don't know pro-lifers AND it conflicts with their worldview to support them (after all, they don't know any "reasonable" people who are pro life) - if you get my drift.

First, the economic journalists are a subset of journalists. Second, I don't know why being centered in NYC would make them economically liberal. What it makes them is corporatist and aligned with Wall Street and the banks. This influences their views on things such as bankruptcy and credit card reform, minimum wage, labor rihts, subsidies to business, views on regulation, views on progressive taxation. monopolistic mergers, balance between inflation and employment, globalization, etc. Third, these guys are reasonably well-to-do, so their self-interest drives them to be economically conservative. The financial coverage is also driven by the daytime cable financial channels, who basically feature corporate executives, traders, and stock analysts as their talking heads with quite a few out and out Republican shills like Kudlow as hosts. The focus here is what is good for stocks, not what is good for the average citizen. The need to maintain huge salaries and perks for bankers is taken as a given, just as the need to slice and dice the wages and benefits of autoworkers is a given. The mainstream media has been doing progressively less economic/financial coverage and this is especially true of the local media. In many cases, coverage is not much more than corporate press releases. The economic/business media are specialized, and from WSJ to Barrons, IBD, Forbes, and the cable shows, it is staunchly conservative.

"Bienvenidos. Welcome to Cinco de Cuatro -- (laughter) -- Cinco de Mayo at the White House. We are a day early, but we always like to get a head start here at the Obama White House."

If Bush had said this, part 93...