New York Times article on Gov. Palin

[keroro]

I read a New York Times article that was on msnbc.com tonight about Gov. Sarah Palin. Here is the article:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26691018/

 

I am curious how other people view Palin after reading this. Did it change your opinion of her? Did it reinforce your current opinion of her? Do you view this article as just another attack by the media? I am looking for a serious discussion not a flame war. Thanks. :001_smile:

[Dawn E]

Here's another interesting New York Times article.

[ma23peas]

I have many problems with such articles on ANY candidate. These are obviously biased and meant to "persuade" their reader to adopting their political view....at any time, you could produce an article that would refute and strengthen the opponent's side of the argument. We could do these types of articles all day long...

 

What I want, is an OBJECTIVE non opinionated (when the NYTimes article starts out by stating how out of place she feels because her hair isn't done at a Republican event..you know her opinion) article that deals with substantive issues. Instead of sending all the media to bring up dirt on a vice-presidential candidate, how about just simply stating how she's voted, what policies she has promoted or spoken out against...

 

Instead of me reading about Obama's relations with pastors/former terrorists..how about an article on what he has voted on...what he will support...if we keep hashing all these articles about their misspeaks on political sayings (pig in lipstick) or whether they're a fit mother just running for an office..why don't we talk about what they support....I just won't read another article from a biased reporter from EITHER side. It's not helpful, it's divisive and it doesn't prove a thing...

 

I believe that character plays a large role in my decision, but you know what, give the American people some credit..we can tell character from a few debates not TMZ's newest scandal or the headlines on USWeekly...all that does is tell us the character of these reporters and they're more motivated by promoting sensationalism than giving the readers real answers to relative questions.

 

Tara

[Plucky]

Most of the media has lost all credibility with me. MSNBC hasn't had any for a long, long while.

[nmoira]

 

What I want, is an OBJECTIVE non opinionated (when the NYTimes article starts out by stating how out of place she feels because her hair isn't done at a Republican event..you know her opinion) article that deals with substantive issues. Instead of sending all the media to bring up dirt on a vice-presidential candidate, how about just simply stating how she's voted, what policies she has promoted or spoken out against...

You are referring to an op/ed piece. The article in the OP is journalism, the second linked article is opinion and is clearly labeled such.

[Philothea]

You are referring to an op/ed piece. The article in the OP is journalism, the second linked article is opinion and is clearly labeled such.

 

I really could not tell the difference.

 

And I do believe the whole polar bear thing has been debunked.

[nmoira]

 

I really could not tell the difference.

Please. One is a long news article citing numerous sources and detailing facts (e.g. many people she went to high school with have been appointed by her to high paying government positions), and the other is a woman writing her personal opinion.

[sarahli]

I don't necessarily need to read articles about her. The worst I've seen is pretty much any video clip that she is speaking in, in regards to contradicting herself, disregard for the environment, poor interview skills etc.

[Dawn E]

Here is my reasoning behind posting the opinion piece. I respect the writer's honesty. I wouldn't expect a liberal to be "at home" in the middle of a McCain rally. What I liked about the article, though, was that she was able to recognize her preconceived notions as such and, for a moment, look outside of herself. The message I took from the piece--and you can't get it unless you read the full article--is that we can all stand to share a little more empathy for those different from ourselves.

 

This board is a community of moms and dads working hard to do what's best for their children and their families. That "best" is different for each of us. We have great differences from homeschool philosophies to political parties. In November one of these candidates will win, and one will lose. In January we will have a new President. Most of us have lived long enough to have had presidents we have rallied behind, voted for and loved as well as presidents we loathed and even wailed when the announcement was made in his favor. Hopefully, we will live to see many more presidents, some we will love, some not so much.

 

Most of us have made our choices and are not wavering on them. It would be nice if we could exercise a bit of empathy when looking to the other side instead of trying to find opportunities to convince those we find there that they are wrong or stupid for the choices they have made.

 

This is just my personal opinion piece for the night/morning. :001_smile:

[Slartibartfast]

I read a New York Times article that was on msnbc.com tonight about Gov. Sarah Palin. Here is the article:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26691018/

 

I am curious how other people view Palin after reading this. Did it change your opinion of her? Did it reinforce your current opinion of her? Do you view this article as just another attack by the media? I am looking for a serious discussion not a flame war. Thanks. :001_smile:

 

This is a very concerning article

 

The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

This is obviously inappropriate, and in violation of Alaska Public Records Act. The Bush White House just recently was under scrutiny for this very thing.

 

This does raise very serious questions about the type of office she would run.

 

On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

 

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”

Why would it be appropriate for a Governor's aid to discuss appointments with the governor via personal email accounts?

[Jean too]

MSNBC has zero credibility.

[Mama Lynx]

I read a New York Times article that was on msnbc.com tonight about Gov. Sarah Palin. Here is the article:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26691018/

 

I am curious how other people view Palin after reading this. Did it change your opinion of her? Did it reinforce your current opinion of her? Do you view this article as just another attack by the media? I am looking for a serious discussion not a flame war. Thanks. :001_smile:

 

Right now, I don't trust the media to shine my shoes.

 

With any article like this, I will take the assertions and look around to see if I can figure out what is truth and what is allegation/spin/distortion.

 

So no, this article doesn't change anything. What I find in my own investigating may very well do so.

[Sharon in SC]

Right now, I don't trust the media to shine my shoes.

 

 

 

 

:iagree:, emphatically.

[Kimber]

This article is not an objective piece of reporting. That is so obvious. It makes claims without any substantiating evidence. It is one sided in that it does not give both sides to any of these issues. Basically, it sounds like when my daughter is listing all the things her brother did wrong. She would be telling the truth, but she'd basically leave out all of the why's as well as what she did to him first.

 

For instance, if Alaska is so small, it's not unlikely that she'd hire people she knew. What were their qualifications? The fact that one person's love of cows being part of the qualifications for a job may seem silly and ludicrous, but did she love cows and have the credentials to back it up? And was the comment about loving cows a joke taking out of context? There are so many holes in this article, that I quit reading half way through. This is so far from real journalism it's unreal.

 

Kimberly

 

ETA And what about quotes like this from the article

Restless ambition defined Ms. Palin in the early years of this decade.

 

This is how a paragraph was started in the middle of the story. How do they know she was restless? They're painting a picture with words and that picture is of their choosing. And they call it journalism. What's wrong with firing people? Maybe they deserved to be fired. But that question is never asked in this article. The assumption behind it is that they didn't deserve to be fired, but it's never explicitly stated. That's probably because they didn't bother to ask. Ridiculous is what I call it.

[Robin Hood]

With any article like this, I will take the assertions and look around to see if I can figure out what is truth and what is allegation/spin/distortion.

quote]

 

This article is not an objective piece of reporting. That is so obvious. It is one sided in that it does not give both sides to any of these issues. There are so many holes in this article, This is so far from real journalism it's unreal.

 

 

Bringing it closer to home....Notice how we chop and edit our own ideas from other people's posts and how frequently the chopped pieces causes misunderstandings right on The Hive. The media is expert at it decieving even the most critical listener at times.

 

Take for example, the Lipstick on a Pig gafoo. As I watched one network air many clips of the saying being said by many politicians, I thought it was a comment that should be overlooked and that was exactly what the media wanted me to think. We all bought it. I still believe it. But...if the more conservative side had said it, I think the media would have swung it differently and more severly without refering to any other quotations and I would never have the better. They know how people on both sides think and sometimes they fool us and sometimes they are just in your face.

 

So....those articles aren't worth my consideration. I keep wonder what they leave out.

[nmoira]

So....those articles aren't worth my consideration. I keep wonder what they leave out.

I can't begin to understand this attitude. This is a person who could be POTUS should McCain become incapacitated, and we're supposed to ignore any articles that paint her in a less than positive light? This article talks about her record as mayor and governor, not her family. This is the stuff ideally we are supposed to be considering when evaluating her.

 

When I read news and magazine articles I initially consider the people sourced in the article and the balance of supported fact vs supposition. As I'm reading, I reconcile the content with what I already know, noting inconsistencies and flagging new information. The NYT article in question (which has nothing to do with MSNBC other than it was linked from the site -- it's linked from hundred of sites) is full of sourced facts, not a string of heavily edited quotes. These facts may or may not matter to you when balanced against others, but that's a separate issue. It's the most in depth and comprehensive examination of her governing record to date.

[Mama Lynx]

First of all, you just misquoted me. I did not say that, another poster did.

 

It's not hard to post something without checking the facts, is it? Sure, you made a simple mistake, but there you go. So can the media.

 

You don't understand this attitude? You don't understand why, when media outlets have recently been PROVEN to distort, to publish information based on rumor and not fact, we might take the candidacy of the POTUS seriously enough to not take assertions on face value, but instead attempt to verify them from other sources, before forming an opinion?

 

I don't understand the attitude of taking the media at face value. Perhaps you could explain?

[nmoira]

First of all, you just misquoted me. I did not say that, another poster did.

Sorry there was a mixed up quote tag in there. I'll correct. :)

 

I'll address the rest in a bit.

[nmoira]

It's not hard to post something without checking the facts, is it? Sure, you made a simple mistake, but there you go. So can the media.

This is why we should read lots of things, from varied sources and with a skeptical (not blind) eye.

 

You don't understand this attitude? You don't understand why, when media outlets have recently been PROVEN to distort, to publish information based on rumor and not fact, we might take the candidacy of the POTUS seriously enough to not take assertions on face value, but instead attempt to verify them from other sources, before forming an opinion?

It's not my purpose to defend the corporate (edited to add) media. I think it's are failing miserably at its job. Why is it I'd been reading such things as the pending mortgage and credit crisis, the manufacture of "evidence" to go into Iraq literally years before they became noteworthy to the corporate media? It waited until these, and many other issues, could no longer be ignored.

 

I don't understand the attitude of taking the media at face value. Perhaps you could explain?

Who said anything about face value? Because I believe it's worthy of consideration, doesn't mean I think that it's the only thing worthy of consideration. I'm arguing for evaluation of information. Fact does not necessarily equal truth. [Talking generally, not just here] again and again I hear a contingent of Palin supporter saying they don't need to read this or that because everything is biased against her, they're picking on her family, this or that is irrelevant. Well, here were have a comprehensive article looking at something that is relevant, her governing record, and it's criticized as being "too negative." It's not the job of media (when they do their job) to balance every single point that may be considered negative with a positive point or visa versa.

[Jugglin'5]

I'd be more inclined to take this kind of stuff seriously if the media had sent tons of people to Chicago to go over Obama's records with a fine tooth comb. If you want to know why the media has NO credibilty with me any more, see this comparison of Gibson's questions for Obama vs Palin:

 

http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/09/12/side-by-side-gibson-questions-more/

 

They have totally been in the tank for Obama since day1. Now they are on a search and destroy mission. The media have had a leftist bias for years, but they are taking the trouble to pretend otherwise less and less. Maybe that is a good thing, so that at least people will know where they stand.

[Kate in Arabia]

They have totally been in the tank for Obama since day1

 

See I really don't understand this, because I think Obama has gone through quite a lot between the Muslim-thing and the Rev Wright thing, among others. It's like we've forgotten what happened over the course of the past year. Maybe because it wasn't so focused on such a short period of time, like we have now that the election is getting so close?

 

My concern (well, one of my concerns) is the truly devious tactics used by both sides, really, to misquote and even lie about their opponents... and the media just parrots it right out there! When will it ever stop if the campaigns aren't held to some kind of minimum standard? I just wish the media had enough of a backbone to say, "you know, we're not reporting that, or we're not conducting this interview like that" I mean, something! Don't they have some kind of responsibility?

[Jugglin'5]

Her's a critique of the article which demanstrates why the article elicited a shoulder shrug from me:

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/14/the-management-style-of-palin-and-her-popularity/

[nmoira]

Her's a critique of the article which demanstrates why the article elicited a shoulder shrug from me:

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/14/the-management-style-of-palin-and-her-popularity/

 

And be sure to read the rebuttal linked in the update section. :)

[Mama Lynx]

This is why we should read lots of things, from varied sources and with a skeptical (not blind) eye.

 

There is very little in this thread that says we should read sources with a blind eye.

 

 

Who said anything about face value? Because I believe it's worthy of consideration, doesn't mean I think that it's the only thing worthy of consideration. I'm arguing for evaluation of information. Fact does not necessarily equal truth. [Talking generally, not just here] again and again I hear a contingent of Palin supporter saying they don't need to read this or that because everything is biased against her, they're picking on her family, this or that is irrelevant. Well, here were have a comprehensive article looking at something that is relevant, her governing record, and it's criticized as being "too negative." It's not the job of media (when they do their job) to balance every single point that may be considered negative with a positive point or visa versa.

 

Nearly everything in this thread points to looking at the allegations from other sources to get a better picture. One poster pointed out all the areas in this article that are questionable.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're responding primarily to other things, not this actual thread.

 

The article is not being criticized because it's "too negative." It's being criticized because 1) the media has a terrible track record right now, and m any of us will ignore the allegations until and unless proven elsewhere; and 2) the article contains editorializing passed off as unbiased journalism and allegations for which no proof is offered in the article.

[RebeccaC]

Please. One is a long news article citing numerous sources and detailing facts (e.g. many people she went to high school with have been appointed by her to high paying government positions), and the other is a woman writing her personal opinion.

 

 

The article if it is to be believe stated that she hired 5 high school friends out of several thousand state employees. President Clinton upon entering office fire every DA and hired many of his friends. The firing of past political employees used to be standard practice by both parties. President Bush was one of the first to break this tradition.

 

The Republican administration before Sarah's was extremely corrupt and so she went out side the party to hire people she knew, there is nothing new about this. The slant MSNBC has given it proves their biases. How awful that the folks now make more money than they did before..... is that a sin or breaking the law? How many folks in Washington are really qualified for their jobs and how many get their jobs because they have been loyal? That is how government has been staffed since time immemorial. That is how Teddy Roosevelt got some of his political jobs both in NY and in Washington and some of them he was not qualified for. The mantra on both sides is be loyal to the party and the party will take care of you when it is in power.

 

Chicago where Obama is from is still ran like this you get a job due to your loyalty not always due to your qualifications and most of the time you make more at your government job than you do at your private sector job. In Chicago people get pay checks for full time jobs they are not qualified for and do not show up for...... or while holding another job full time in the private sector,...... they do show up to help get the vote out and so that is what their job and check is for election season work. Oh, Chicago and IL state are ran by Democrats and Liberals.

 

So I am not socked nor surprised by this article and it does not changed my mind in the least. It is the pot calling the kettle black in my book.

[Jugglin'5]

Yes, it was updated before I sent it. That is why I like the Hot Air political blog, it usually tries to be very fair and fact check thoroughly, even though I lean more libertarian than their contributors. But I believe the linked article to have the correct analysis of what is going on. Palin is freaking Obama's campaign out, so we must find something, anything, to discredit her. Fair enough, if Obama is held to the same standard. Most unfavorable stories on Obama this year have only been reported on after conservative leaning blogs, or the Hilary supporters have been so noisy as to make it embarrassing. The internet has definitely made it more difficult for Old Journalism to get away with it as easily as they used to do, but they are still trying.:)

[Jennifer in NH]

I can't begin to understand this attitude. This is a person who could be POTUS should McCain become incapacitated, and we're supposed to ignore any articles that paint her in a less than positive light? This article talks about her record as mayor and governor, not her family. This is the stuff ideally we are supposed to be considering when evaluating her.

.

 

I am really trying not be be snarky, flaming or anything but respectful...but from where i am coming from politically ...very conservative...it really doesn't matter to me what any article says, in my opinion...and this is just my opinion...I will vote Republican this election because the democrats just do not represent anything I stand for and, for the most part, the Republicans do.

[nmoira]

So I am not socked nor surprised by this article and it does not changed my mind in the least. It is the pot calling the kettle black in my book.

Who is the pot in this scenario? The Times? [it's not an MSNBC article, it's a NYT article.]

[nmoira]

I am really trying not be be snarky, flaming or anything but respectful...but from where i am coming from politically ...very conservative...it really doesn't matter to me what any article says, in my opinion...and this is just my opinion...I will vote Republican this election because the democrats just do not represent anything I stand for and, for the most part, the Republicans do.

That not snarky, it's honest. :) I feel similarly about Obama in this election. However, it's up to me to remain vigilant. I don't agree with Obama on all issues (for example, I remain outraged over his FISA vote) and if I don't fight to have my voice heard, it's my fault, period.

[RebeccaC]

Who is the pot in this scenario? The Times? [it's not an MSNBC article, it's a NYT article.]

 

 

The pot is Jo Becker, Peter S. Goodman AND Michael Powell, the Times and the MSNBC who posted it on their website. Clear enough :) Read through the thread and you will find the MSNBC link. I suppose tho I should have posted all of the authors and the Times and am very happy to do that now. No comment tho on how government has been staff since time immemorial or President Clinton firing all the DA and how that is any different from what Plain did?

 

I am not trying to be snarky I have, lobbied to get scientific research through the house for kids with Autism and it was signed in to law, held public office as a republican, and read my local newspapers since I was 14. None of this is surprising, new, breaking the law, or..... It is in my book not a reason to change the way I vote. I am for Israel, pro-life, Judges who do not try to legislate from the bench, smaller government, etc.... all issues that the Dems are weak on. One baisis article will not change my vote.

[Jenny in Atl]

I am really trying not be be snarky, flaming or anything but respectful...but from where i am coming from politically ...very conservative...it really doesn't matter to me what any article says, in my opinion...and this is just my opinion...I will vote Republican this election because the democrats just do not represent anything I stand for and, for the most part, the Republicans do.

 

But don't you ever feel frustrated at the quality of republicans or democrats we have to choose from. I honestly think many of you would support Palin no matter her actual record is.

 

I think as a country we have to really ask ourselves how low can we go? Who do we really want representing our views and hopes. For me it's no longer good enough that a party or candidate agrees with what I do (for the most part). So how do I work to change this? Can I?

[mcconnellboys]

I'm not inclined to second guess her almost 90% approval rating across the state of Alaska based on anything the notoriously liberal NYT writes.

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm not inclined to second guess her almost 90% approval rating across the state of Alaska based on anything the notoriously liberal NYT writes.

 

So how do you feel about Bush? Do you dislike him just because his rating is ~28%?

[keroro]

I am reminded of this old axiom: People have a tendency to believe what they want to be true. I agree that almost all journalism is biased, most frequently to the left. I also acknowledge you can find negative articles on any candidate because no person, especially in the realm of politics, is infallible; however, I also believe where there is smoke there is fire. Hence I do think articles like this should be read, weighed, and judged for their merit. Unfortunately there is such a distrust of the press by some (which the media has worked hard to earn) that I am quite sure if the news media published an article stating that the sky was blue that there would be plenty of folks who would no longer believe it was (that's not an attack on anyone it is really a sad reflection on the loss of trust of the news media).

 

The article did raise concerns for me. Although my primary reason for voting for a candidate depends on their positions on the issues I care about, I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Which is why a candidates governing style is of a concern to me.

 

Thank you to everyone who has contributed and given me so much food for thought. I especially appreciate the rebuttals and comments that have focused on the article itself.

[Elaine]

The article if it is to be believe stated that she hired 5 high school friends out of several thousand state employees. President Clinton upon entering office fire every DA and hired many of his friends. The firing of past political employees used to be standard practice by both parties. President Bush was one of the first to break this tradition.

 

The Republican administration before Sarah's was extremely corrupt and so she went out side the party to hire people she knew, there is nothing new about this. The slant MSNBC has given it proves their biases. How awful that the folks now make more money than they did before..... is that a sin or breaking the law? How many folks in Washington are really qualified for their jobs and how many get their jobs because they have been loyal? That is how government has been staffed since time immemorial. That is how Teddy Roosevelt got some of his political jobs both in NY and in Washington and some of them he was not qualified for. The mantra on both sides is be loyal to the party and the party will take care of you when it is in power.

 

Chicago where Obama is from is still ran like this you get a job due to your loyalty not always due to your qualifications and most of the time you make more at your government job than you do at your private sector job. In Chicago people get pay checks for full time jobs they are not qualified for and do not show up for...... or while holding another job full time in the private sector,...... they do show up to help get the vote out and so that is what their job and check is for election season work. Oh, Chicago and IL state are ran by Democrats and Liberals.

 

So I am not socked nor surprised by this article and it does not changed my mind in the least. It is the pot calling the kettle black in my book.

 

I can't rep you yet.:glare:

 

Excellent post, as usual!

[TravelingChris]

Many of the accusations in this article were made and challenged without any evidence. Somebody would claim X is a babysitter and X said she isn't and that was all that was said. Many of the assertations were of this kind. Y said she did something wrong and Z said she didn't. It is a useless typoe of article. No, I do not vote for or against people because of their ratings. However, if someone has either low or high ratings, you want to find out moe about that. Why does she have such great ratings in Alaska? I suspect that it is partially her firing of people who were considered corrupt and of cutting spending. However, I am thousands of miles away so I don't know. After reading this article, I still don't.

[LizzyBee]

You are referring to an op/ed piece. The article in the OP is journalism, the second linked article is opinion and is clearly labeled such.

 

I thought the first one was just as biased as the second.

[ma23peas]

"The article in the OP is journalism"

 

No, it isn't....it's amazing how so many have FLOWN in by droves to that little Alaskan town...what you don't hear is the raves and the highest approval rating a governor in Alaska has seen in decades..these 'journalists' are paid to find the 'dirt' on this person because the person who pays their paychecks has given them a mandate...it's as simple as that..when the folks who own those publications don't present a fair and balanced view and are eager to print anything that will detract, then out goes the journalism. You will find 10 negative articles to one objective 'journalistic' treatment...that is not what journalism is about...where is the responsibility to be equitable in equally finding those points that made this person unseat an assured incumbent?

 

The covers of USWeekly say it all...

 

Tara

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

"The article in the OP is journalism"

 

No, it isn't....it's amazing how so many have FLOWN in by droves to that little Alaskan town...what you don't hear is the raves and the highest approval rating a governor in Alaska has seen in decades..these 'journalists' are paid to find the 'dirt' on this person because the person who pays their paychecks has given them a mandate...it's as simple as that..when the folks who own those publications don't present a fair and balanced view and are eager to print anything that will detract, then out goes the journalism. You will find 10 negative articles to one objective 'journalistic' treatment...that is not what journalism is about...where is the responsibility to be equitable in equally finding those points that made this person unseat an assured incumbent?

 

The covers of USWeekly say it all...

 

I would agree with that last statement, actually.

 

But I would posit that IMO, it's not the job of the media to fawn and praise and present the kind and the good and the pleasant. It's the job of the campaign to fawn and to praise and to present the kind and the good and the pleasant. To sell the sizzle, not the steak.

 

It's the media's job to sniff the steak, see if it's moose or beef, see if it's past its expiration date, find out if it was hunted illegally or raised humanely, find out if its feed was mixed with prion-rich scrapie-infected sheep tissue. And if the stamp of FDA approval doesn't match the results of their investigation, they had better publish that. Because no matter how much sizzle it has, I want to take a second look at that there steak.

[Phred]

I'm not inclined to second guess her almost 90% approval rating across the state of Alaska based on anything the notoriously liberal NYT writes.

Of course not. She engineered payments of about $1200 to each and every Alaskan. No wonder she's popular. But why let facts enter the equation? It's easier to skewer the messenger and believe what you want to believe.

 

As I read this thread I hear the disdain for an easy target... reporters that would dare to report on something that paints Palin in a negative light. But... what if she IS what those stories report? You aren't allowing for that possibility... are you?

[Margaret in GA]

MSNBC has zero credibility.

 

I am beginning to feel the same way. They are just another Fox News.

 

Margaret

[mcconnellboys]

Certainly I'm allowing for it. And if it's all true, then it will come out and even conservative sources will have to admit it.

 

The OP asked what I thought of Palin after reading *this* article and I responded to that query. I didn't think it was necessary to attach a rebuttal someone else already cited. I didn't think it was necessary to cite links to goverment in Alaska or to Alaska newspapers. If anyone is interested in looking for info closer to the source, they can certainly google archives of these entities, themselves. The OP didn't ask for that. She asked what did I think of *this* article, and I stated that.

 

I don't vote party lines and never have. I vote for those who I believe best fit my views on how things should be run. I don't get swayed, even by those trying to push a particular agenda upon me. I check facts for myself and make up my own mind. Ultimately, that's what most people in America do regarding issues of both politics and religion. It's really useless to debate such issues without both sides being able to present a plethora of cold, hard facts supporting their suppositions, as it's really not going to change the minds of the vast majority of people.

 

And I grow so very weary of those who don't agree with me stating that, "People will believe what they want to believe"..... As if they, themselves, are not doing that very thing. Please.

[RebeccaC]

But don't you ever feel frustrated at the quality of republicans or democrats we have to choose from. I honestly think many of you would support Palwin no matter her actual record is.

 

Well, isn't the same true of Obama backers, backing him no matter what his record is? I to feel frustrated at the quality of candidates but I think that McCain and Pain are the better choice. That is just what I think. I don't get to decide who will be on the ticket or even that I am limited to just to viable parties. It is not a perfect system or world. I think that McCain has the most experience of anyone on either ticket. I think Palin has more executive experience as limited as it is than anyone on the democratic ticket.

[Parrothead]

I read a New York Times article that was on msnbc.com tonight about Gov. Sarah Palin. Here is the article:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26691018/

 

I am curious how other people view Palin after reading this. Did it change your opinion of her? Did it reinforce your current opinion of her? Do you view this article as just another attack by the media? I am looking for a serious discussion not a flame war. Thanks. :001_smile:

I read the above article and thought it was a bunch of hearsay mixed in with bits of fact. There was a lot of one-sided comments and no rebuttal.

 

If Palin fired all those people because they didn't do what she told them to do where are all the law suits for illegal termination.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Well, isn't the same true of Obama backers, backing him no matter what his record is?

 

I suppose that would be true if I were a party Democrat. I'm independent, so I vote for the person (locally) or the ticket (presidential elections). I held my nose to cast a vote against a candidate for president in 2000 (I'm from TN, 'nuff said) or and 2004 (SERIOUSLY? Those are the candidates? (My thoughts, no one need agree, lol!)) and I don't vote third party for president.

[Kimber]

You know the thing about this article and many others is that is lends evidence to the fact that she's "just like the rest", which gives fuel to the liberals and not an ounce of concern to the conservatives because there is no better alternative.

 

The media's stance on Palin does seem unfair. It's probably because they started out by criticising her as a mother and questioning her ability to do both jobs. Basically, her very identify was questioned.

 

The same thing is true of Obama when the republicans harp on him fo being a muslim. All of the time that was spent on Rev Wright was, IMHO, totally unfair. And the lipstick pig controversy was also out of line. The media crosses the line in many instances. And they're crossing with Palin.

 

She's being scrutinized up and down and left and right. Most of it legitimately, but much of it is lies. I saw an interview on Bill Moyers where this was discussed and I think they got it right. It seems the media is truly trying to do their job, but their own opinions are getting in the way of their "unbiased" reporting. They seem to be in a race to get the dirt on her out first, and in their rush to do this they put out lots of false statements about her that cloud the facts.

 

For instance, the idea that she cut funding for special needs when in fact she increased it. Or tht she wanted to ban books that weren't published yet when she only asked a hypothetical question. She seemed to have truly flip floped on the bridge to no where, and to have abused earmarks.

 

But who wants to sift through their biased attitudes and outright opposition to her as a person to find out what's real? It's horrible the way they are behaving, and for the most part they can't be trusted.

[Mom to Aly]

Referring to the OP's article, which was in the NY Times, not MSNBC, for those that were confused, I found it really informative, and very shocking. I am not a Palin supporter, by any means, but I still found all of this extremely disturbing, as I would have with any politician, especially one running for VP.

 

And, please, people--if you can't trust the NY Times, who can you trust? They are the one paper I will take the word of at this point. The others I don't even look at anymore. OP ED, no, I'm sick of gossip and opinions, but NY Times articles, yes.

[Jenny in Atl]

Another question then... So many of you value morals. How are you handling then the recent facts about how many statements made by both McCain and Palin which are either misleading or false. Even Carl Rove was quoted saying as much today on Chris Wallace's show, Fox News Sunday.

 

WALLACE: Do you have any problem with what McCain is doing by, for instance, saying — which a lot of people thought was kind of made up — that Obama was smearing Palin?

 

ROVE: Well, first of all, I do think that the lipstick remark was an inappropriate — and maybe it was unconscious, but it was a deliberate slap at Gov. Palin.

 

The only time this word has intruded in recent months in the campaign was in her self-deprecating remark at the convention. So for him to use the lipstick remark less than two weeks after she used it struck me as too much of a coincidence not to have been a deliberate attack.

 

But, look, both campaigns are making a mistake, and that is they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far. We saw this this week, for example, in the Obama ad where he makes the point, a legitimate point, that John McCain came to the United States Congress in 1982 and that he has been a longtime Washington insider.

 

But they then say he doesn't even know how to use a — you know, doesn't send e-mail. Well, this is because his war injuries keep him from being able to use a keyboard. He can't type. You know, it's like saying he can't do jumping jacks.

 

Well, there's a reason why he can't raise his arms above his head. There's a reason why he doesn't have the nimbleness in his fingers.

 

WALLACE: All right, and for fair game, what is McCain doing that goes a step too far?

 

ROVE: Well, McCain has gone in some of his ads — similarly gone one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100 percent truth test.

 

They don't need to attack each other in this way. They have legitimate points to make about each other.

~~~~~~~~~

 

I'm just interested in how you balance your personal moral convictions with supporting candidates who lie. This can be said for both sides.

[Robin Hood]

I can't begin to understand this attitude.

 

You can't? Not at all? Do you have a different perspective that makes it impossible to grasp another reporter's articles with a more conservative slant? When the same facts come out with a different spin, is the different spin like a foreign language that gives you an inability to comphehend the words that would shape the attitude? Did you mistake what I said to mean that I would choose to remain uniformed? Have you chosen to not understand or do you really not understand?

 

I purposely chopped up the points of 2 people that I agreed with to effect the spin, but they were not misqouted. Maybe I should try that with 2 people that have a different view point than I do.

[LizzyBee]

And, please, people--if you can't trust the NY Times, who can you trust?

 

No-one. Even the NYT has published things that turned out to be undocumented and untrue.