- #1
- 7,220
- 24
With the heated Democratic Primary, John McCain escaped the kind of media scrutiny that was given to Obama and Clinton. What did the mainstream media miss or pay little attention to?
The mainstream media failed to miss that one.Alfi said:Ya but he's way ahead on age :)
[b]Year Support Oppose[/b]
2008* 100% 0%
2007** 95% 5%
2006 89% 11%
2005 77% 23%
2004 92% 8%
2003 91% 9%
2002 90% 10%
2001 91% 9%John McCain said:No. No. I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk--particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.
Actually, while there have been numerous mentions of his age, there has been little or no substantive discussion of how his age ought to be a factor in determining his suitability for the position of President.jimmysnyder said:The mainstream media failed to miss that one.
When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”
Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”
The OP says nothing about negative stories. Are you suggesting that there are no positive stories about McCain, or is this just a new PF low in reading comprehension?chemisttree said:This has got to be a new PF low. An entire thread devoted to trolling for negative stories about McCain...
Gokul43201 said:The OP says nothing about negative stories. Are you suggesting that there are no positive stories about McCain, or is this just a new PF low in reading comprehension?
I didn't realize that scrutiny carried a necessarily negative connotation. There is absolutely no requirement that we only talk about negative issues. All issues of relevance to a Presidential bid, whether positive, negative or neither, may be raised here and discussed so long as they were mostly glossed over or ignored by the media. People should feel free to talk about good things that came out of the McCain campaign that were mostly omitted by the media because the spotlight was on the show put up by the Dems.berkeman said:Take it easy, guys. Gokul, the OP does imply looking for negative issues. It says there was a lack of scrutiny, what did we miss.
McCain kept a low profile, so there wasn't much for them to see or miss. Now that he's talking again, they'll have the opportunity to pick on him.Gokul43201 said:With the heated Democratic Primary, John McCain escaped the kind of media scrutiny that was given to Obama and Clinton. What did the mainstream media miss or pay little attention to?
Cmon, Gokul, no one buys that - but berkeman's right, that alone doesn't make this a bad thread, it just makes the potential for it to get out of hand.Gokul43201 said:I didn't realize that scrutiny carried a necessarily negative connotation. There is absolutely no requirement that we only talk about negative issues.
I agree, McCain could cruise under the radar because Clinton and Obama were busy going at each other, and of course, the media exploited that.russ_watters said:McCain kept a low profile, so there wasn't much for them to see or miss. Now that he's talking again, they'll have the opportunity to pick on him.
The biggest change from two weeks ago isn't that McCain is no longer a mute, it is that now the candidates can attack each other across party lines, which makes some of the issues different. Ie, Hillary couldn't exactly attack Obama for being too liberal, but McCain can. Huckabee wouldn't have attacked McCain for cozying up to lobbyists, but Obama is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCainMcCain retired from the Navy in 1981 and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona in 1982. After serving two terms, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, winning re-election in 1992, 1998, and 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_ObamaObama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, . . . . Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, and again in 2002. . . .
But he also ran a very decent Primary compared to say, Romney. But again, there wasn't much debate about the Republican Primary because of the attention on the other side.russ_watters said:McCain kept a low profile, so there wasn't much for them to see or miss.
But the thread is not really about what happens now. It is more about what happened during the Primary season that was missed. McCain had to run a particularly difficult Primary because he was at the same time trying to be the Conservative, the Maverick, the Hawk, the Critic of the Iraq War planning and the one to bring real change to Washington.The biggest change from two weeks ago isn't that McCain is no longer a mute, it is that now the candidates can attack each other across party lines, which makes some of the issues different. Ie, Hillary couldn't exactly attack Obama for being too liberal, but McCain can. Huckabee wouldn't have attacked McCain for cozying up to lobbyists, but Obama is.
Russ, I think the thread is perfectly legitimate to make, and if it does get out of hand, I'm sure it will meet the end it deserves.russ_watters said:Cmon, Gokul, no one buys that - but berkeman's right, that alone doesn't make this a bad thread, it just makes the potential for it to get out of hand.
McCain economic advisers come with baggage
Sunday, April 06, 2008
By Jonathan Weisman, The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- One of them helped deregulate the financial services industries in the 1990s, and now sits in the corporate suites of Swiss banking giant UBS, which Tuesday announced $19 billion in investment losses tied to the crumbling U.S. real estate market.
The other pushed one of the most aggressive and controversial mergers of the technology boom, then was sacked by the disenchanted board of Hewlett-Packard.
cont...
Gokul is correct, this thread will be about what McCain is proposedin his primary campaign. Rumours, mud slinging, etc... will not be tolerated.Gokul43201 said:Please let's keep this about real issues concerning McCain's campaign.
The main claim of the article is that the mainstream media failed to accurately cover Senator John McCain during a heated primary election.
This claim is important because the media plays a crucial role in informing the public about political candidates and their campaigns. If the media is biased or fails to cover important information, it can affect public perception and ultimately influence election outcomes.
The article provides several examples of how the media missed important events and mischaracterized McCain's campaign, such as downplaying his primary victories and focusing on negative stories.
Some may argue that the media's coverage of McCain was fair and balanced, and that any mistakes or biases were unintentional. Others may argue that it is not the media's responsibility to accurately cover every candidate in a primary election.
This claim highlights the importance of media literacy and the need for unbiased and comprehensive coverage of political candidates. It also raises questions about the media's role in shaping public opinion and the potential impact on democratic processes.