Hi. I dunno, but I think that NOT having the full convention may be detrimental to McCain's race. Today is a huge news day.

Princess,

I think I may watch some of the convention . I would like to hear all the issues and what some have to say . I agree that this could be detrimental to the McCain race if they did not have a full convention . I did see his wife Cindy with Laura Bush make a speech . She carrys herself very well and is a good speaker .

I think that the delegates started coming intoday for the convention .

Renee

IMO Mrs. McCain is a lovely looking lady. She's stylish and elegant. I know she's wealthy but she also has a heart. And like
Eagle said, heart-love is all important. That you can't buy.
I still don't know how to vote but I do know I wish all the
candidates well.

Yes, Cindy McCain is an heiress of a fortune. I'm just watching and waiting to see who gets my vote. I have not veered from my "party" in years, but this year, it's a whole new ball game! Thanks for weighing in Jabber & Renee.

I, too, am looking forward to hearing more about the Republican platform, and I am quite excited (first time in years) about the VP candidate, GOVERNOR Sarah Palin.

As an Independent, I have voted both sides of the aisle. I do not like Obama for several reasons, and was disappointed when the very capable Hillary Clinton bowed to her party's wishes by supporting Obama in order to secure a future national nomination. (She obviously does not like Barack and said several times he is not qualified to be President.)

I'm so looking forward to hearing from GOVERNOR Palin, who seems to know much more about REAL people issues than Washington insiders. Senator Biden lives near me, and I feel there are reasons why both his Presidential bids failed. He spent over 30 years in Washington and he fits in with the "good old boys club" quite well.

Time and time again, McCain/Palin seem to reflect people interests over party interests. I like that. It's new and different. I want to hear more from them.

Cindy's parents sold every possession they had in order to raise $10,000 to start what eventually became a hugely successful business. Which is why I do not begrudge their family the houses they now own.

Her family came by their money with very hard work over a lot of years, and I do not think they should be penalized for having achieved the great American dream.

Funny how media spin can make nothing look like something. lol

Hi Josie, I for one appreciate your comments. How is Cindy and her family penalized for having the American dream? Do you mean because McCain got backlash for not knowing how many houses they owned? (I see you are in NJ, which is where I grew up). Now I am hearing from the news that with Palin, family should come first. Everybody has an opinion when one is in public office.

HI Princess Lenora! Yup, The McCain backlash about how many homes were owned by the family was what I was referring to. Since most or all real estate might be in his wife's family name, "Hensley," maybe McCain did not know how to answer the question, as he is used to giving honest answers and honestly didn't know whose name is on what deeds. The liberal press sure ran with negative spin on THAT one. No one pointed out that Cindy continues to be an active philanthropist and serves on the boards of several charitable organizations. Or that she and John adopted one of Mother Teresa's "poorest of the poor."

I cannot remember a time when any Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate was anything less than a multi-millionaire, which no one ever points out. That being said, it is possible that the VP candidate, Governor Palin, is not a millionaire.

As soon as she became Governor, she sold the gubernatorial plane, got rid of the chefs, cut her salary dramatically, and said no to the "Bridge to Nowhere program," instead sending a $1200 check to each Alaskan family. She does not believe in wasteful government spending and wanted to return the money back to the people.

If she said her family is always first with her, I'd love to hear the context the statement was said in. But it sounds like a statement a mom would make. And within that framework, Palin was able to do amazing things as Governor within her first 18 months of office.

I just caught former NY Mayor Giuliani saying on CNN that when he became Mayor of NYC, he performed his greatest accomplishments within the first 18 months. I LOVE how he cleaned up the once seedy Times Square. People complained about him, but he got thejob done.

Princess,

Just one more question about Cindy McCain didn't she inherit the Budwister Beer company ? Or am I wrong on that ? This really wonderful taking about the convention and we are so calm and peaseful about it . Princess you are doing a great job with this discussion .

Renee

Renee, I was hoping we could just talk about the campaign without taking sides, and so far so good! I think Josie might know better than me about Cindy McCains background. I believe her family has something to do with Anheuser Bush Beer (spelling?) It takes a boatload of money to campaign. Josie, it's not that anyone heard Palin say that family comes first. The televised sound bite was of the opinion that Palin "should" put her family first. Governor Palin has a high threshold for coping. I'm so interested in hearing more. It (the campaign) isn't over until... it's over. And then some. L

Have you seen the link JJ put up under Recommended Links her post # 158450? It's hilarious! of the campaign

Princess,

Great Idea and I will check under that post . Thanks

Renee

Sometimes, folks with little money are jealous of those with
lots of money and the latter get gossiped about for no reason.
They're accused of all sorts of things they never did or never even thought of doing. McCains are big hearted people, you can
see that in the faces of their children. The "Left" will hound Sarah Palin till election day. She looks strong enough to withstand whatever they throw at her.

I was very disappointed when Hillary gave up for the good of her party. I would've crossed over party lines to vote for her.
I think handsome, hubby Bill was a bit of an anchor for her and his misadventures took the float out of Hillary's boat.

Whichever party gets in, lets pray they fix what needs fixing
in this country, the greatest country ever!

Cindy Hensley MCain's family (on a shoestring) started "Hensley & Company," which originally had 15 employees and sold 73,000 cases of beer a year. It became an Anheuser-Busch beer wholesaler, now considered the 3rd largest Anheuser-Busch distributer in the US.

After founder Jim Hensley passed on in 2000, daughter Cindy and her children inherited 68% of the company....

While some Anheuser-Busch distributors have ended their exclusive arrangements with the beer maker, analysts believe that Hensley has no plans to do so. Hensley also is a major contributor to charity in the Phoenix metropolitan area, donating about $1 million per year to various causes and starting the Hensley Employee Foundation in 2001.

Resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hensley_%26_Co.

Yes, I agree Jabber, that sometimes folks with lesser money resent those with more. I am also seeing that many who have been in Washington DC far too long, consider themselves above the average person, unless it is election time, when politicians come down off the mountain top to say temporarily that they are like everyone else.

I don't know if this tremendous liberal media bias against Governor Palin is pure sexism or because she is from a small town and governs a state known more for its moose and glaciers than for fancy restaurants and super malls. If it wasn't for Fox News, I would get the impression that Governor Palin is an empty-headed pretty backwoods female who ran a small town for a couple days and who now is trying to compete out of her league with the big boys. Oh, and even women reporters on pro-liberal stations are questioning why a mother of 5 would ever want to leave her children to be a VP.

Funny how Edwards cheating on his dying wife and STILL running for President was covered up by the media for such a long time. I wonder why that deception to the American people by a man running for the Presidency was hidden by the press. I really liked Edwards too. I'm livid about this double standard treatment.

We boomer women, we Americans, deserve better.

I'm glad when moms can afford to stay at home with their children. I worked many years as a night nurse while my husband worked days, so one of us could be home with our one child.

I greatly admire Governor Palin, who apparently sleeps 3-4 hours a night, her ability to balance her large family and extensive work life. No one asks a male-politician how they are able to balance both.

I thought we boomers answered that question decades ago.

Josie,
I was hugely disappointed by Edward's conduct, too.
Here too: I worked nights and hubby worked days while our son was a baby.
And I like Sarah Palin. I hope she stands up against the Washington establishment, without batting an eyelash!

Me too, Jabber. I hope Governor Palin's speech tonight hits one out of the park. I've studied her resume and she has more leadership and multi-tasking experience than the TOP of the other ticket. She ALREADY has a proven record as a reformer.

Gooooooooooooooooooooooo Sarah!!!

I am watching and listening closely to her, this woman could be the 'dark horse' this campaign needed. And I agree GoooooooooooooooooSarah!

I will be watching the convention tonight again and really looking foward to seeing Sarah Palin's speech tonight . I watched many speaker's last night also. Didn't they also go over McCain's Bio last night ? This is very exciting .

Like you said go Sarah.........

Renee

Hi Renee... McCain's bio was described in a video and by Fred Thompson and close friend Joe Lieberman. Videos of Republicans Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan were shown earlier in the evening.

A Democratic woman named Harriet Christian was on Fox News just now and said she is a former Hillary supporter who has started a watchdog group called "The New Agenda." She said there are at least 5 million fellow Hillary supporters who feel it is very important to elect John McCain, as he is standing by his female VP candidate, unlike what the Dems did to Hillary Clinton, who brought in 18 million votes. She added that she is so sick of the sexism and she's not going to vote for a party, when its women are treated like second class citizens.

This Presidential race is getting more interesting by the day....

Yes, it is getting more interesting. I haven't kept CNN on all day in, well, never before. I try to stay out of political chats. I'm glad we are chatting here because I appreciate everyone's input and feedback. It's good to here the opinions of peers.

Hey, Josie,

I am not far from you I live in MD . I am sick of the sexism too and tried of the news people going after the children and their familys . Going clear back to the MIL. I heard on the news tonight that Sarah Palin's speech was redone the first part she is not talking about the issues tonight . I know she has the strangthen in her voice to do it tonight . Can't wait to here everyones reponse tomorrow when she makes her speech tonight . At least now McCain is finally getting in the news .

Thanks Josie for the update from last night .

Renee

Text Of Gov. Palin's speech:

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for vice president of the United States ...

I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.

I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election ... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.

And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won — the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.

It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost — there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.

But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.

They overlooked the caliber of the man himself — the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.

And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.

Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.

He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.

Our son Track is 19.

And one week from tomorrow — September 11th — he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.

My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.

In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between — my strong and kindhearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.

And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.

That's how it is with us.

Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.

And children with special needs inspire a special love.

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.

He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.

Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.

We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.

And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.

My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and haberdasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.

A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.

I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.

When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.

And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion — I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.

Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.

The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

No one expects us to agree on everything.

But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.

I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good ol' boys network.

Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.

But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.

And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

I also drive myself to work.

And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef — although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending — by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest — and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.

Our state budget is under control.

We have a surplus.

And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged — directly to the people of Alaska.

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.

As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher.

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.

We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.

Maybe you have, too.

We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much ... he promises more.

Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business — like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.

In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.

And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.

Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.

And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency — from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.

Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.

He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.

A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.

He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.

And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.

It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.

But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.

It's the journey of an upright and honorable man — the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.

To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pinhole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.

As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" — as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.

For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.

For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.

If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.

Thank you all, and may God bless America

"...a servant's heart."

A very recognizable phrase which I seldom hear publicly uttered by politicians. Sits well with me.

I truly believe Sarah is just what the Republican ticket needed...Her speech was amazing, she is amazing, down to earth, smart as can be, and honest. She will make women proud to be women. She gave Obama a run for his money using his own words against him. I am really looking forward to the debates between her and Joe Biden. Ladies I believe witrh her at his side McCain (war hero) will make a real difference. But you have to listen to what McCain himself says, NOT what the terribly biased news media says...
Yeah Sarah, you go girl...

Lola,
Glad you were able to make it back into the boomer women site.
And thank you for posting Sarah Palin's speech. I'm grateful.
I agree, Chatty. Sarah Palin was exactly what the GOP needed. I
know some republicans, extremely rekindled by her nomination.
I join the rest of you: GooooooooooooooSarah!

The idea of [a servant's heart] was originally promoted by
Jesus. True?

To Lola: Thanks so much for presenting the text of Governor Palin's historic speech. She radiated leadership and confidence in her support of John McCain and much needed Washington insider government reform. Her qualifications, especially in the field of energy and balancing a state budget, give her a huge leg up on the top of the opposing ticket.

This morning, the evening anchors of ABC, NBC, and CBS said together in an interview, they are justified in asking Governor Palin questions of a personal nature, since they consider it part of the political landscape as brought on by bloggers and other media sources. Yet you do not hear them asking Biden about his son and brother regarding charges they are dealing with. You do not hear them asking Biden about his 30+ years in Washington. You do not hear them doing really intense questioning of Obama about his 20 year personal mentor/friendship with racist Wright, domestic terrorist bomber Ayers, or the affiliation between Obama and Resko. You do not hear them asking Obama how he can be a parent and still run for the nation's highest office. And they suppressed the John Edwards cheating on his dying wife scandal WHILE he was running for President.

This week, "US" magazine is presenting a cover story and headline on Governor Palin which is despicable. Yet CBS, NBC, and ABC are not reporting it as sexism at its worst. By the way, "US" magazine is owned by "Rolling Stone" Magazine which heavily supports Barack Obama.

We boomers are not stupid. We see what is happening. The supposed people of "choice" have decided to destroy a woman who made many choices different from them.

I think they did not count on a formidable down-to-earth unpretentious woman who can hold her own in such a situation.

There may be a strong backlash against those who only support women in power who think THEIR way.

Like most women of today, I am not pigeon-holed into thinking any one way. Which is why I am a strong independent. I vote any party who has a candidate I believe in.

And I now believe far more can be achieved for the American people by leader John McCain and maverick Sarah Palin. My Democratic husband, who did not support Bush, said he will vote McCain/Palin as the REAL candidates for change.

It is actually espoused by all faiths...some older than the Christian faith. Even those without membership to any faith group will recognise that the standard which politicians must first adhere to is in reducing oneself to service. The test is not: "What service can I extract?" but "What service can I give?" It bears humility and the soundest common sense, especially in politics. It is in fact the first principle of service leadership. And we do need people in government whose ideal is service.

I read the text of her speech more than once and noted how much it greatly reflects some sentiments shared here...and not just politically. When she introduced her husband, I could not fail to think of Dotsie. When she spoke of little towns and the fervor of people who lived there, there are parallels at BWS. As with taxation and small businesses, children with special needs and the need for support, etc. She must be reading our posts!

You're welcome, Josie.

Oh...and if she can parry with the oil giants and serve Alaska's interest...

I must say that I'm also a strong independent and will not vote party lines.

While away the past few days with friends of differing views, I heard some negative comments about her. However, I was blown away by her speech, her delivery, her demand of the audience, and her message. She's really gotten my attention. I got the impression she spoke from the heart.

I was very inpressed with her Speech last night and found it quite moving to me . John McCain gives his speech tonight and want to hear his also. Can't wait .

Thanks who ever posted Palin's speech I forgot to check . Good job .

Renee

I got the scoop on something NO media is talking abot, The National Inquirer rag of a gossip paper, prinbted a story that Sarah had an affair with her brother-in-law. The McCain campaign said ENOUGH and released their legal attack dogs to go after the paper and are suing their shameless, lying pants off...

If you can all imagine what it must have been like for McCain during all those years in a POW camp tortured daily, and still he is unscathed by it all and a decent, family oriented man, and has the BALLS to go against Alcidea, or whoever else trys to mess with America. He loves his country and was willing to die for it. Can Obama-drama say the same thing? Hell NO!!! Hes a Johnny Come Lately tryi8ng to be the King. Obama is all show, all promises and thinks we're all stupid and gullible. Sarah took him to task, by using his very own words against him. She is a match for the Washington good old boys club and they are terrified of her. Goooooooooooo SARAH!!!!

I realize that many were moved by this speech. But does it bother anyone that Sarah Palin's speech was written by Bush's scriptwriter, Matthew Scully, before he even met her? And that after McCain made his choice, the McCain election team had to edit the speech to make it more "feminine"? I mean, can this be "speaking from the heart," if it's written by someone else? Or should we be willing to accept that it was a good delivery and she _seemed_ to be sincere?

It does not bother me. For so long as any scriptwriter can truthfully draft an immediate parallel to Palin's intentions, accomplishments, etc. Is there any reason to doubt a contradiction?

If there is any part of her speech I would seek clarity, it would be this:.


"But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.

DJ, you had to go and ruin it for me, didn't you? Just kidding.

Ross and I were wondering who the speech writer was. I hadn't heard what you shared. Where did you learn that? Good grief. That really ticks me off. It was really written before he met her? That's insane.

Well then, her delivery was grand!

In re: comments above, the following--

from Ben Dimiero
New Media Associate
Media Matters for America
bdimiero@mediamatters.org
www.mediamatters.org
Work: 202.772.8189


In reporting on Gov. Sarah Palin's September 3 speech at the Republican National Convention, numerous print media, including the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Time magazine, the Dallas Morning News,[/i] Reuters, and an article and a column by Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle, uncritically reported Palin's claim that Sen. Barack Obama "is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform -- not even in the state senate," without noting that Obama has played key roles in the passage of reform legislation at both the federal and state levels. For example, Sen. John McCain, a co-sponsor of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, thanked Obama for his work on the bill.

Obama was a lead co-sponsor of that bill (S.2590), which sought to "require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds" -- an amount that approximately totals $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans. While signing the bill into law on September 26, 2006, Bush recognized Obama as a sponsor of the legislation, saying, "I want to thank the bill sponsors, Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, Tom Carper from Delaware, and Barack Obama from Illinois." Moreover, in a press release upon Senate passage of the bill, the bill's primary sponsor, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), referred to the legislation as the "Coburn-Obama Bill." In media reports, the bill has also been referred to as the "Coburn-Obama" legislation or bill.

At the state level, Obama was a co-sponsor of a 1998 Illinois ethics law outlawing political fundraising on Illinois state property and barring lobbyists from giving gifts to state legislators. Obama biographer David Mendell wrote about Obama's work on the bill in his book Obama From Promise to Power:

Working the bill was an eye-opening experience for the freshman senator. It was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues. In one private session, a close colleague angrily denounced the bill, saying it impinged on lawmakers' inherent rights. But Obama worked the issue deliberately and delicately, and the measure passed the senate by an overwhelming 52-4 vote. "This sets the standard for us, and communicates to a public that is increasingly cynical about Springfield and the General Assembly that we in fact are willing to do the right thing," Obama told reporters immediately after the bill's passage. The bill was not a watershed event anywhere but Illinois. It essentially lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions. [Page 124]

Obama was also the sponsor of the "Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005" (S.2125), signed into law by President Bush on December 22, 2006. Obama worked with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) to produce the "Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative," which President Bush signed into law on January 11, 2007. The initiative, according to Obama's Senate website, "expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction."

Obama also introduced a bill in the Illinois senate requiring police departments to videotape interrogations of murder suspects within interrogation rooms. The bill was signed into law in 2003. A May 9, 2003, Chicago Daily Herald article reported on Obama's involvement in the bill:

[Gov. Rod] Blagojevich's indication Thursday that he supports the plan is a turnaround from his previous position. The governor previously said he opposed videotaping interrogations but supported taping of confessions.

Blagojevich said he'd changed his mind after being satisfied that Obama had ironed out "some of the practical challenges that deal with the issue of videotaping interrogations."

—L.K.A.

I'm glad Obama had the moxie to face O'Reilly. Bill has good
interviews. I'm not happy with some of Obama's past relationships. Too many of them are radicals. Speeches, books,
interviews are mostly scripted/written by professional writers.
That's the way it is. But Sarah Palin comes across with dignity and confidence; that they can't do for her. I also say, "Goooooooooo Sarah!"

I just read in Newsweek that Sarah Palin's acceptance speech was already written for the chosen VP and when McCain chose her, they had to change it a little to add more feminity. I often wonder, on both sides of the fence, how many of these candidates ever say their own words in a speech?

They all own their speeches and speechwriters have been around for some time. http://www.whitehouseghostsbook.com/author.html

I think the difference lies in the competence of speechwriters and the protocol observed in consultation.

Thanks, DJ. I have also trawled The Library of Congress website where it is quite easy to find legislation sponsored, co-sponsored, introduced by Obama. You reckon they know something we don't?

The Republican convention officially closed last night..... I felt an honesty about John McCain as he talked. Though not a fancy talker like Obama, McCain seems to be a straight-shooter who tells it like it is. He lived through some torturous times that many other humans would never have survived. And once healed, he has spent many years giving back to this country you can see that he loves dearly.

I feel he and Governor Palin are true patriots, real people, and the real deal for much needed change in Washington.

No offense taken. Like Sarah, I think parents should take the lead in sex education for their children. I also think because a number of parents do NOT take the initiative in this area, they should give signed permission for it to be taught to their children by quaified sex education teachers.

I also believe in the MANDATORY teaching of ethics and personal accountability from pre-school on up.

On the subject of REALITY and TEENS, I DO know that no matter what is taught or by whom, teens are sometimes governed by raging hormones and make mistakes. I am very glad that Bristol Palin, her fiance and both families are supportive of their children during this time in their lives.

My understanding is that Governor Palin helped to shape her speech and make it her own. Obviously her bio, her style of thinking and her winning delivery were very much her own.

Political speechwriting has been in vogue since the time of George Washington, whose farewell speech was written by others. Abraham Lincoln was one of very few who wrote his own speeches. Even the famous speeches we hear about (like JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech) were written by others. Obama is no exception, although his handlers would like you to think otherwise.

Resource: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/bnewmark_0904/

Josie, I can't believe there is anyone still listening to the lying main stream media. They are so biased for Obama it stinks...Luckily we aren't the stupid Joe Six Packs they think we are...

IMO John & Cindy McCain R my kind of folks. Sarah Palin & her hubby R my kind of folks. I like Obama but not sure I trust him.
I like Biden but not sure I trust him. I know politicians play to the masses but that's politics! It's a little scary though.
Everytime someone has the moxie to buck the establishment, you know what happens!

You are so right, Chatty Lady. I hadn't noticed the liberal bias had hit epidemic proportions until this election process started. Then my eyes were opened.

Years ago, I worked like a dog to keep my son out of public schools during his early years, so he would not be deeply impacted by "dumbed down" and slanted viewpoints in textbooks, no after-school clubs which were spiritual in nature, etc. (Yet ethnic & political clubs were allowed) By the time he was in senior high, I felt he could be exposed to all manner of bias displayed in our public school system, and he would be able to handle it.

Nowadays, Michael Moore, PC police, and glitzy Hollywood-NY trendsetters seem to dictate this country's liberal and quite disposable morality.

It is no wonder more and more people look to Fox news to get the other side of the story.

Obama is trying to sell us that we are all a step away from The Great Depression. McCain says no matter what our lot in life, this is the USA, where everyone has a chance to rise up. And he, Cindy, Governor Palin and Todd Palin are living examples that you still CAN live the great American dream, no matter who you are or where you come from.

If what Michael Moore and Obama says is true, that we are ALL one paycheck away from being homeless because of one President and he alone, then how did Moore and Obama manage to sell their propaganda and become millionaires right under the nose of that very same President! hmmmmmmm

Here's a letter that is not mainstream media by any stretch. "The Rest of the Story" as Paul Harvey says.

I have the emailers name and email address but she has asked that it not be posted on websites. If you're interested in researching it, and send me a private, I will give you the name and address if you promise not to post it publicly.
-----Original Message-----
From: A>
Date: September 1, 2008 12:20:01 AM PDT
Subject: re: SARAH PALIN

Dear friends,

So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the
last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .

Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in
common: their gender and their good looks.

You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts
with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on
any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .

Thanks,

----
ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.
She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym. She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a
champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly
sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a
new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a
multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office
redecorated more than once. These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she
recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.

She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power
to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts
were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some
undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this man's ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget
guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork".

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party
leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State's lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more
knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.


CLAIM VS FACT
*"Hockey mom": true for a few years
*"PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary
school, not since
*"NRA supporter": absolutely true
*social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
*pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
*"Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
*"Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
*political maverick: not at all
*gutsy: absolutely!
*open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at
explaining actions.
*has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
*"a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
*fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
*pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
*pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
*pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city
government in Wasilla's history.
*pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union
doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that's life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90's.

Thank you for supplying this information, DJ. I'm sure you mean well. I've seen several other similar versions written by "a private housewife," being passed around online. I have no idea whose campaign idea this is.

I have no doubt that upon authentic confirmation, any real facts will be headlined by every national & global media resource available. Joe Biden (who lives near me) will be grilling her about her alleged ruthlessness and sleazy tactics during the national debate. (He keeps his own really dirty laundry Delaware-local and within the DC-Beltway. The liberal media has no problem with this, as they had no problem helping John Edwards keep his secret while running for President.)

The vicious "US" magazine article (owned by Rolling Stone and major supporter of Obama) and other smear tactics about Governor Palin's personal life, sink to the bottom of the barrel in my opinion.

This feels like more political business as usual: Destroy the competition by any means necessary.

The aforementioned opinion-letter about how terrible Governor Palin REALLY is, was originally written by Alaskan resident Anne Kilkenny on August 31, and sent out to her brothers, sisters and friends. It has since reached about 200 web sites. I have no idea if this person has an ax to grind, if she is being paid, or what. What I DO know is that the letter is making its way around the globe and been modified to fit the hate agenda by far left liberals. I am hearing the radical left are pulling out all the stops to get Palin's name off the ticket within 2 weeks.

Are they making progress? Hmmmm

Governor Palin is by no means perfect, but I have a feeling there is much more to this letter than meets the eye.

Resource for original letter: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp

I asked my husband (who just arrived home from work) to read this "letter" from a small town Wasilla housewife to her 40 brothers, sisters and friends. His opinion? "This is no private letter written by someone to their family members, most of whom would have already known of her obvious long-term hatred of Sarah Palin. And why would this Anne Kilkenny person need to advise her very own relatives to google her name and her state to find out about her own local government, education and PTA affiliations?"

Kilkenny may have a poor opinion of Governor Palin for whatever reasons, but she is putting out high school nonsense on the Internet under the guise of writing "privately" to family. This fish is smelling fishier.

Since Governor Palin has an unprecedented 80% popularity rating among Alaskans, I guess the remaining 20% do not like her. Oh well. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Same thing with Obama. People have been putting out slam stories over the internet since he started running. You shouldn't believe ANY of them.

PS: I'm a Democrat for Obama.

She's 1/2 sleezy, too...Uh huh...sure nuff. Right, DD?

Whatttt? Okay, okay, I'll stop. <teehee...>

Hi Dancing Dolphns. I'm all for voting your conscience. Thanks for voting. We boomers are putting others to shame. We have SUCH a good turn out!


Hurray for Voting-Boomers!!!!!!!

I'll drink to that!

Okay,
Love reading everyone post on this thead and some good thoughts. I did want to say my final message on Palins speech . She mention that if McCain is elected she will make sure that the special needss Children will be taken care of . I was inpressed my this also. We had down syndrome child across the street when my daugher was little and I taught her to repect him and be kind to him . He would come over and play with her at time . Kids would tease him and one day they took his basketball away from him . A lot of training and help that goes into helping these people for they need group homes to go to when the parent dies and their is no one else to care for them . Some of us maybe have a special needs child or know of someone who has one . My neighbors boy died several years ago and we all miss him .

My hubby and I watched MaCain's speech and thought it was very well done I like MaCain and always did . Didn' mean to repeat myself .

Some really good opinions here .

Best,

Renee

When you watch it more than once, you see the errors of their ways... While I was throwing 'atta girls' at different speakers, and smiling triumphantly here and there during the first viewing, I found myself more critical on the second.

I'm still undecided and going nuts. Quite honestly, I'm afraid to vote for either at this point. I wish all the negative emails could somehow stop. I've gotten many against both parties. It's sickening. I have one friend who assumes that everyone votes as she and her hubby do, and she flings these neative things around all the time. I don't forward them. Occasionally, I'll save them and show them to Ross to get his opinion, or I'll Google to see if there's any truth to them. The saddest part is, how do you know what's true?

My question is this:

Whether you're a democrat or republican, where do you get your news, who do you listen to and believe, and do you have any political Web sites that you respect?

Dots,
I listen a lot to C-Span Radio, which is available in this area, as I drive to and from work (can't pick it up in the house though) 90.1 FM. It's the same as one of the broadcast Cspan channels. I think this is the best public forum that still exists in this country. CSpan is funded by a consortium of cable TV owners. Its purpose is to cover speeches and events (like sessions of the House and Senate, etc.) It can be excruciatingly boring at times. They allow people to call in to ask questions, if they have a guest speaker. At other times, the program host simply answers the phone and people call in to voice their opinions. The host doesn't comment or answer questions, but says that they'll try to find someone with the answer.

Because I drive a lot commuting to work, I listen to every possible talk show besides Cspan -- NPR's talk of the Nation, morning edition and all things considered, Terry Gross, the Diane Ream show (from Wash DC), Maryland Morning, The Cojo Nambi show (also DC), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura, the Christian network, the local Ron Smith Show, DC 101 (I sometimes listen to the raunchy hard rock DJs. Ew!) In other words, I listen to a lot of sources. I also read the local papers (though I just canceled the Baltimore Sun out of protest for how they're destroying it since it was bought by Chicago real estate mogul Zell. Now I read it online. And can you believe I can't get the Baltimore Examiner to deliver their free paper to my house? Not sure why. All my neighbors seem to get it.) I also read the NY Times at work.

The problem with journalism is the way it has evolved so that journalists only interview the "experts" on things. It becomes a sort of game, in that the experts will put out official press releases, or give speeches focusing on certain events, and the reporters aren't allowed to bring up topics the experts haven't mentioned. On TV occasionally you hear from the "(wo)man on the street" and how some particular thing effects them.

As I said elsewhere in the forums, I'm teaching a course about propaganda in the United States. I define propaganda as being manipulated without your knowledge or consent. (Thus, a polemical piece or editorial, or advertisement wouldn't be propaganda. However one-sided it is, if it's well reasoned, then it gives you a choice). This summer I read 50-60 books preparing for this course. The books weren't all about propaganda per se, first of all, because there aren't very many of those and the best ones are from the 1920s and 1930s which have been long out of print (I've got them too though). But I've also read about the early 20th century push to give more power and rights to corporations -- in my research I found that most of the propaganda we're subjected to in this country is from big corporations. Remember -- I define propaganda as manipulating without our knowledge or consent, so I'm talking about strategies to prevent us from getting information. Big example: hormones in milk products. Monsanto has pushed legislation in various states to make it illegal to "slander" hormone-free milk. It sounds absurd. The beef industry did something similar in Texas (remember when Oprah was sued for "slandering" beef?)

I also look at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) which is an independent press watchdog group.

The idea of experts in charge goes back to the Hamilton-Jefferson debate at the founding of the US. It was re-invigorated in the early 20th century because the wealthy elite thought the new immigrants were too stupid to make their own decisions.

Get my info from The NO Spin Zone, GMA, my adoptive brother, he's a career politician, and his wife. And I vote from the gut.
It takes me a while to decide.

Jabber,
Where do your brother and his wife get their information? And what's GMA (grandma?)? With all due respect, you need to get more and better information _then_ vote from your gut.

As an OB-GYN nurse-instructor to new moms years ago, I would tell them to listen to me, both sets of grandparents, their friends, neighbors, medical professionals and information both online and off. Then when it came to making any non-medical decisions about their baby's care, do what feels right to them. If whatever they decide doesn't work out, they still have lots of resources to draw from.

That's how I approach voting too. As an Independent, I listen to many resources online and off, check it out againt a politician's REAL experience, and go with my gut.

Much of what you'll hear these days about national candidates, reeks of bias. I figure as a boomer I'm wise enough to tell who's real and who is plainly echoing a party line and saying what people want to hear, in order to garner votes.

If you go with your gut, I don't think you can go wrong.....

Whenever a politician speaks, I only believe half of what s/he says . There is so much BS flying around, from both sides, that I always go to Annenberg FactCheck to see what's really true. http://www.factcheck.org/

I don't believe there is a liberal bias in mainstream news - their owners are almost always conservatives and most of what we hear isn't the full story anyway but a series of soundbites.

Most of the news I read comes from Google News, which is a collection of stories with sometimes 100+ sources so I can read both sides. I also watch PBS news (MacNeil/Lehrer)as it's more in depth than what the networks show. I used to watch Fox News but have found their pundits to be neither fair nor balanced but just spouting their opinions, which to me isn't journalism. The sites that I watch and read have proven their worth with reporting both sides of an issue, not just the Democrat or Republican party lines.

I am an Independent and never vote the party ticket but for individuals who I think will do the most for my city, state, and country, whether or not their beliefs coincide with mine. As far as the so-called 'hot-button' issues like abortion and gay marriage; I believe these are distractions from the major issues like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the coming war with Iran; the sad state of our economy; the widening income gap; a less than stellar education system; and the assaults on the environment.

Of course, these are just my opinions.

God bless your neighbor's boy now in heaven, Renee. I very muched loved the Down's kids I met as a child at our local parochial school, where they met on weekends to play sports. I remember thinking that they looked different, and they sure acted different toward me than those seemingly "normal-acting" kids who made fun of my big nose or raggedy clothes.

Down's kids are a very special kind of people, because they know how to show love better than most other humans put together.

In this day where perfectionism is frequently about superficial outside beauty, I'm so glad we have people like Governor Palin around to remind us that loving and shielding special babies from harm is a deep form of love not unlike what God has given to children like her son "Trig."

Along with the Kennedys and many millions of others, I support Special Olympics and all programs designed to empower special needs children and adults.

We all can learn so much from the many colorful and different flowers God has made.....

There is a HUGE bias in media, some of which is inevitable. There are many courses and books on the subject, including online resources like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias
Thanks for the link you offered as another online resource.

PS: Many media venues are owned by liberal individuals or organizations, a fact you can easily check on your own or with the help of a local reference librarian.

DJ, GMA is Good Morning America (CBS morning news+… Dianne & Robin) And Jabber they are worth watching.

Josie... couldn't have said it better!
Both sides have biased reporting (there's no such thing as unbiased reporting, anyway)... right mostly on talk radio, while left has the TV angle... but you can find both on radio and TV... both have their internet and print sources...
If you use your unbiased intuition, you'll see/hear where the biases lay... it may take some practice.

You have to remember Wikipedia is publicly written, and can be modified by any approved contributor. Per Wikipedia, it is a “free content encyclopedia project” and “is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world.” Some high schools and colleges won’t allow it to be used as a referenced source.

Yonuh, you made an excellent point : “As far as the so-called 'hot-button' issues like abortion and gay marriage; I believe these are distractions from the major issues...” These effect a handful, while the other issues you mentioned effect the greater part of the whole. I believe abortion and gay marriage issues should be taken to a state level. An aside: I’m inclined to believe education would do better under state by state total administration.

I think there use to be an extreme liberal bias, esp. on TV. It seems of late (most obvious during this election) each news group has been trying to (or making a show as if they are trying to) temper their coverage with what Fox News takes claim to – balanced and fair reporting. The old adage applies, however, “what’s in the heart comes out of the mouth.” If a listener is tuned in, determined to find truth(*), s/he can hear and see what they need to.
(*To add, what is one wo/man’s truth, may be another’s untruth. There is nothing that can be proven to be true except what we are experiencing this very minute. Even the words I’m typing right now cannot be ‘proven’ one way or another to you... they are my truth at this moment in time. Your interpretation at the time of reading this is your truth at the moment in time. ---
Recorded history is negated, contradicted, and questioned as time marches on. Predictions for the future can't be truth until they happen. Truth is now.)

To answer Dotsie's question:
TV - I watch programs on PBS, CSPAN, CNN, CBS, a little ABC… use to watch Fox News, but don’t get it anymore (miss it).

Internet – all over the place… Yahoo News is my homepage, but I have feeds from
Hanlon's Razor lib
Huntington Post lib
TalkingPoints lib
Drudge Report cons
PJ Media cons
even though there is no such thing as unbiased reporting/commenting, here might be some close tries:
The Nation
FactCheck.org
SourceWatch/Congresspedia (yes, wiki fam)

Don't do radio or print... unless in car or in some waiting room and something is available.... internet is more up to the minute.

There is absolutely no way to read/hear everything... that's why forum discussions like this are so worth it.

I'll stick this in one more time... body language

My opinions

I'm responding to Gims' comment, "There's no such thing as unbiased reporting" as well as the continuing comments that there's a liberal bias in the US media. To me, that's poppycock. If you think it's true, then you've never really met an _extremely liberal_ person!

While we all have our point of view - perspective - worldview, that isn't necessarily the same as "bias". Bias has become one of those buzzwords that people use but don't define or explore. Like "liberal". They become codes. And when we use words like that, we don't communicate as well as we might.

In conversations and discussions, is it possible to come to a consensus? Is it possible to combine our different points of view and opinions, and find answers to problems? I think it is. We've taken part in classroom discussions for years and we send our kids to schools to learn how to do this. We are, in fact, having discussions in these forums. If it were fruitless, I don't think we'd do it.

Media are supposed to provide outlets for such discussions. They don't live up to this standard and you could say that the situation is becoming quite dire. But painting all media with the same brush doesn't help matters. What does help is to hold media accountable, and not allow them to be sloppy.

People can learn to examine their biases. Journalists and researchers are trained to do this. In anthropology they call it "bracket your assumptions" which means to acknowledge that you have certain assumptions and that they might affect how you see something.

In the US all newspapers in the 1830s used to have a specific political party label. All news was written from the standpoint of that party. In Italy and France, such papers still exist. You can also find them in the US but it's not as simple as some would have you believe.

When advertising became the primary way for supporting the US media, political affiliations were eliminated. Advertisers wanted to be able to reach the widest possible audience, and publishers were happy to oblige. At the turn of the 20th century, up through, say, the 60s, this system was firmly in place. News stories privileged wealthy white audiences. They also supported the business point of view, above all.

Look at your newspapers or TV newscasts. There's a business section, with stockmarket reports. There's a sports section. There's what used to be the "women's" section with recipes and household tips. These sections reflect our values as a culture. There isn't a "labor" section. Most news media now are trying to attract young people and feature images of young people. There isn't a section for the indigent.

Look at who are presented as the "experts". Who do the reporters go to in order to get their information? It's not the head of a union, or of a consumer or citizens group (unless it's a local paper). Usually it's a public official or head of a company. This indicates that these media are not liberal. (A truly liberal perspective would take the point of view of the citizen, the worker, and report news from that point of view, not the point of view of the heads of parties, which are simply elite corporations.)

This is the real bias. Within this very narrow spectrum there are individual differences. But if you go from city to city, the differences aren't all that great. After 911, the differences were miniscule.

Media like "The Nation" and "Ms Magazine" don't accept commercial ads and only subsist because of circulation. Ms, in fact, made the decision to drop advertising because they were unable to print articles questioning make up and dieting when their advertisers were trying to sell makeup and diet products.

The word "liberal" to me means "progressive" as opposed to "conservative" which means "status quo." I don't think either major political party (Democrat or Republican) has a monopoly on either term, but both are bandied about as though everyone knows what they mean. We should either define these terms each time we use them, or find other words.

If the goal is to get at the truth, then it makes sense to take care to express what you mean.

DJ,
GMA is Good Morning America. My brother was a councilman, then
a Town Supervisor, etc. His wife reads every word of every area newspaper. I don't take the time to do that. I scan the articles. Brother deals with state and federal politicians, etc.
I listen to Bill O'Reilly; Rush; Paul Harvey; Gretta Van__; and google sites, etc. I'm not certain we get the TRUTH no matter how much digging we do. The old folks had a say, "Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see." If a person likes someone, they say good things. If they don't like someone,
they lie about them. Everybody has their own agenda. So learn what you can and do what feels right within your heart aka [gut]. We respect you and equal consideration is appreciated.

GREAT commentary, gims! I'd like to note that although Wikipedia is "the people's encyclopedia" and not always accurate, in the matter we were discussing, bias in media, they listed about 75 authenticated resources for media bias.

The dictionary says bias means slanted, a curved course. All members of the human race have bias in MANY different areas, depending on your DNA and life experience. It's a universal trait.

Politically, I have a bias which goes against straight party-line thinking. I agree with certain things about each party's platform, and certain things that maybe neither would agree with.

When I vote in November, I'll vote for the people who best represent my values and beliefs. My gut feelings are a very strong part of the process. Politics is a game and we are the puppets whose strings politicians are trying to pull with their ever-changing rhetoric. So in the end, I'll vote my research results, my conscience and my gut.

Thanks for sharing where you get your news. I was especially interested in the Web addresses. Every now and then I'll turn on some of the TV shows that have been mentioned. It drives me nuts to hear people bicker (which is what lots of them do) and talk over one another so much that you can't even understand what they're saying. When they do that, I change the channel. I enjoy reading online. You don't get all the angry voices roaring in your ears. Who needs it?

Beg to differ, Josie, on several points.

First of all, we don't _inherit_ intellectual and cultural "traits" via DNA. We can have traits like quick thinking, methodical thinking, etc. which may be inherited, but we learn about the world and so so from a cultural standpoint. What we learn is not set in stone. Unlike animals, humans are extremely malleable. We have a rational soul and are able to choose freely. We have very few (if any) instincts.

Bias is consistent. You can have points of view depending on your life experience, gender, social class, race, etc. That's not the same as bias. As I pointed out above, the US media has a consistent bias in favor of business.

Bias connotes unfairness and is related to prejudice. If the newspaper consistently favors, for example, business interests over the interests of the poor unemployed, that's unfair coverage. The bias prevents the reporter from even _seeing_ that there's another side to the story. The story will talk about development, profit, and job creation. It will probably not talk about fair wages, fair treatment of employees, work schedules, etc.

It's also prejudging (prejudiced) in the sense that the reporter has developed a standpoint based on what the news outlet wants. US media get into trouble when they upset businesses that advertise. Thus, a bias in favor of business makes sense to corporate US media.

With regard to your "Going against straight party-line thinking", I'd call that independent thinking rather than bias. It's what everyone should do.

I respect your opinions, DJ. It is great that you can offer points of view polarized from those expressed by myself and some others, on a board which welcomes all voices.

If only the political handlers and their leadership could learn from the ecumenism of our discourse.

My personal slant (bias) remains in favor of voting based on a combination of personal research, conscience and gut.

Josie, thanks for adding the comment about the many source links provided on that particular Wikipedia search. Often contributors are conscientious and provide support with their contributions... something appreciated by readers who don't want to be 'taken' by unsupportable commentary.

DJ, I also respect and appreciate your thoughts. Because I do, I'd like to hear how you view things (how you feel about issues), more so than dissections of our thoughts and the way we express ourselves.

Josie, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that my views are "polarized" from you and others. How is what I say the polar opposite of you? Please explain what you mean by that.

Gims, To me, how we get information is the biggest issue. I'm sorry you aren't interested in discussing it. As far as the candidates, other than dissecting the way we talk about them I'm not going to take sides in these forums (i.e., I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about who are the better candidates). Are you asking me whom I support or what? Or what issues are you referring to? I feel like you're picking on me for some reason. Why are you singling out my comments? Am I missing something here?

DJ, I appreciate your perspective....

The Internet has opened the door to more information sources, which can be add to more cacaphony to the myriad of voices.

It's probably better to review a list of articles and read articles about Palin and Obama ...over the past 5-10 years to get a better grip/trend of their actions over a longer time period.

Anyway Palin is not the presidential candidate in running. Are people think that she will be the real power wielder behind McCain? Am I not understanding something here.

Associated Press is reporting this afternoon that MSNBC is making changes in their reporting team due to unchecked bias. MSNBC is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of political night coverage with David Gregory, and will use the two newsmen as commentators.
Their blatant slant illustrates yet another reason why I crossed off MSNBC (and NBC) from my news radar screen long ago.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_en_tv/tv_nbc_olbermann

Interesting, Josie.
I shot off an email to CNN today, after watching a review on Obama, McCain and the Veep picks. While CNN commentators were doing the Dem side they were cutting up and laughing (in a good way, even though they pointed out some of BO and Biden's faux pas). Then when they were presenting the GOP side, they were straight faced and serious. I honestly believe it was intentional... giving viewers a suggestive and negative mental implant.


To me how we interpret and evaluate the information is one of the bigger issues. So, we differ in opinion. I respect that. I may be the only one who wants to hear what others have read and heard about the candidates - as much as possible and whether good or bad. Even want to hear how each feels about what they've read and heard. No matter where we get the information, we still have to mentally digest it, which is a personal thing. I'll admit, right here and now, I felt as if you were calling me out, when you referred to my comment and some shared feelings about liberal biased reporting being 'poppycock.' (re:post #159051)
I, for one, am not asking anyone to share which candidate they think is better. But, I would like to hear what everyone is thinking about each of the four - information gathering, before making a decision. If I'm leaning a certain way and it's the worst of the ways to lean, something someone has to say might correct my leaning... I'd count that as a blessing. This election is so important.
I apologize if anything I've written is/was bothersome.

And I apologize if I used incorrect wordage. I should've said
"woman's intuition" as opposed to "gut"; that's a milder usage and most likely wouldn't incite negativism.

Okay. Thanks for explaining. It's difficult carrying on a conversation in "type" rather than face to face.

And thank YOU, Orchid. It's nice finding a friend!

Actually, I'm very very afraid for our country these days. I say this as a grandmother of 5. Their USA is starting to look very different from the one that I grew up loving. What I love about this country is that we can discuss issues and make decisions ...but I think that has all been eroding right before our eyes.

I'm a professor of media and other communication topics so I study this stuff all the time. (and by the way, I got my Ph.D. when I turned 50, after having raised 4 kids). I'm actually planning to develop media literacy programs in the community because I'm so concerned about this. I'm currently teaching a course on propaganda in the college where I teach. To prepare for this course, I've read about 60 books since summer 2007 on various topics, including law (decisions about the 1st Amendment and corporations as persons), the use of opinion polls, lobbying, censorship, media history, the concept of the public and the public sphere, etc. etc. All in all what I've learned is more dire than I'd anticipated.

Because space is limited, I'd like to boil it down to the problem and the solution.

1. The problem is that Corporations control ALL the media (radio, TV, books, recording companies, movie companies, textbooks, magazines, billboards...and the same companies own amusement parks, baseball teams, movie theaters etc.). There are 5-6 of them TOTAL in the world that own most of this. Corporations are huge businesses. They're interested in profit, particularly on the stock market. They're impersonal. They do not care about you or me. They want laws (all over the world) that help them keep their power, and they want to get rid of laws that threaten it. They treat democrats and republicans the same and lobby them equally. And starting in the years after the 14th amendment was passed the Supreme Court (I think it was in the 1880s) interpreted that law as applying to Corporations. So they have free speech like you and I do. Think about that. The Walt Disney corporation has the right to free speech. And they own ABC. (By the way, what network do you own?)

2. Corporations prefer that we, the public, be passive. They want us to buy things, but they don't really want us to act as citizens because citizens think and act and make laws to control and contain them. The solution: We the public need to recognize our collective power. We need to hold these corporations accountable.

Lots of other issues are secondary, like what do journalists do, and what party the individual journalists belong to, and what their particular feelings and opinions are. They aren't the enemy. Essentially, journalists are on our side.

There's great difficulty finding real, decent, true information. It shouldn't be so hard, but it is. But the "other party" isn't out to get you. The corporate world is (and spend a lot of time trying to buy politicians). Look around you and start asking yourself what the world looks like, and what it could look like: Big ugly big box stores everywhere, cheap goods from China, Americans out of work. How can little neighborhoods fight against development when a huge corporation comes to town?

And this is not me being anti-business, not at all.

Some of the other corporations to worry about are oil and arms manufacturers. Go back and read history. Look at oil in the 19th century, the "Spanish American War" created by the Hearst news media. Look at WWI and how a country of pacifist-isolationists (i.e., the US) who didn't want to enter into a war with Europe ended up sending so many young men to be slaughtered.(WWI was horrific -- men were used as cannon fodder).

Dwight D. Eisenhower said "Beware the military- industrial -Congressional complex." (The Congressional part is often omitted).

Big business owns the media because big business is the only
outfit that can afford large-scale advertisements!
The average, everyday citizen cannot pay 33 million dollars
a minute to sell something during a Super Bowl Game.

BIG business was once someone's small business which eventually grew into the great American dream for them. I do not begrudge anyone their personal success story.

As an example, Cindy McCain's parents initially sold everything they owned to get $10,000 to start their own business, which now is worth a fortune.

Broadbrushing big business as bad to me seems like a form of socialism. I believe fully in capitalism, where people do what they want with the companies they privately grew. I do NOT believe our government should bail out faltering PRIVATE companies. I do not believe our government should have much to say about the running of any PRIVATE company, except where it comes to the safety and protection of its employees (like child labor laws). More extensive laws should certainly protect public companies to protect stockholders, which include pensions, life savings and even money invested by individuals working at low wage jobs.

Big government is what scares me. Right now we have more entitlement policies which perpetuate individual & corporate poor decision making. What ever happened to ethics and personal accountability? The working middle class is clearly disgusted with their pockets being picked again and again to support poor decision making. To be clear, I am NOT talking about disabled vets, the aged, the truly handicapped or the victims of disasters.

Yes, mortgage companies and credit card companies should be held accountable for extending credit to people who have not demonstrated creditworthiness. These companies should NOT be bailed out by the government. And those who accept such credit and then get into payment difficulty should not be bailed out by the government.

Our government is not here to be Big Daddy, but that is just what is has become. And more is planned for the future. THAT is scary!!!

We live in a country where some who describe themselves as "poor," are obese from too much take-out food. My single young adult nephew and his 2 girlfriends and their seven children receive all kinds of government assistance and none of these adults work for a living. I was raised in a tenement projects and I still have family ties to the kids of some I was raised with, now grown up and receiving their own government checks. One liberal poster said I was passing on urban legend. Wow! He/she has no idea how many collect government checks who are young, able-bodied, and able to work. They can afford cigarettes and beer, but they cannot afford medicine, housing or food for themselves or their children.

So IF they vote, they'll vote for the one who will pay for their personal needs, so they can have money for their personal WANTS.

I see a need for much government reform. There is far too much wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. I think both Democrats AND Republicans should forbid lobbying period. But NEITHER side will do it because of the personal benefits to the legislators who depend on them. Lobbyists spent tens of millions of dollars wooing both parties at each convention. Obama stayed out of it. McCain said he did not condone it. Neither side made loud negative noise about it.

It's not about big business. It's about big government and poor choices by an ever increasing number of GOVERNMENT legislators and PRIVATE individuals who feel entitled to "free" material things they have not earned...

CORRECTION: In the third paragraph down, the sentence, "More extensive laws should certainly protect public companies to protect stockholders, which include pensions, life savings and even money invested by individuals working at low wage jobs"

SHOULD read: "More extensive laws should certainly hold public companies responsible for protecting stockholders, which include pensions, life savings and even money invested by individuals working at low wage jobs."

DJ, thanks for all the informaiton. I appreciate you for sharin git and educating us here at BWS.

What can we do to change this? Any suggestions?

This erosion of their (and our) USA started while (and before) we were growing up loving it.

Common sense has alerted some of us, for years, that things aren't working for the good of the common wo/man. The snowball coming down the hill has been obvious for anyone who had/has their eyes and ears open. More important, we've allowed it AND been part of it.

Shouldn't this read more like: The major media are all owned by corporations, which contract with government - government being the go or stop point.
Point to remember: corporations and governments are made up of 'people.'
How many of us buy shares in these corporations that make profits, after lobbying and having protective laws passed? How many of us wouldn't take advantage of asking a favor of a friend or family member of a corporation or government if we felt it would promote a personal cause?
We, the people, watch TV - how often do we let them know what they do is not to our liking?
We, the people, listen to radio - how often do we let them know what they do is not to our liking?
We, the people, read the books and other printed materials, listen to the recordings, go to the movies and ballgames... how often do we rebel against what we're fed?
We, the people, buy stock - how often do we vote in shareholder matters?
We, the people, empower them by handing them money through every outlet.
Another question: Aren't broadcast networks licensed by the public, not 'owned' by corporations?

This statement makes it too simplistic... there's more to it than this, but there's no way to put all in one post without timing out multiple times.

We, the consumers, are their bottom line. We, the shareholders, are their beneficiaries and their investment dollars. So, in a profitable way, they do care about us. Corporate legislation protects small corporations, as well.

... and there is probably a proportionate number of Dems and Reps on corporate boards and the same for active shareholders. It would be interesting to see honest results of a study done on the political affiliations of each and every major corporate head, board member and shareholder... even more interesting to learn how they truly feel about you and me.

What better way than to live beneath our means, and not buy, buy, buy? Does it not stand to reason that we are the corporations, whether we like it or not, by way of financing their empowerment?

It's not as simple as this. Journalist are more apt, than not, to speak the words of the 'corporation' they work for. My reasoning question is, if the corporations are primarily 'republican, major power brokers,' why do major media have a primarily liberal slant, esp. if the way things are going now are beneficial to them too? In truth from my reasoning, neither party has altruistic fundamentals. We should not unconditionally trust any party.... after all they are made up of 'people' just like corporations and governments.

We, the people, let it happen. We, the people, have bought ourselves into this, our state of affairs.

As I've said before, I believe our interpretation and evaluation of what we hear and see is the big problem. Education is the key. But, there's a big BUTIF in the middle of that...

These are my opinions...

If I could add Media Mogul Ted Turner's classic take on this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html

Bad bad government!
Bad bad big media!
Bad bad big companies!
Gotta crush em!


My opinion? I agree with gims. WE let it happen. WE elect our Washington representatives (those of us who actually bother to vote.) WE add to the ratings of the cheaply-made reality shows and other forms of non-quality programming. WE buy the latest and greatest from the biggest companies, whether the products are made in the USA or not.

It all starts with us.

Not every small business is as fortunate. Big business can shut the doors of small businesses wanting to become big business (or even just profitable). I've been on the receiving end of this. Big businesses have buying power unavailable to the small businesses, unless the latter joins buying groups or pays affiliated markets to get discounts... this doesn't come cheap, either.

If growing a company were as simple. It's a crying shame anyone who wants to grow a company has to be political, but they do.

A&C) If government didn't bail out 'some' private companies (although I'd not call any company on a scale big enough for the government to bail out, private) everyone would feel and live the repercussions. No, it's not fair that some companies have a safety net, but to consider the alternatives is scary, too.
B) The issues in -B- would be hard to execute without government being involved in company business as represented in -A-.
A,B&C) BUT, once government does step in, it should NOT leave the parties involved unaccountable... they should be taking names and kicking bu**s.

Me too!!!

They went out the window to be replaced with greed and power.

A sister, who is taking a psych class, asked me how I felt about this very thing Sunday night. Needless to say, I had a lot to say. I've seen this at work, myself. My sister's question was whether it was 'nature or nurture' - I should have added the word 'government' in my 'nurture' answer.

Even if Obama and McCain absolutely believed against lobbying and have every intention of stopping it, they won't --- they won't be able to, at least it won't happen in our lifetime. It's too involved, and networked too broadly, to be abruptly stopped.

I think it is wonderful that the favored percentages for the candidates has stayed neck and neck... that is the first of many messages that need to be sent to anyone and everyone who wants to hold a public office. It would be even better if the highest percentage was under 'undecided.' What better, and long coming, MESSAGE could be sent than if everyone voted 'independent.'

These are my opinions.

Josie -- My focus is on corporations, not "big business" though I might have used that combination of words. As I said, I"m not anti-business, but anti-corporate control of media. One of the points I made was that corporations are granted the right to free speech in this country. I think that's a problem. I can give you examples for why I think that, but you can also figure it out.

Of course you're more afraid of big government than of big business. After all, media messages are not created by government in this country.

Gims, I totally agree that the bottom line is that individuals are the ones that can make the change. That's what I said in my very long post.

This is what I said: "The solution: We the public need to recognize our collective power. We need to hold these corporations accountable."

from Gims: "The major media are all owned by corporations, which contract with government - government being the go or stop point."

True, Congress makes the laws. They set up the FCC which grants broadcast licenses (and have limited authority over cable) and the FTC has some authority over broadcast advertisements (it's only supposed to step in if they're fraudulent). And yes, the licenses technically belong to the people. And even though since the 1920s citizens have wanted public stations (starting with radio) -- like NPR and PBS that everyone is praising on another string in this forum -- Congress has crumbled to the lobbyists for Corporations -- first the networks (CBS and NBC) and then the National Association of Broadcasters (laws passed in 1927 and 1934). Congresspeople are afraid to go against broadcasters -- after all, who really has more power? It all happened again in 1996 -- How many of you heard about that new law? Probably not many, if any, because it happened without citizen input and without reporters knowing about it. Print media have nothing to do with government contract.

From Josie: "My opinion? I agree with gims. WE let it happen. WE elect our Washington representatives (those of us who actually bother to vote.) WE add to the ratings of the cheaply-made reality shows and other forms of non-quality programming. WE buy the latest and greatest from the biggest companies, whether the products are made in the USA or not.
It all starts with us."

That's what I said, but more tersely.

from Jabber:
"Big business owns the media because big business is the only
outfit that can afford large-scale advertisements!
The average, everyday citizen cannot pay 33 million dollars
a minute to sell something during a Super Bowl Game."

Lots of assumptions here: It's not a given that the system of TV we have -- with large-scale ads reaching a national population -- is the only possible one. What about public broadcasting? What about small-scale, low-powered broadcasting? What about locally owned stations as opposed to networks? What about taxes on TV sets like they do in some countries, rather than advertisement-supported broadcasting?

People power is not the same as socialism or communism. Right now, for example, the internet is relatively free, but pay attention because media companies are trying to change that (the legislation that has a tiered system, that gives preference to phone and cable companies rather than anyone who wants to start a blog of a web site.

The Ted Turner link in my post addresses smaller scale & independent broadcasting among several other related issues.....

I wish the answer were as simple as American citizens acting collectively to make some necessary changes for the good of us all. Such resolution would require sacrifice and self-discipline. Since we live in such a melting pot society with more facets than the Hope Diamond at the Smithsonian, I do not think any majority of us will ever:

1) boycott most of the major TV stations until our voices are heard for increased quality programming,
2) write in "none of the above" on voting ballots if the candidates do not meet our local/regional/national needs,
3)purchase only local, small business or generic brand products until big corporations recognize the needs of the consumers who use their products.

It's just too easy to go with the status quo for many.....

I, too, am about six decades old and have propelled myself through the alphabet soup of academia MY own way. I feel my many experiences outside that realm have taught me so much more about the real world, yet I am glad to have journeyed through endless chapters of "textbook learnin'," if only to view how others see their world.

Regarding socialism & communism: Those ideas can only take root when people allow it. We have seen it happen in history. And we have seen history repeat itself. If we allow our government to become Big Daddy more and more, will there be any incentive left for the common man to be all that he/she can be? I think not.

Sadly, so true!... and some would probably think, 'they aren't, why should I?" and/or "while they're preoccupied, we can take it all."
Not to say it's impossible, though... there may come a tipping point, a point of reference that M. Gladwell wrote about.
heehee, should we think 'revolution?" J/K
I don't have credentials of any kind - at all, at all. Just a curious disposition. I hope I don't come across sounding stupid... but, I do want to share how I feel... in return, hoping to hear how others feel.

Hi gims. I agree that some big businesses have grown too big for their britches and wield a big stick to stifle the competition. Ted Turner talks about that, relative to the world of communication, in the link I provided.....

Nature vs nurture. Now THERE's a topic. lol I was reading about the latest theory that a gene now shows men who stray are "victims" of the sex addiction gene. lol Supposedly that explains why one male star recently went into sex addiction rehab. How low do we as a society have to sink, to excuse adults from all their irresponsible choices.

Today both sets of politicians are talking about pigs and lipstick instead of any real issues. I can't wait for the voting to commence.

I have to admit though, this is to me the most exciting Presidential race in a very long time. Either side that wins will make history. I'm glad to be alive to witness another historical page being turned.

Just be prepared for the fallout. If Obama doesn't win, the race card will be played to infinity. If McCain doesn't win, it'll be because the glass ceiling on ageism/sexism still exists. I thought we had won those battles years ago. lol

Gims: You DO NOT come across as "stupid," to use your word. You have a very keen common sense. I cannot tell you how many people I've met along the way, a few who have written scientific textbooks, who trip over their shoelaces and have no clue about everyday people and their lives. Some live in a narrow minded fishbowl surrounded by dusty journals and motheaten curtains. (All BWS people are excluded from this group, of course)

I will never forget a nursing instructor with a Masters degree who was trying to show her students how to properly place a bedpan under a patient. As I was passing by, I didn't have the heart to tell her that she was misplacing the bedpan backwards, which was why the patient had been complaining. lol

All of us are learning....every day. But common sense is either there, or it isn't. And you have it in spades!!!!

I read this whole thread and I had to laugh at the end. I am just an artist, only an artist. I made my living as one, supported my sons as one and live my whole life as one.

I wish I could get involved in this discussion because I have views as well. I cannot even BEGIN to argue/discuss on the level of you, Gims, or anyone on this thread. I would sound simple.

As an artist, I watch people and learn a lot about society without participating in it regardless of the fact that I am educated as far as one can go in my field.

Artists are a tight bunch, at least those of us who do concerts in large halls and work at it for a living and actually make one. We make "stoopid," money sometimes, as the song, "I want my MTV," says in it's lyrics:

"Look at that yo-yo, that ain't working, play the guitar on the MTV." "Money for nothing and your chicks for free."

We do have opinions but some of us never have a voice.

So ~ from where I'm sitting, you all sound very intelligent and I enjoyed reading this thread. Some points I would argue, some I would not, but it was highly entertaining and insightful.

Me, I'll support my political ideas the way most artists do: I'll appear at the events and read the literature and tell as many da@#$ people and I can with a microphone and a fan list.

Thank you for the debates.

Dancer

Guess I do have an opinion when.....my paid jobs as a librarian, include teaching information literacy: How to do thorough investigative research from...sources that are verifiable, can be authenticated and cited several years from now..without disappearing off from Internet cyberspace. Part of the jobs, include teaching people some good information sources and techniques to update/append base info. I was asked recently in a job interview on my opinion on information literacy instruction for the next generation of students. Maybe we should just generalize to everyone.

Yseful information sources aren't just on the free Internet. Some of your in-depth thoughtful articles...are hidden....for fee via the Internet meaty research..or in a book or fee-based magazine that you buy or borrow. Still being published in hard copy only.

Or are Obama's memoirs for free full-text now in the Internet?

YouTube..is just fleeting, short snippets. Hardly enough analysis, thought and accurate MEMORY by the viewer, is allowed. Great for self-promos or anti-whatever messages.

I'm sure all of us have known people who have been interviewed for tv and radio extensively or not.. and the final aired message is horribly whittled down...to just a snippet of reality, however distorted.

Several people here have mentioned journalists as tended to be "liberal". Really? It's whoever pays their salaries, they will write to..survive on the payroll. HOWEVER, the training of journalist does shape them professionally to want to exercise freedom of speech. We have to remember that the same "liberal" journalists in some countries have been jailed, hurt or lost their careers for speaking the truth.

I better dig up that article in MORE magazine, where a national female tv journalist lost her high paying job, due to her "opinon" to speak out.

On that note of journalists losing their job after 911 US journalists lost their jobs for saying certain things (like Bill Mahr of Politically Incorrect) and others were told they had to wear American flag lapel pins, which those journalists felt was unprofessional (besides being coercive). How does wearing a flag make a person more patriotic? It's like saying that if you put a Christian fish on the back of your car, you're a more spiritual person.

p.s. Dancer, I was a working artist and craftsperson a few decades back.

I want to know who and when something became politically correct or incorrect? Who judges this, and who chose them to do so? Its all a big bunch of gunk if you ask me. I believe in free speech but a little truth from the main stream media now and again, would be nice...

DJ, You make a good point about the flag pin and I do agree.
To some, it means a great deal and says something about the person/canidate. The fish means much to some Christians.
I feel both are ways for people to idenify themselves to their tribe.
They are tribal symbols that bond people in the world which they might feel is frightening.
I believe it is for a feeling of safety that people put so much emphasis on these symbols.
But that is only my observation, and my opinion.
D9

Well said, Dancer. And, that has always been its purpose. At the same time, I must admit, it's use can also be misused by some.


For Americans living abroad, our accents and passports also identify us. There was a time in the '80's, at the height of the militant PLO activities, when accent and travelling on a US passport were not safe for some. The TWA and Achille Lauro were two prominent incidents of that time. Do I feel safer now? Yes, but perhaps, only because security concerns are far better after 9/11 and 7/7.

Josie's Friday Ramblings.....

The Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention were obviously slanted to emphasize their positives and play down their negatives.

What you saw is what was planned for you to see.

And so it is with the media and many other aspects of daily living, like textbooks.

This morning's Fox News had as its guest, a conservative University of Dayton Professor, who wrote a book entitled, "48 Liberal Lies About American History." Take a look: "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421084,00.html
I'm sure there are a number of liberal Professors who can find as many "conservative lies" in textbooks, used mostly by private schools.

ABC News edited the Charlie Gibson interview with Governor Sarah Palin, so it could be presented a certain way. I did not know this until other TV journalists pointed out that the completely unedited version showed a different slant on certain issues.

My point is: Though I know bias is universal, I like to know both sides of the coin. I worked overtime to send my son to private school for many years so he could learn more about God, country and personal accountability as was practiced in our home. When he was old enough, he attended public school so he could experience a much more diverse society.

I went through the same experience. My first day in public school, a history teacher admonished the class for laughing at me, because I stood up in respect as the teacher entered the room. I soon adapted to my new surroundings in order not to be considered "weird."

Now having experienced both sides of the coin for almost 6 decades, I'm a product of both. I do not want either politcal party telling me I have to accept its total party's platform, which to me is total nonsense. I consider myself a moderate (leaning toward the right) and by no means an extremist in either direction.

I like knowing I am a protector of unborn men, women and special children. I like that I am compassionate about immigration reform. I like pledging allegiance to the USA under God, and saying grace before meals, even in restaurants. I like supporting our troops in more than name only. I like democracy and the free expression of ideas. I like small government and am for the working class keeping as much of what they earn as possible. I like respecting the Office of the President (even if I do not like the person in that office.) I like that I can volunteer in my community to give back some of what has been given to me.

I hope some of this makes sense this morning. It's Friday, and I made the coffee too strong. lol

PS: Since we are each telling a bit about work histories: I was grocery shopping at age 4, finding apartments for my family at age 9, worked in a bank sorting keypunch cards at age 12, worked in a bakery at age 15, started working full time at the phone company at age 16, etc etc etc. My husband picked cotton at age 7 and joined the military at age 16 (he lied about his age)....Like most of you, we know what it is like to sweat. Like some of you, we know what it is like to go hungry. (Which in hindsight is a good thing. Because we now appreciate EVERY meal we can afford in this great country of ours.)

Knock on wood, we will always be healthy enough to earn our own way, even if it means cleaning someone else's toilet.