When asked policy questions he answers them. He may not have given a good capital gains answer but I've seen him answer policy questions very well. TV-one did a forum with Obama and Clinton in which they were asked policy questions by community leaders. Obama answered every question very well. ABC spent an hour before asking policy questions. "Does Rev. Wright love America?" isn't the kind of question that gets us anywhere in a debate or as a country. That was something I would expect Karl Rove to ask, not a moderator of a debate on a major network.

 

Tell you what. When the next election cycle rolls around, if the drive-by media will not publish anything along the lines of Bush's 30-year old DUI, or Bush's painfully dredged up and then falsified report about decades old military jobs, or Bush's daughters wild partying, or Bush's father's cat's grandmother's connection to a lower-level Saudi oil prince . . .

 

. . . then I will use my best efforts to not say a single, stinking thing about Obama's Muslimness, connection to Rev. Wright, lack of patriotism, etc. etc. etc.

 

Until the hippocracy ends, though, its fair game. Or, as Dick Cheney says, "keep your head down during the duck hunt."

This thread is tired and old.

 

Look, Obama plans to support abortion and raise taxes. I don't care how he answers the questions, I find serious problems with those two stances (and not only those stances).

 

I don't think that we (conservatives) are going to convince Hilary or Obama supporters by bashing the way that he answers questions or the way that media coddles him (not saying the media does, but who cares).

 

We are better of converting them by hitting on the actual issues. I find it ironic that a lot of people on this board complain that Obama has few policy issues, but are content in thread after thread to talk about non-policy issues (media/Obama relations, Rev. Wright, rumors about his faith and such).

 

How about let's be revolutionaries, and unlike the media, focus on the issues? Instead of criticizing Obama's response to a capital gains tax question, let's focus on what is wrong with a capital gains tax in the first place?

How about let's be revolutionaries, and unlike the media, focus on the issues? Instead of criticizing Obama's response to a capital gains tax question, let's focus on what is wrong with a capital gains tax in the first place?

 

How is plan to raise capital gains tax not an issue? It affects both the economy and my personal wallet.

 

This is typical rhetoric. "Let's focus on what all the previous administrations are doing wrong and trust in "change". Don't be concerned about how it will change, just relax and let it happen."

cch5432, Novel idea, but not very fun.

How is plan to raise capital gains tax not an issue? It affects both the economy and my personal wallet.

 

This is typical rhetoric. "Let's focus on what all the previous administrations are doing wrong and trust in "change". Don't be concerned about how it will change, just relax and let it happen."

I am unsure on what you are saying. I agree that raising capital gains taxes is a major issue (and I am strongly against it). But this thread isn't about the effect of capital taxes, it is about his poor response. Which is off what we should be focusing on.

Interestingly, MoveOn.org is now encouraging its membership to protest John McCain due to his endorsement by a Rev. Hagy (?), who apparently espoused that Hurricane Katrina was God's Judgment for our sin.

cch5432, Novel idea, but not very fun.

 

I honestly believe that the perception that conservatives constantly rip on Democrat candidates (which is half-true, see this thread) is a big part of what truly turns off many independents to voting for the more conservative candidate. If we focused on the issues, we could probably sway a lot of voters to supporting conservative ideologies (at least the intelligent voters).

I am unsure on what you are saying. I agree that raising capital gains taxes is a major issue (and I am strongly against it). But this thread isn't about the effect of capital taxes, it is about his poor response. Which is off what we should be focusing on.

 

I'm not sure I follow. This thread is about whether the media is milk-toast to Obama or not. The question was raised whether the drive-bys ever ask him about a serious issue. It was pointed out that he was asked a serious question, capital gains. He botched it. If you want to convince the people that Obama should not be voted for because he can't answer serious questions, such as capital gains, how is his response not relevant to that????

I am unsure on what you are saying. I agree that raising capital gains taxes is a major issue (and I am strongly against it). But this thread isn't about the effect of capital taxes, it is about his poor response. Which is off what we should be focusing on.

 

 

No, IMO, it's about the media's treatment of him and the questions he is asked.

:lol:

 

You seem to be leaning towards Obama.

 

Then why the thumbs up to a post claiming McCain got treated with kid gloves?

 

The part of that post that I agreed with was:

 

Kid gloves? They spent an hour talking about Rev Wright, Flag pins, weather underground, Obama's patriotism, and various other nonsense before asking one policy question. When Fox spends 20 of their 24 unbalanced hours not talking about Wright or Ayers or some other thing to attack Obama I'll believe you.

I'm not sure I follow. This thread is about whether the media is milk-toast to Obama or not. The question was raised whether the drive-bys ever ask him about a serious issue. It was pointed out that he was asked a serious question, capital gains. He botched it. If you want to convince the people that Obama should not be voted for because he can't answer serious questions, such as capital gains, how is his response not relevant to that????

Even if his response was poor, we know what his stance on capital gains tax is- he is going to raise them. That is a reason not to vote for him, and it is much more set in stone then whether or not he answered well.

 

I'm more concerned with his stance then arguing over his ability to explain his stance when asked the question.

 

Arguing over the media's treatment of Obama is a waste of time, when there are much more pressing issues that aren't as subjective (rather than arguing whether or not the media treats him well, we can argue over what a capital gains tax does)

No, IMO, it's about the media's treatment of him and the questions he is asked.

 

You are saying that we should focus on that?

 

I believe we should focus on why a high capital gains tax is a bad idea.

Even if his response was poor, we know what his stance on capital gains tax is- he is going to raise them. That is a reason not to vote for him, and it is much more set in stone then whether or not he answered well.

 

I'm more concerned with his stance then arguing over his ability to explain his stance when asked the question.

 

Arguing over the media's treatment of Obama is a waste of time, when there are much more pressing issues that aren't as subjective (rather than arguing whether or not the media treats him well, we can argue over what a capital gains tax does)

 

Since all discussion is filtered through some media, a lot of it is a distinction without a difference.

Since all discussion is filtered through some media, a lot of it is a distinction without a difference.

I had to look that term up, and I am unclear what you mean.

 

But if I am interpreting correctly, I think what you are saying is that there will always be disagreements on what is said because we are operating through various medias? And if that is what you are saying, I agree, because then this whole thing is a waste of time. :lol: I am very confused.

My biggest problem with how the media is covering this campaign is that there has been much too little coverage of the candidates' records. I am really not interested in hearing stump speaking points repeated during the debates.

 

I want to hear Obama asked if he believes that he was wrong to have actively opposed the Illinois bill to require medical attention for newborn babies who survived botched abortion attempts. I want him defend fighting for the right of hospitals to allow these newborns to die in agony.

 

I want to hear McCain defend the failure of the McCain-Feingold Act. I want him to explain why pro-life and other special interest groups have been barred from airing commercials during this campaign.

 

I want to hear somebody ask Hillary Clinton why we should believe any of her campaign promises or claims of experience when she fabricated being shot at by snipers and playing on a soccer team for a school that had no team.

 

If candidates are unable or unwilling to defend their record with honest explanations, then none of their positions on "issues" can be taken seriously.

 

The media should be comparing all the candidates' past promises to their actual performance. Gaps between promises and performance are fair game and should be explored. Conversely, candidates deserve credit for being as good as their word.

 

I have absolutely no interest in hearing campaign promises from any of the candidates. I want candidates to make the case that they deserve my vote based on their past performance. Leadership, character, trustworthiness, and evidence of good judgment under pressure are much more important qualities in a president than promises.