Had to laugh the other morning mpr radio was having one of their "unbiased" reports on the campaign. Those discussing Sarah Palin's addition to the campaign were from the New York Times, Washington Post and Slate. Funny how remarks on this blog are critizing her remarks about the Bush Doctrine, Russia an Geogia as warlike but fail to mention Obama stated he would bomb Pakistan. Of course Professional Charlie probably never asked him about that.

Hint, Pakistan does not have the capability of staring WWIII against the USA. Bombing Pakistan is radically different than starting a war with Russia. That you are clueless about the difference means that either

1. You have been spending too much time listening to Hannity Haw Haw et. al. and only know how to parrot the nonsense they spew
2. You turned your brain off in 5th grade
3. Both.

BTW, what credible evidence to you have of any liberal bias in the media, other than the fact that they write stories that don't buy the mindless drivel that passes for conservative thought?

The originator of this thread was offering a difference in the media's attitude toward, and treatment of, Obama, not a direct comparison to the situations between Russian and Pakistan. I have to say I agree with her. Whatever your particular inclination (I happened to be a supporter of Senator Clinton, now leaning McCain), it's hard not to see that the media have been totally biased toward Obama, I mean, it may be that they think he is the perfect candidate and that he has no flaws. It is still pretty rough when they go out of their way to turn every story about either of the candidates into a lovefest for Obama.

Context is everything. Suggesting that the USA should be willing to send troops into a minor nation harboring Bin Laden - a nation that is no military threat to the USA nor a threat to world stability should be treated by the media the same as suggesting we should blithely enter a war with a nation that holds the energy needs of the EU at its fingertips and nuclear annihilation of the world at the touch of a button, is mor than silly.

The notion that the media sees no flaws in Obama is also just nonsense. Its pretty clear that you favor McCain over Obama and hence aren't willing to reason about the issue.

I would hope that changes.

I use to enjoy reading your posts, degsme. I hope that my opinion of them doesn't permanently change.

If you read my post again, I said that I was a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, but now am leaning McCain. I am perfectly willing to reason over the issue, however, over the long primary season, I formed an opinion about Obama that is very unlikely to change. Not necessarily based on much of the nonsense that passes as information.

And I don't find McCain a terrible choice, no. I never did. Let's say that as between Bush and McCain in 2000, I know who I would have voted for; and even as between Gore and McCain, that would have been an interesting contest. Since then, McCain has done a number of things that I have agreed with, such as campaign financing and humane immigration feform, among others. And his writing shows him to be intellectually curious, honest, and intelligent.

So as between the two, leaving policy and experience aside, if character is the issue, I'd have to say McCain is the better choice.

So you see no problem with a 7:2 majority of Scalito's on the court? Ginsburg and Stevens won't last another 4 years.

McCain has said he will nominate Alito's or Scalia's if he has the chance.

That means 20-40 years of a court that rules in favor of Silverado Savings banks (you know about McCain's intervention on behalf of Neil Bush on that one right?) vs. shareholders, taxpayers, or individuals.

Its interesting that you find McCain to have "more character" than Obama, given McCain's history with Silverado and his grovelling at the feet of the likes of Falwell and Hagee.

One word: Rezko.

LOL Okay another thought, about the Supreme Court Justices.

Who, exactly, controlled the committee when some of those justices came before the Senate, and who voted some of those nominees out of committee? And who, exactly, has and will have control of the Senate if and when McCain is in office?

I am infinitely more pissed off at chickenshit Dem pols than at the rulings passed by justices who got on the Court because of political game-playing. Let McCain send up his nominees, who by the way, I am guessing won't be as bad as some seem to think. Let's see what the Democrats do about it.

Alito was passed to SCOTUS with a Dem. Majority in the Senate. So relying on the Senate to prevent McCain from nominating another Alito is a vain hope.

So what if you are pissed off at them. At the end of the day, do you want Ginsburg replaced by another Alito? Yes or No? That's the choice you are voting. The nation can survive another 4 years of McCain/Palin. In fact IMO it would utterly destroy the GOP to have that happen (I keep asking conservatives how they would govern effectively in the face of them running on a platform unpopular with the voters). BUT it would create a SCOTUS that would undo most of our civil liberties for much of your and my lifetimes.

As for Rezko - fine that's slime. But you said that McCain was better. He used his political power to protect his political allies and to profit and protect financial criminals. As a result he was part of the Keating Five and was explicitly cited by the ethics comittee as "having exercised poor judgement".

Now compare that to Obama's problems with Rezko. He bought a house next door in a deal that required both parcels to close on the same day. But according to the seller, the Obama's offer was the highest offer the buyer received.

The Obama "exercised poor judgement" in buying a strip of land from Rezko at 2.5 times the appraised value, but at a value equal to its portion of the original sale price (ie 1/6 of the sale price for a 1/6 piece of the property).

The two "corruption" scandals are largely equal in how much they bring the "character" of each individual into question.

I was responding in the first instance to your association of McCain to the S&L scandal, to Obama's association with Rezko, however, I base my assessment of Obama's character to more than his association with Rezko. But let's examine and compare the two instances.

McCain has admitted that what he did was wrong as it gave a wrong appearance of undue influence, McCain was mildly rebuked by the Ethics Committee for having exercised poor judgment, and later worked successfully to pass bipartisan campaign finance reform. By contrast, Obama sought and received $120,000 from Rezko during his 2004 Senate campaign and also asked for his "favor" to help him buy his house and two parcels of land cheaply, knowing that at the time, Rezko was under investigation by the US Attorney and the FBI for bribes, kickbacks, and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars."

As to the SCOTUS, as I said, I don't believe, based on McCain's past record, that he would choose another Alito as a nominee. Assuming he does, however, it would be up to the Democratically held Senate to reject that nominee. Assuming they don't, then the onus is on them, it seems to me.

What, don't you trust our Party to do what is right for us, and for America?

Not my party. I'm an indie. I consider the Dems to be too conservative to be "my party". And no, I don't trust them to do what is "right for us". I just dislike their policies less than I dislike the GOP. I have yet to have an election in my lifetime where I can vote for a candidate who's policies I wholeheartedly agree with.

As for McCain on SCOTUS - he doesn't get to make that choice really, You Gotta Dance wid dem dat Brung Ya. And in McCain's case its Palin and the conservative religionists that brung him. Furthermore on most social issues, his history has very much been that of a fairly radical conservative.

Lastly, his approach is that of militray exigency trumping civil and individual rights. Hierarchy over the individual.

He said he will chose another Alito, his history suggests he will chose another Alito and to me that's what the whole election is about.

BTW, Pakistan has the bomb, too.

Pakistan has the bomb, but no delivery mechanism that can reach the USA and Pakistan's arsenal is only about 55 weapons. not enough to destroy earth.

Oh, then that makes it ok. And no "delivery mechanism" is precisely what's supposed to comfort us? Harder to track fuel and metal than it is uranium.