It's been a while sense we have had a (career) military man in that office. I'd give serious consideration to one. I wish CP would run.

Unfortunately, CP sacrificed an awful lot of his good reputation in defending and working for this administration...and did an awful lot of that destruction in one day.

 

He'd probably still win if he ran, but I really wouldn't like to see how that would turn out given the past few years.

All good points. But I think he has distanced himself enough at this point. I believe he, better than any other person with a chance, transends politics and partisanship. I think he would be a free thinker and able to pull a large group of people together. I do not know why more GOP faithful do not push hard for him to run. Hell, I don't know why more Dems don't push for him to run.

CP would be a fantastic President imo. He'll never, ever run. He's wise enough to stay away from all of the BS that goes along with campaigning. That, and he's said that he really enjoys the time he spends with his family now.

As I recall, when Powell flirted with running in 92 or 96 (I forget which), even though he looked like an early favorite, he dropped out because his wife told him she would leave if he ran.

 

As I recall, when Powell flirted with running in 92 or 96 (I forget which), even though he looked like an early favorite, he dropped out because his wife told him she would leave if he ran.

 

IIRC there was also some personal safety issues. Unlike some, I actually like him more after he served in the West Wing.

Mitt Romney gave a speech outside a hospital today attacking Hillary Clinton's new healthcare proposal. The hospital...St. Vincent's in NYC...has a Giuliani wing in it. The hospital released this statement:

Today Mitt Romney, a candidate for President, held a press conference outside of St. Vincent's Hospital Manhattan without the knowledge or consent of the hospital to make a statement regarding the healthcare debate in the Presidential campaign. As a non-profit organization, St. Vincent's Hospital does not become involved in political campaigns. We find it unfortunate that Mr. Romney misappropriated the image and good will of St. Vincent's Hospital to further a political agenda. While St. Vincent's believes that there needs to be real discussion about healthcare reform and finding ways to provide coverage to the now 47 million Americans without health insurance, it is inappropriate for the hospital to be used for political gain.

Giuliani raised 100 million for the new wing. It's hardly an unusual practice to name a building after people who have financially supported an institution.

Giuliani raised 100 million for the new wing. It's hardly an unusual practice to name a building after people who have financially supported an institution.

I think the Giuliani wing part is sort of an aside. The fact that Romney used the hospital without permission is more the issue, at least from my view.

 

Fred Thompson with another "Doesn't seem to know what he's talking about" slipup.

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson met with Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in Tallahassee this morning and said he wouldn’t rule out drilling for oil in the Everglades.

 

“Gosh, no one has told me there is any major reserves in the Everglades,” the former Tennessee senator said when asked about the issue. “Maybe that’s one of the things I have to learn while I’m down here.”

 

Crist quickly jumped in and told Thompson,” We would prefer we not do that.”

 

Thompson supported drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR), and said all interests have valid arguments.

 

“No one prefers to drill at all anywhere,” Thompson said. “Nobody wants to see $100 oil either. We need to do what makes sense.”

I think the Giuliani wing part is sort of an aside. The fact that Romney used the hospital without permission is more the issue, at least from my view.

 

I'm not certain this is an issue. People use back drops all the time, think Capitol Hill, any downtown corner, etc. So they found a hospital and shot the message.

Fred Thompson with another "Doesn't seem to know what he's talking about" slipup.

 

Ah so now we know how Thompson is going to be stereotyped by the media...

 

I guess it was conviently ignored in the mainstream that dispite the reporters not knowing what Thompson was talking about, Fred Thompson actually knew what he was talking about.

Ah so now we know how Thompson is going to be stereotyped by the media...

 

I guess it was conviently ignored in the mainstream that dispite the reporters not knowing what Thompson was talking about, Fred Thompson actually knew what he was talking about.

Exactly. But the media's not biased!

 

Ah so now we know how Thompson is going to be stereotyped by the media...

 

I guess it was conviently ignored in the mainstream that dispite the reporters not knowing what Thompson was talking about, Fred Thompson actually knew what he was talking about.

 

I wonder who the media elected in their secret election. If they would just come out and tell us, we can all avoid the campaigns and polling. We know they are the ones that really elect the President.

Exactly. But the media's not biased!

The "media" reported an event. Some outlets then blew it up into something, which is what they do to every candidate in both parties. They aren't biased... they're lazy and incompetent.

 

Exactly. But the media's not biased!

 

Because they make more money promoting liberal causes. All conservative reporters and editors are fired before they can cause any problems. Thank God Fox is there to provide unbiased coverage.

The "media" reported an event. Some outlets then blew it up into something, which is what they do to every candidate in both parties. They aren't biased... they're lazy and incompetent.

ok, now that I can agree with.

The "media" reported an event. Some outlets then blew it up into something, which is what they do to every candidate in both parties. They aren't biased... they're lazy and incompetent.

 

There is secret network of journalist who meet regularly and decide how stories will be covered. It is dominated by liberals. Not certain how liberals got control of the media, but they did. All news outlets have to agree to follow their guidelines. Conservatives have not been able to crack this cartel.

There is secret network of journalist who meet regularly and decide how stories will be covered. It is dominated by liberals. Not certain how liberals got control of the media, but they did. All news outlets have to agree to follow their guidelines. Conservatives have not been able to crack this cartel.

I'll see your sarcasm and raise you reality...

 

We get the media we want. Guess what - the media is full of useless soundbites and shallow, silly stories because that is what many people choose to watch/hear/read. Its simple market economics. Networks show what sells. So really, the reality is, the media is dumbing down because more and more of the public is becoming lazy and they care less and less about real, in depth discussion of difficult topics.

 

I'll see your sarcasm and raise you reality...

 

We get the media we want. Guess what - the media is full of useless soundbites and shallow, silly stories because that is what many people choose to watch/hear/read. Its simple market economics. Networks show what sells. So really, the reality is, the media is dumbing down because more and more of the public is becoming lazy and they care less and less about real, in depth discussion of difficult topics.

Let me fire this back...which network out there do you actually see even attempting any real, in depth discussion of difficult topics? At the very best you get the "2 talking heads" format where 2 people sit on screens and yell at each other. On a very rare occasion you'll get something like an Amanpour series on CNN that actually does exactly what you're talking about, but I find it surprisingly difficult to say that the media is just giving the public dumbed down stories because that's what the public wants when virtually no one is trying anything else.

 

The other side of the token that you're missing is that it's vastly cheaper to put a camera following Paris Hilton than it is to actually send a reporter to Iraq for 3 months outside of the Green Zone, keep them alive, and actually see things like how the society is evolving. Or it's easier to report on what Al Sharpton said today in a press conference than it is to go to New Orleans and actually analyze what we could be doing to rebuild more effectively. Or it's a Hell of a lot easier to transcribe a Bush press conference than it is to actually bother reading a little bit to see whether or not there's an ounce of veracity in anything he said.

Let me fire this back...which network out there do you actually see even attempting any real, in depth discussion of difficult topics? At the very best you get the "2 talking heads" format where 2 people sit on screens and yell at each other. On a very rare occasion you'll get something like an Amanpour series on CNN that actually does exactly what you're talking about, but I find it surprisingly difficult to say that the media is just giving the public dumbed down stories because that's what the public wants when virtually no one is trying anything else.

 

The other side of the token that you're missing is that it's vastly cheaper to put a camera following Paris Hilton than it is to actually send a reporter to Iraq for 3 months outside of the Green Zone, keep them alive, and actually see things like how the society is evolving. Or it's easier to report on what Al Sharpton said today in a press conference than it is to go to New Orleans and actually analyze what we could be doing to rebuild more effectively. Or it's a Hell of a lot easier to transcribe a Bush press conference than it is to actually bother reading a little bit to see whether or not there's an ounce of veracity in anything he said.

I'll tell you, I think the best places to get solid news nowadays are major newspapers, public television, and a few Euro-centric periodicals. No CNN, no major networks. The problem is, if you want up-to-the-minute stuff, you have no choice but to go to CNN or a major network provider. Among those I choose CNN, grudgingly.

 

And I am not missing the cost angle at all - it goes along with what I said. Why invest in something that fewer and fewer people will want to read or watch? Its revenue-for-cost analysis.

 

I'll see your sarcasm and raise you reality...

 

We get the media we want. Guess what - the media is full of useless soundbites and shallow, silly stories that glorify Democrats

 

Fixed it for you. I've been looking at media from an unbiased standpoint and I now agree with the GOP. The media is in the liberal back pocket.

Fixed it for you. I've been looking at media from an unbiased standpoint and I now agree with the GOP. The media is in the liberal back pocket.

An unbiased standpoint? And you changed your mind in like 10 minutes since your last post?

 

Tex is just trying to meet his multiple sarcasms quota for the day, so ignore him. About every six months or so, we get to see this I'm now a GOP'er crap just to make a mockery of it all. It must be that time of year.

 

Hundreds of Kap posts pointing out media bias has changed my mind. I only found one pic of a candidate in an empty auditorium? The candidate's party? GOP. But I'm not turning into a GOPerhead. The Dems won the media. Sucks to be a Rep.

The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey which found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

 

Obvious as the nose on my face.