Americablog's Joe Sudbay posts some comments from a prominent religious commentator who says this could be trouble for McCain with the evangelical base of the party.
One reason this matters politically is summed up in a column today by David Brody at CBN.com ("Christian News 24/7"):
"The DNC knows that McCain’s so called penchant for gambling can hurt him among some social conservatives. It may not play well with other strongly religious voters as well. Indeed, the last thing McCain needs is another problem with the Evangelical base. In this case, the gambling issue could most likely trump the lobbyist issue. I mean it’s not like he’s playing the lottery or bingo or a quick 25 cents slot machine. This is high stakes gambling we’re talking about. Then you throw in the lobbyist angle and you have a dangerous credibility issue. Will voters buy it and will it stick? Does this bother you?"
McCain's got gambling issues: both his love for the tables and his lobbyists. And, his wife made all her money from beer. That's a tough combo for the evangelicals.
And today Obama takes the gambling theme and runs with it!
"I read the other day that Senator McCain likes to gamble. He likes to roll those dice. And that's okay. I enjoy a little friendly game of poker myself every now and then.
But one thing I know is this -- we can't afford to gamble on four more years of the same disastrous economic policies we've had for the last eight.
I know that when Senator McCain says he wants to bring the same kind of deregulation to our health care system that he helped bring to our banking system -- his words -- well, that's a bet we can't afford. We can't
afford to roll the dice by privatizing Social Security, and wagering the nest egg of millions of Americans on Wall Street. We can't afford to gamble on more of the same trickle down philosophy that showers tax breaks on big corporations and the wealthiest few. We've tried that. It doesn't work."
.
3 comments:
I am STUNNED that a relatively intelligent person, such as yourself, could BLATANTLY ignore the fact that your candidate is using CENSORSHIP, STRONG ARM TACTICS, AND THREATS OF LAWSUITS to censor free speech. (penn., virginia, MO, online, proven, documented,....) even ONE example would be scary...your candidate has extensive examples of threats and censorship in this campaign and they are getting worse.
You have lambasted Palin with FALSE charges of book banning (since disputed as false), but ignore the obvious Nazi tactics of Obama. You support a PRESIDENTIAL candidate who censors and intimidates.....
With cries of 'racism' and 'bigotry' yet willing to ignore the loss of freedoms from your candidate of CHANGE AND HOPE. Just what kind of 'change' do you 'hope' for?????
it is apparent you will get change you never dreamed of....or maybe you did....
key findings of the Media Research Center’s exhaustive analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of Barack Obama — every story, every soundbite, every mention — from his first appearance on a network broadcast in May 2000 through the end of the Democratic primaries in June 2008, a total of 1,365 stories. MRC analysts found that the networks’ coverage — particularly prior to the formal start of Obama’s presidential campaign — bordered on giddy celebration of a political "rock star" rather than objective newsgathering.
Key Findings:
# The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press than bad — 462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories (just 5%) that were critical.
# NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%), compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC’s World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama’s favor (127 stories to 32, or 27% to 7%).
# Barack Obama received his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene. All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in early 2007.
# The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations.
# While Obama’s worst media coverage came during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, even then the networks offered two positive stories for every one that carried a negative spin (21% to 9%). Obama’s best press of the year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6 — after that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just one percent that were critical.
# The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a "liberal" 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a "rock star," "rising star" or "superstar" during the same period.
# In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 (19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.
Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party’s nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value. The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier.
You are either really misinformed, and just ignore the facts. Obama shows every sign of socialism/communism. He said that we can't afford to "roll the same dice" that we have for years, yet he is a hypocrite and does the very thing he speaks against. He contributed to the economic problems that we face, and he is rolling even more dangerous dice. He censors, and takes away peoples freedom of speech, as well as sues whenever someone talks about hime negatively, even when they have proof. What is happening to the country when we don't even the rights granted to us in the Constitution anymore? Never before has a Presidential candidate acted in the way that Obama has. Never before has a candidate created their own flag, their own symbol, their own song, and actually talked negatively about another candidate. A Presidential candidate has never dissed an opponent before...that has ALWAYS been left to the vice president candidates. Where is Obama's nationalism...his pride in his country? Does he even have any pride for the country he wants to be PRESIDENT over? He who can't even hold his hand over his heart during the national anthem or when the flag is raised? Obams has the big ideas, the charisma, and the nice speeches, but is he really capable (or willing) to do everything he talks about?
Post a Comment