So . . . as for this bin Laden tape.

Both sides seem to think it's an advantage for their side. Bush thinks that it will push people to vote for him since it's a reminder that terrorists are still out there and he has posited himself as the "strong on domestic security" candidate. Kerry thinks that it will push the undecideds to his side because it's a reminder of the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, that bin Laden might be in custody right now if it wasn't for Bush turning his attention to Iraq, etc. What does everybody else think?

Personally, I feel that it depends on how many of the undecided Bush has actually convinced with the whole "strong on terror" rhetoric. If he has managed to get them to believe this, then the tape probably works in his advantage. For those who are still thinking, "Well, I don't feel any safer than I did four years ago -- in fact, I feel LESS safe," it will probably work against him. It's hard to say what the percentage breakdowns for this are.

(And I know this is probably too much to ask, but can we be a little less partisan and a little more objectively analytical here?)

Re: in 2000
 

You mean, they'll pull him out of his cell at Gitmo, get him dirty to make it look like he was roughed up a little, then parade him around and say, "Look what we found, everybody!"

Seriously, if we could find Saddam in a hole in the ground in Iraq, why can't we find Osama in a cave in Afghanistan? I mean, I know there are a lot of caves in Afghanistan, but there are also a lot of holes in the ground in Iraq. :p

But haven't you been watching the CBC for the past week? Don't you know that America is "A COUNTRY DIVIDED"? ;)

But yeah. I actually think that things will get worse after the election. If people thought the cultural war waged by the Religious Right in the early 90s was hard, I'm afraid that you ain't seen nothing yet.

Yah have to admit though CBC has been running some very interesting interviews and investigative reports on the upcoming election.

I'm just hoping that no matter who wins, that the other side accepts the legitimacy of the election.

sugarandspice, regarding the Osama bin Hidin...er... Laden tape, there was a piece in the NYTimes that claimed that among Americans who have already made up their minds about which candidate to support, the tape made no difference whatsoever. I was kind of hoping that was the case, but I'm a little amazed that some Demos begrudgingly admitted that the tape might be a small plus for Bush.

Anyway, here's a link to that NYTimes story (reg. required).

They've been excellent. I've really enjoyed looking at my home country through the eyes of my adopted country. I especially enjoyed Mark Kelley's piece from Dayton, OH the other night, and the town-hall from Wilkes-Barre, PA. I was a little sad that some of the people almost turned on that American woman who gave up her citizenship to protest the war, but that was a pretty powerful moment.

Thing is I kinda empathized with those people... if I wanted to affect change or protest my country's actions, I wouldn't give-up my citizenship; you just remove yourself whatever power (no matter how small) and political process you had to influence the nation. I would have been angry with her for giving up on the nation and for being an idiot and surrendering her political power.

I don't know how to use the quote command:

According to Delt Alum, "Fox is the ONLY organization I have ever heard of where current and former employees have said that it is the only place they have worked where the management's political agenda was know and pushed through the editorial process."


ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin's memo last Friday calling upon his colleagues to hold Bush more accountable since "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done." After Friday's debate, ABC corrected two Bush claims but just one Kerry allegation and, in the first "fact check" since then, Tuesday's World News Tonight corrected two supposed Bush misstatements in a campaign speech, but just one Kerry charge.

There you go Delt Alum, news memos pushing a political agenda from someone other than Fox News.

That's not pushing a political agenda, that's pushing a journalistic agenda. They don't want their readers getting wrong information from the candidates. If one candidate is pushing more incorrect information than the other, he SHOULD be corrected more often. That's not pushing a political agenda.

As opposed to Fox, where former employees have said straight-out that they've received orders to "spin this piece pro-Bush."

Thank you. I think that's right. There's a difference between pointing out inaccuracies and a political agenda.

As for two to one in terms of responses -- couldn't that mean that one side made twice as many errors or mis-statements as the other?

Just wondering.

Again, Fox is less biased than other news sources.

-Rudey

Cheese and crackers.

What someone, anyone, Roger Ailes, the Pope, Cher, who EVER, did 30 years ago does not necessarily have anything to do with what they do now. PERIOD. And bringing it up with nothing correlating what they are doing now is a poor/lazy way to try and prove your point. My gripe is with your faulty methods, not with your singling out someone who's obviously been consistently involved with the same party.

Wouldn't it just have been easier to say in the first place that he's been a consistent worker for/contributor to the GOP than yelling "he worked for Nixon"? Sorry, but not everyone thinks Nixon is the apex of Republicanism, evil, or Republican evil. The shorthand doesn't work.

Sure, but it's Roger Ailes who is running the network in question.