Will men vote for Sarah Palin with their brains or their wieners?

Published on September 10th, 2008

CNN – 9/9/08: When it comes to support for Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, a new national poll suggests men and women don’t see eye to eye.
Men figure strongly in the support for Sarah Palin. Here, supporters gather Monday in Lee’s Summit, Missouri.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey out Tuesday indicates that 62 percent of men questioned have a favorable opinion of the Alaska governor, nine points higher than women.

The gender gap is also apparent when it comes to whether Palin is qualified to serve as president. Fifty-seven percent of male respondents said Palin was qualified, 14 points higher than women. A majority of women polled, 55 percent, said Palin is not qualified.

81 users responded in " Will men vote for Sarah Palin with their brains or their wieners? "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Lou Minatti said, on September 10th, 2008 at 3:28 am

I see the left is getting desperate by posting non stories and Photoshop hacks. Did you know that calling someone a “community organizer” is racist?

# 2 Mister Mustard said, on September 10th, 2008 at 3:33 am

The only reason ANYONE pays any attention to Sarah Palin is because she’s hot.

If she looked like Janet Reno and had that kind of background/ experience, people would be laughing themselves silly.

Woo, pitbull with lipstick! Rough tough cream puff! VPilf!!

The novelty will soon wear off. And depending on how punani-deprived guys’ wieners are, they’ll either vote for her (deprived) or vote the right way (not deprived).

So Joe Biden has hair plugs and his legs don’t make the cut against Barracuda’s. At least he knows what he’s doing.

# 3 dmcall said, on September 10th, 2008 at 3:42 am

Mustard,
Then _WHY_ did Biden bother getting hair plugs?

# 4 Improbus said, on September 10th, 2008 at 3:50 am

I am ashamed for my gender. If you are going to vote for someone on this basis why not get a blond and do it up right? Is Reese Witherspoon or Alicia Silverstone available?

# 5 zefyr said, on September 10th, 2008 at 4:06 am

I’m an Obama supporter, but I said the minute I learned of Governor Palin “This is a brilliant play” I probably disagree with everything she stands for, yet, somehow I seem to like her.

# 6 Calin said, on September 10th, 2008 at 4:27 am

I love how everyone seems to feel that if you vote for McCain/Palin it must be because you think Palin is hot. But if you vote against them is it because you think Biden is hot?

This is no different than what I heard over and over again before Palin was picked. If don’t vote for Obama it must be because you are racist. It’s impossible that you disagree with Obama, so there must be some deep dark reason. You have to be a sheep, or in someone’s pocket, or racist or a (gasp!!) Capitalist.

I didn’t want to vote for either candidate, but after months of being told I was racist if I didn’t support Obama…or I was stupid if I didn’t support Obama, I have more and more leaned in to voting for McCain. McCain’s going to win my state whether I vote or not, but I’m just about willing to vote for him for spite.

# 7 BobDobbs said, on September 10th, 2008 at 4:29 am

I learned in PolySci that women traditionally vote for the most handsome candidate.

This election will be interesting to see if the same pattern holds true for men.

# 8 bobbo said, on September 10th, 2008 at 4:33 am

Well, no thinking person would vote for Palin, so of the two choices, that leaves me thinking women aren’t worthy of their vote.

# 9 tcc3 said, on September 10th, 2008 at 4:43 am

I keep seeing the accusation (especially on this blog) that the Obama campaign or the Democrats have said ” if you dont vote for Obama, you must be a racist”

I’ve never heard anything of the sort. Anyone got a link?

# 10 Dallas said, on September 10th, 2008 at 4:46 am

Gosh, I hope American politics has not followed the GOP this far down the shitter. If would have known that, George Cloney and Angelina Jolie would be the pair to beat.

# 11 ubiquitous talking head said, on September 10th, 2008 at 4:48 am

I don’t understand why so many people keep saying she’s hot. She’s not ugly, but “average” to “ordinary” is about as good as it gets.

I wish there was some way to tell how smart she is by looking at her. Brains obviously aren’t a prerequisite for coming into power.

# 12 Dallas said, on September 10th, 2008 at 4:53 am

#11. I agree with you. She really isn’t ‘hot’, it’s just that in comparison to what the goons in here have to go home to, she’s frigg’n super hot!

# 13 GigG said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:12 am

#2 “The only reason ANYONE pays any attention to Sarah Palin is because she’s hot.

If she looked like Janet Reno and had that kind of background/ experience, people would be laughing themselves silly.”

Let’s play a game.

The only reason ANYONE pays any attention to Barak Obama is because he’s black.

If he looked like (insert name of 1 term white senator here) and had that kind of background/ experience, people would be laughing themselves silly.

# 14 Special Ed said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:20 am

I’m voting with my wiener.

# 15 Guyver said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:22 am

12. Too funny.

Hmmm, let’s see. The Democrats have a minority running for President and the Republicans have a minority running as VP. This is really what it’s about isn’t it?

Obama has been shown to be a very good orator (when using a teleprompter) while Palin has shown some skill in that arena as well (regardless of a teleprompter).

Both Palin and Obama have very little experiences in their current offices to “qualify” them for the positions they seek.

That being said Obama assumed his office as a first term senator in January 2005, but has been running for President since February 2007. Between those two times, he’s been running for President longer than doing his senatorial duties.

Palin has been working in an actual executive position for the past 2 years as the governor of Alaska, but yet she somehow is criticized for lack of experience? LOL. Sounds like a double standard. In either case, it seems she’s got more real experience relevant to the job of President than Obama does.

You can’t have it both ways. They’re either both inexperienced or they are experienced enough. Which is it?

I absolutely love how the liberals and the liberal-biased media have been so vocal about their double standards. I just hope they keep this up till election day.

http://tinyurl.com/5zjqh9

# 16 J said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:23 am

# 13 GigG

WRONG!

When I first heard him speak, on TV, he was running for the Illinois state senate. I wasn’t looking at the TV but after listening to him speak I said who is that guy he sounds like he has his shit together. I didn’t know he was black until after I turned around.

# 17 Guyver said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:28 am

13, The truth hurts the liberals doesn’t it?

Another example of liberal bias: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=164143

# 18 Personality said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:28 am

She used to be hot. Not anymore.

# 19 bob said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:30 am

I don’t know about you guys, but I plan on voting with my hands…

# 20 J said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:33 am

# 17 Guyver

You post that and think that is evidence? It was first out of context and second the pot calling the kettle black.

# 21 Guyver said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:40 am

20, Out of context on a “Breaking News” banner? Bias is everywhere. I don’t believe in objective news casts. I’d rather get my news from commentators with political leanings instead of news agencies that are subjective shrouded in the veil of objectivity.

What amazes me is how overtly biased the liberal media can be about things and yet try to pass themselves off as “objective”.

# 22 QB said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:48 am

#8 bobbo

A truly impressive display of chauvinism.

# 23 Matt Garrett said, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:53 am

Now men are nothing bud sexist in their voting habits? My god, you people are so desperate. You forget one thing. Even if men were voting with their johnsons, they wouldn’t care.

You have a horrible candidate, accept it!

# 24 Mister Mustard said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:08 am

#7 – BDobb

>>I learned in PolySci that women traditionally
>>vote for the most handsome candidate.

I guess that didn’t work out last time around, hm?

We got a POTUS who looks like a chimpanzee, and a VPOTUS who looks like Satan.

# 25 Mister Mustard said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:11 am

#3 – Booty Call

>>Mustard,
>>Then _WHY_ did Biden bother getting hair plugs?

Same reason Joan Rivers gets plastic surgery, I guess. Misplaced vanity.

I’m not voting for him for the wonderful silver mane of hair that he has, though. And I’m not voting for Sarah Palin because she’s a hot little minky.

I’m voting for the most qualified candidates, and they just so happen to be Obama and Biden.

I’m surprised that nobody has come out and called Obama “nappy headed”.

# 26 J said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:14 am

# 21 Guyver

“Out of context on a “Breaking News” banner? ”

Yes! Do you know what that statement under the breaking news was actually referring to?

# 27 bobbo said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:15 am

This isn’t a political blog per se but it is interesting that even here with an elevated sense of relevance that personalities, personal stories, looks, and sex can rule the day as to what goes as political analysis.

Bush to keep troops in Iraq. Freddy bailouts of 2 Trillion Bucks, No Energy Policy, Afghanistan returning to the Taliban, Iran headed for Nuclear weapons. Not a peep.

QB–In context, I wasn’t complimentary to the men either. Just a turn of phrase.

# 28 Hassan Maynard said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:17 am

I have to say that Sarah Palin is really attractive; as she may become the next VP (also making a mark in history) our votes should not be based on her appearance but her agenda for America.

# 29 jbenson2 said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:23 am

It’s not only men who are supporting Palin.

* 23 point swing towards McCain among women 18 to 49

* Quote from Washington Post: Palin Energizing Women From All Walks of Life

Are these all men in the photo?
http://tinyurl.com/6×443g

And what is Obama’s response?
“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “It’s still a pig.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA

# 30 jbenson2 said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:25 am

Are these all men in the photo?

Sorry the link to the photo was broken.
Here is the corrected one.
http://tinyurl.com/5uk4u8

# 31 Jess Hurchist said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:28 am

24 Mustard
“looks like” = “is”?

# 32 judgen said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:29 am

#15 In what way is the republican VP candidate a minority. Afaik more than 50% of US population is female, she is white, christian and conservative.
That makes her the absolute majority voter.
Or did you mean that she is a minority because she is Alaskan?

# 33 Mister Mustard said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:47 am

#31 – Jess Hurchist

>>Mustard
>>“looks like” = “is”?

Pretty much. Sometimes, looks can be deceiving. But in this case, Dumbya and President Cheney are just what they appear to be.

132 days left.

# 34 Paddy-O said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:49 am

#32 “In what way is the republican VP candidate a minority. ”

In what way is Omama a minority? Is it because he is of African descent? Aren’t we all of African descent? So, by your reasoning, Omama is in the super majority of 100%…?

# 35 Sinn Fein said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:54 am

Voting for Biden as VP would prove, beyond all doubt, that men had NO brains at all, better to vote with their trouser mausers for a Babe with Brain.

# 36 Guyver said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:56 am

26, It was in the context of adding to previous “reporting” of McCain’s earlier comment where he could not recollect how many homes he owned (legally). The liberals made it out to be that he was so rich that he couldn’t remember how many homes he owned (even though some of his homes are under his wife’s name only).

Regardless, you can scroll down near to the bottom and look at the chart under the heading of “Fewer See Pro-Republican Bias in Campaign Coverage”: http://tinyurl.com/66lfwh

Like it or not, the media has a liberal slant. There is no objectivity since we are all biased individuals. But when a news network is strongly biased due to their dislike towards a particular political philosophy, it stands out.

# 37 Billy Bob said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:58 am

This headline is sexist and demeaning to men and the author should apologize, Dvorak should fire you, and seek anti-sexism therapy immediately. The notion that men think with their wieners is the oldest and most insulting prejudice out there. Sorry to disappoint those who think men should be barefoot and hunting, but we have grown beyond this.

# 38 J said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:11 am

# 36 Guyver

“It was in the context of adding to previous “reporting” of McCain’s earlier comment where he could not recollect how many homes he owned (legally). ”

First off no one claimed he didn’t own his homes legally.

Second NO!! It was referring to a comment that had just been made by Biden I believe. SORRY THANKS FOR PLAYING. TRY AGAIN! Technically it was breaking news.

“The liberals made it out to be that he was so rich that he couldn’t remember how many homes he owned (even though some of his homes are under his wife’s name only).”

NO!! The media did not make it out like that. HE DIDN’T FUCKING KNOW!!!!!! It is on tape!!!! He was asked the question and he DIDN’T KNOW!!!!! Do you know how many homes you own? I know how many I have and I have more than he does!

“Like it or not, the media has a liberal slant.”

The evidence shows otherwise. That link you just provided in not evidence it is opinions. The only thing the media is bias about is money. They don’t give a fuck about which story they do. They just want it to be Juicy so it brings them money. That start back when news no longer was allowed to be the money pit it once was for television.

# 39 Guyver said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:23 am

38, The line of questioning in his frame of reference was legal. He did not want to go on the record and be wrong for the news to exploit. And yes, it was caught on tape. http://tinyurl.com/5r75ll

If you believe the evidence shows otherwise, you obviously didn’t read the evidence I just sent you. According to Pew Research Center, their most recent survey from December 27 indicates a 25% Pro-Democratic bias vs. 9% Pro-Republican bias.

Suck it up. There’s a bias. How much has the news discussed about Obama’s shady real estate dealings?

# 40 Rabble Rouser said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:34 am

I’m not voting on the issues. Caribou Barbie is just a flash in the pan. She’s not hot, she’s a bitch, snake, barracuda. Anyone who has ever dated a pathological narcissist knows what I am talking about, and she is one. Someone who thinks that her fecal matter is perfumed, and she is the gods’ gift to the universe.
No way would I vote for a bitch like this, even if she agreed with me on the issues. They’re just way too high maintenance for me.

# 41 J said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:36 am

# 39 Guyver

“The line of questioning in his frame of reference was legal. ”

Oh quit with the babbling bullshit. It was a straight forword question. There is nothing “LEGAL” about it. If asked would you know how many homes you have? I know how many I own. I wouldn’t need to consult my attorney to answer the question.

“If you believe the evidence shows otherwise, you obviously didn’t read the evidence I just sent you. ”

No I read it and YOU simply don’t understand what it is you posted. THEY ARE OPINION POLLS!!!!! Not empirical evidence!!

“How much has the news discussed about Obama’s shady real estate dealings?”

How much have they discussed McCain being one of the Keating 5. About as much, don’t you think???

# 42 tcc3 said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:43 am

I can’t help but notice that my question hasn’t been answered.

It’s easy to talk shit when you don’t have to back it up.

# 43 Guyver said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:43 am

41, LOL. Yeah you’re probably right. McCain not recollecting the number of homes he owns is probably more juicy than Obama’s shady real estate dealings.

An annual report on American Journalism probably wasn’t a good approach nor was Pew Research survey poll asking people their opinions of bias. Sounds like typical elitism where your argument is that people are too dumb to understand what a bias was if it was flashing in front of their face.

Regardless, the MSNBC breaking news comment was sarcastic commentary during the VP’s acceptance speech. It’s an overt bias. Getting your panties in a bunch doesn’t change that. But hey, if it gets MSNBC their 5 seconds of fame because Fox News / O’Reilly has a larger audience than they do then I suppose that’s great.

# 44 Guyver said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:45 am

42, Probably because the liberals who usually dominate these forums have no desire in proving themselves wrong.

# 45 No Kidding said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:45 am

#13 – Nope. Allen Keyes. Allen Keyes. Allen Keyes.

If you don’t know who he is in relation to Obama, you don’t understand enough politics to be posting commentary about why people vote for Obama.

The Republicans in Illinois also thought Obama was only popular because he was black. Exactly what you said. So they just found “some” black guy to run as a Republican. IF what you say is true, that would totally counteract the ‘black’ effect, then it would just be experienced vs non-experienced. Wanna guess how that worked? Yeah…turns out folks were NOT voting for Obama just because he was black, but because of what he was saying. If being black was SUCH a big bonus, and led you to filling stadiums with political supporters, Jesse Jackson would be President. Just being ‘black’ isn’t important, and in our nation, is almost certainly NOT a “bonus”, but a negative (re: West Virginia)

Palin isn’t a joke because she’s a woman, she’s a joke because of her positions (which don’t match ANY of her actions, taking LOTS of Fed pork for example). There are many good qualified Republican woman. How about Christy Todd Whitman? Nope, they pick this nut.

# 46 votetheday.com said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:53 am

This was the plan, wasn’t it? At first, blah blah came, that she was picked for getting Hilary’s supporters – mainly women, of course, but after all this rumoring and scandaling, it is clear, that she is boosting amount of McCain’s men.
http://www.votetheday.com/polls/palin-boosts-mccain-campaign-by-attracting-men-235/

# 47 bobbo said, on September 10th, 2008 at 7:54 am

How many houses do you own?==I don’t know.

How much money does it take to be rich?==around 5 Million.

Hows the economy doing?==We are on a sound basis and things are going pretty well.

Yep.

# 48 J said, on September 10th, 2008 at 8:02 am

# 43 Guyver

“Regardless, the MSNBC breaking news comment was sarcastic commentary during the VP’s acceptance speech.”

HOW FUCKING DUMB ARE YOU??? It was a report headline on a comment that had just been made by a candidate!!!!!!

“Yeah you’re probably right. McCain not recollecting the number of homes he owns is probably more juicy than Obama’s shady real estate dealings.”

Sure as hell is because there is nothing to the Resco story.

“Sounds like typical elitism where your argument is that people are too dumb to understand what a bias was if it was flashing in front of their face.”

No, it is because peoples opinions are not FACT. Fact is backed up by evidence. Opinions are not! Are you so simple you don’t understand that?

“It’s an overt bias. ”

No it is reporting the news about a comment a candidate made.

“Getting your panties in a bunch doesn’t change that.”

Hey! I don’t know what you are into but I were boxers.

“Fox News / O’Reilly has a larger audience than they do then I suppose that’s great.”

LOL keep dreaming!

# 44 Guyver

“Probably because the liberals who usually dominate these forums have no desire in proving themselves wrong.”

Typical backwards thinking Republican. The burden is on those who made the claim.

# 49 JimD said, on September 10th, 2008 at 8:26 am

Re: “Lipstick on a Pig” – shows you how DUMB THE REPUKES are !!! They apparently don’t know the difference between Palin’s “Pit Bull” and Obama’s (and many others – including McCain) “Pig” !!! Seems don’t know their A$$ form their ELBOW !!! Fit to LEAD ??? NO WAY, JOSE !!!

# 50 GetSmart said, on September 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am

If most men are voting with their wieners, I’d sure hate to be the poor puke that has clean all that “hanging chad” out of the voting machines.

# 51 Colorado said, on September 10th, 2008 at 8:43 am

#1 mentioned it but why didn’t anyone pull the photo. It is a confirmed photoshop per Snopes.

# 52 The Monster's Lawyer said, on September 10th, 2008 at 9:11 am

#45 Kidder – If the Republicans had a bootylicious black woman they could have stood up, they would have. That would have been a trifecta for them. The best they could come up with is some unknown female pol from the Alaskan Territories fresh from fighting off the Commie Hoard threat.

# 53 MIKE CANNALI said, on September 10th, 2008 at 9:25 am

Specifically – appearance should not be a criteria for high office – no matter how emotional the appeal may be. For me the choice is simple and fact based. The democratic candidate is not ready to be President. The Junior Senator from IL has no credentials, no accomplishments, no meaningful legislation and no plausible mission that would earn my vote. He rarely took a stand on anything – choosing to vote “present” rather than be recorded against anything. He did want to cut and run on a war that is all but won now.
Further he has never represented issues pertinent to my demographic. Indeed he seems to be so one sided toward the one demographic, he calls “his people”, that I feel excluded. Certainly, if he were a white man, obsessively focused on white issues only, many would call him a bigot. As it is – we are afraid to mention that the proposed “emperor has no clothes” for fear the we would be plastered with the infamous label of “white bigot” ourselves. As Dennis Miller phased it: “The man is all smoke and mirrors an no one seems brave enough to point that out.” His running mate, Joe Biden, is competent to be President, but Joe trailed so far in the primaries that it is hard to see him as a leader representing the consensus of his party or the nation. Surely there must be someone more generally acceptable – perhaps the next runner up? Whatever did happen to Hillary Clinton?The actual issue here is that Hillary would have upstaged Obama, with considerable help from her husband – making Obama smoke and mirrors that much more obvious. And if the contrast isn’t visible enough now, just wait until the 2012 campaign begins the day after the 2008 inauguration. Most of all, it concerns me that neither Obama or Biden has managed so much as a 7-11 on second shift; nor have they ever been an employee of anyone. That does distance them from the majority of us and especially anyone who is capable of leading the world’s largest bureaucratic democracy. Leading the Republican side we have someone that exceeds the democratic offering in every category. He is a highly revered veteran of both the House and Senate with an earned reputation for causing progress, reform and change – even if it meant challenging his own party or joining with an opposing party. He comes from generations of war heroes, but eschewed a long military career in favor of making his own mark independently. Perhaps he gets too much credit for being a POW; it wasn’t his choice after all. However, the experience and resolve he showed help shape him into who he is today; Someone singularly focused on service to his country, who suffers fools badly. Sarah Palin has more executive experience than either democratic candidate – indeed even more than her running mate – which makes her a perfect complement to the Republican ticket. She has an expertise with both energy and environmental decisions. Unlike just about everyone else in the executive branch lately, she comes from modest beginnings, has never had servants, and is not a millionaire. It gives her a unique perspective on middle income family values. Perhaps she gets too much credit for being a attractive; that wasn’t her choice either. But it gives her confidence – and to her credit she has remained humble, popular and accessible to everyone. Does she have extensive foreign affairs experience? No – but neither did Bill Clinton, Harry Truman or even Franklin Roosevelt when they entered office. Would the Democrats call them incompetent? It should be noted, all of these neophytes rose to the challenges quickly, because they were highly intelligent, competitive in behalf of their country, tenacious and were not easily intimidated by forces domestic or foreign. Just like the current Governor of Alaska. And to correct the record – Sarah is not the first ethics reforming, sports-person, trust-busting, naturalist, oval office aspirant to fell and field dress a moose. – Just the first since Teddy Roosevelt.

# 54 RBG said, on September 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am

#13 GiG has it nailed. The more Palin is criticized for being inexperienced while racking up the votes because she is a babe and a good speaker, the more it highlights Obama’s similar situation. Except his sex-appeal is that he is black, and more critically he’s running for the top office.

Even I could handle Obama winning – but only because he’s black. So… will men vote for Obama with their brains or their racist demeanors?

The GOP has just out-Obama-ed Obama.

RBG

# 55 tcc3 said, on September 10th, 2008 at 9:45 am

Mike its funny how you expect one side to “rise to the challenge” of its inexperience, while it makes the other side “not fit to lead.” The experience issue is bogus and only meant to distract from real issues.

And where was good ole “maverick” McCain when he was rubber stamping neo con policy and in general sucking up to win the nomination? I had a lot more respect for him 8 years ago.

Still no links for up my question from #9.

# 56 GigG said, on September 10th, 2008 at 10:10 am

#16

There are lots of great speakers out there. They all aren’t one term sentors that have made it to the finals.

# 57 MIKE CANNALI said, on September 10th, 2008 at 10:21 am

RE TCC3

In the best of all worlds, voters should be offered executive and legislative experience in all candidates from both parties. We didn’t get that this time. As a consolation, it would be nice to (at least) get it in combination between two candidates on the same ticket.

This year one side offers average executive experience in one individual and strong legislative experience in another. There is hope that this is enough.

The other side offers meager legislative experience in it’s lead candidate – but makes up for it with strong legislatitive experience in it’s second offering. However it offers NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE in either.

To say that experience governing a state is not adequate – rules out many many previously sucessful past presidents – many of them liberal Democrats.

Would you hire an individual with no executive experience to be CEO of even a small company? Why then would you do that with the largest most powerful organization on earth.

Repeating the topic sentance: “appearance should not be a criteria for high office” So neither sex appeal nor white guilt should be a factor in the decision. Nor should dislike for a third party who will not be a member of our government after January.

If the Democrats offer a lead candidate with inadequate legislative experiance – AND inadequate executive experience, I will not vote for him no matter what names liberals may call me. I will take the best combination available.

# 58 Guyver said, on September 10th, 2008 at 10:38 am

48, OMG you’re about as dumb as Conservatives who thought Obama talking about his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulos somehow proved it was a Freudian Slip.

Measuring bias whether left or right leaning will have some degree of objectivity because you will probably not have everyone agreeing on what is positive or negative. The clear thing here in the surveys is if there is some degree of consistency and if so, what the general trend is. Now you can argue that this is strictly perception, but I have a little more faith in that people can spot Pro-Obama / Pro-McCain stuff from the Anti-Obama / Anti-McCain stuff. What this really boils down to is you don’t trust Pew Research Center or their methodology.

For someone who claims to wear boxers, you seem to scream like a little girl starved for attention. Nah, you got your panties in a bunch.

To address your disagreement over ratings and overt bias (at least with respect to MSNBC)… albeit reported by Fox: http://tinyurl.com/65bsb4

Speaking of backwards thinking and dumb, just because someone is anti-Liberal doesn’t mean they’re a Republican. Maybe if you didn’t scream like a girl and talked tough about wearing boxers you’d know that. Grow up kid.

# 59 Guyver said, on September 10th, 2008 at 10:42 am

Meant to say “subjectivity:

Measuring bias whether left or right leaning will have some degree of objectivity because you will probably not have everyone agreeing on what is positive or negative.

# 60 Stephanie said, on September 10th, 2008 at 11:18 am

GOOD GOD FOLKS!

Am I the only chick that reads this blog? Does that also make me a “pit bull” since I hang with the “good ol’ boys club” here?

First, so much for all the shit talking that Obama is trying to be a celebrity… for Palin is now in those ranks (officially might I add) for having her own action figure. Of course, you know it was some creepy lonely man who came up with that idea. That is why you see blow up dolls only for men!

Men are clearly creatures of the visual world while women go for more emotions and feelings. Hello, this is basic Biology 101 at work. Our society is very appearance focused which is why cosmetic surgery, diet pills, make-up and fashion are billion dollar industries. This blog doesn’t seem to me to be the target market for any of the above mentioned industries.

It just dawned on me that I might inadvertently be contributing to the McCain/Palin campaign thanks to this site. I mean clearly Mr. Dvorak is accepting advertising from the McCain party. And by clicking on links to Mr. Dvoraks website, I am lining his pockets more money. Then Mr. Dvorak could be taking that money and donating to the McCain campaign.

I may not be able to (in good conscious) visit this site until this f’n election is over…

# 61 tcc3 said, on September 10th, 2008 at 11:31 am

I don’t remember “must have been a Governor or a CEO to be eligible for the Presidency” in Article II of the constitution.

With the number of foundering companies run into the ground by greedy men who’s only interest is in their own wealth, I wouldn’t say CEO is all that great of a qualification.

GWB had both business and government Executive experience and I don’t think that was a very good indicator of his presidential performance.

Why do we demand change and then elect the same “experience” that got us into trouble? Why do we rail against politicians and then keep electing career politicians to high office?

I almost want less experience, frankly. Its a shame the system basically precludes the ascension of more grassroots “average joe” type candidates. Sometimes it seems like out of touch politicians do things your average, well educated, common sense fellow would never dream of – to our detriment.

# 62 Montanaguy said, on September 10th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Regarding how many houses McCain owned:
Many couples with one wealthy spouse and one who is not have a firewall of sorts between their finances, often protected by a pre-nup. Why should he know or care how his wife’s real-estate is enumerated? The libs are making a bonfire out of a match-head. Can’t they criticize something of substance?

Regarding McCain’s $5 million comment, again another molehill made into a mountain by desperate lib zombies. If you actually watched the orignal quote, McCain makes it clear that he’s throwing “$5 million” out as a joke (everyone laughs) in response to a stupid question and follows it up by saying .. “seriously….that comment will be distorted” He previously defined rich as having a good job, a house and an education. Anyone without an ideological blinder on knows what he was saying.

In general a rich person is anyone making more than you are, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP-0pedQeGw

# 63 Montanaguy said, on September 10th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

#62
That was the link that obscured the quote.
This is the full statement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2sAFH7zj0&feature=related

# 64 J said, on September 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

# 58 Guyver

“What this really boils down to is you don’t trust Pew Research Center or their methodology.”

Opinion does not equal fact. Do people watch and read the news ALL DAY EVERY DAY? Have they seen EVERY story published or broadcast? The answer is NO!. So they only take a small percentage of what they see. Process it through their own bias and come to their conclusion. That is not a scientific way to determine a fact. It is prone to all sorts of errors. Hence the idea that the media is bias.

“For someone who claims to wear boxers, you seem to scream like a little girl starved for attention. Nah, you got your panties in a bunch.”

I don’t want to hear about your fantasies so please take it elsewhere.

“To address your disagreement over ratings and overt bias”

LOL Rating numbers from Fox. LOL Not only do they not say where they got those numbers but the don’t even show which report they came off of. Since I receive Nielsen reports for my business I can tell you first hand there are MANY and they all measure different things and in different ways. So depending on what you are looking for I could find numbers that support any view I want to take. LOL Don’t bother

“Speaking of backwards thinking and dumb, just because someone is anti-Liberal doesn’t mean they’re a Republican.”

No but it does tend toward that direction. Since you said this “you will probably not have everyone agreeing on what is positive or negative.” it leads me to believe my assumption is correct. Positive or negative. Black or white. That is how Republicans reason. They see no grey. What about neutral stories? There is such a thing you know.

“Maybe if you didn’t scream like a girl”

Do you have some sick fascination with little girls screaming?

“and talked tough about wearing boxers”

Talked tough? WTF are you talking about? How is wearing boxers tough?

“you’d know that. Grow up kid”

My guess is I am older than you. But that is just a guess

# 65 MIKE CANNALI said, on September 10th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

RE: tcc3#61
Well you got your wish:
“I almost want less experience, frankly. Its a shame the system basically precludes the ascension of more grassroots “average joe” type candidates.”
with Sarah Palin. Except it’s a Sarah not the “Joe” you anticipated. And that’s really the problem with liberals isn’t it? You are very open minded, until you don’t get your way.

# 66 Mister Mustard said, on September 10th, 2008 at 8:05 pm

As I said before, the only reason ANYONE would vote for Sarah Palin is because of his wiener. A VP candidate with her kind of record, her kind of intolerant beliefs, and her lack of experience would be laughed off the stage.

It’s either wiener vote, or Obama/ Biden.

# 67 deowll said, on September 10th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Palin’s strongest appeal is to women, and conservitives especially some of the Christian right, family values crowd.

The fact that she isn’t obviously over the hill with a big gut helps.

She looks like a leader.

The stupid sexiest remark was made by a member of the Democrates for a Republican President Committee.

Just remember McCain is counting on you to show the world just how nasty you are and vote against you rather than on the issues.

# 68 Rick Cain said, on September 10th, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Now we know why McCain didn’t choose Kay Bailey Hutchinson as VP pick.

Because rightwing white males can’t get horny looking at this:

http://www.hoinews.com/uploadedImages/kvii/News/Stories/Kay%20Bailey%20Hutchinson.jpg

# 69 Uncle Patso said, on September 10th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

TV news hasn’t really been worth watching since Uncle Walter retired. And even he was barely worthy to touch the hem of Edward R. Murrow’s garment.

Oh, and a lawyer should know the difference between hoard and horde.

# 70 pedro said, on September 11th, 2008 at 3:09 am

Damned nice tail. I bet Bill Clinton would do her without an afterthought

# 71 Guyver said, on September 11th, 2008 at 4:48 am

64,
Good grief kid! LOL. Perception drives reality. Did you not know that or did you just take a Journalism 101 class? The news does it every day and that’s why there’s no such thing as objective news. Hence my preference on getting my news from overtly biased people. At least I know what their stance is on a particular issue and I can trust them to rat the other side out.

In either case, I don’t have any problem with you telling me you think Fox is pro-Republican (if this is what you believe). Odds are you are seeing things that I am not seeing and you could make a good point. On the flipside MSNBC’s house remark during the Palin VP acceptance speech was a sarcastic remark on a breaking news banner.

Your stance on honest and ethical news casting seems to me either you’re pretty young or your just simply naïve. You haven’t figured out that the very reasons why you don’t trust people to give you a factual account of whether or not the news is biased is EXACTLY the point I’ve been making about the news itself. The news is shaping public opinion by way of perception. What’s the difference between strong-minded and stubborn? It’s perception. Too often today you have journalists who editorialize the news instead of reporting it. But no, you’re predisposed to believe MSNBC is an honest agency and Fox News is nothing but evil. Where’s the bias in that? LOL.

Instead of attacking Fox on their reporting of Olbermann and Matthews getting the boot from MSNBC, you could have looked elsewhere, but something tells me you’re not interested in the truth more than you are in making Ad hominem remarks at Fox News.

http://tinyurl.com/67slmd

Instead of disqualifying ratings “news” reported from Fox, you could have also easily listed numbers to disprove what Fox “reported”. BTW, whenever someone talks about the TV ratings, it’s almost always with respect to the Nielsen. You did know that right? Or were you just being Master of the Obvious here? Otherwise, there was no point in criticizing or questioning Fox for the ratings they reported and not listing their sources. LOL. But no, you went on some self-absorbed rant about how you have access to the Nielsen ratings. Go here and look under “Cable Top 15” (this category should include: MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline, Fox News, CNBC, and whatever else I may have left out): http://tinyurl.com/34yzfo

Looks to me that Fox took the lion’s share.

Saying someone tends toward being a Republican because they are anti-Liberal is about as non-sensical as saying anyone anti-Conservative is part of the Communist party. … Hey! Wait a minute! I think you made a very good point!

Neutral Story? That’s a dream. As I stated before (between all your rants) is that we are all biased people. Even the most well intentioned person may not give a perfectly neutral story (or stories on a consistent basis) due to their background and predispositions. But you can believe what you want to believe on honest and ethical reporting.

Nah, I don’t think you’re older than me. At best you’re probably a college-aged kid who likes to talk loud and speak of honest and ethical reporting between all your naïve and idealistic perceptions of journalism in America while taking pot shots at Fox because of your liberal predispositions.

# 72 tcc3 said, on September 11th, 2008 at 4:50 am

{sarcasm} Yeah Mike I must be against Palin just because shes female. It has nothing to do with her ruthless ambition, her shameless pork barrel money grabs, her lying about said pork, her endorsement of abstinence only education, and her casual invocation of god into every day secular political arguments. {/sarcasm}

It takes quite an ego to say that god supports your political pet projects.

Its her policies I don’t like. This is why I say the exp argument is bogus – it detracts from the real issues. We’ve spent 71 posts discussing the VP candidate’s hotness and hardly anyone has mentioned her policies. Much less the policies of her boss, the man who would be *President.* I belive this is part of the Palin strategy. Its shock and awe. Its theater to keep the tough questions to a minimum or to postpone them a few weeks. It gets the old man our of the spotlight for a bit while the last stupid thing he said wears off.

And Mike why the ad hominiem attack? You cant really argue the merits so you call me the vilest name *you* can think of….liberal.

# 73 'W' the decider said, on September 11th, 2008 at 5:53 am

I was listening to one of her speeches on the radio and was reminded of a voice I heard in the past. Do you remember WKRP in Cincinnati? Herb Tarlek’s wife Lucille and Sarah Palin sound very similar.

# 74 RBG said, on September 11th, 2008 at 9:27 am

71 tcc3: “We’ve spent 71 posts discussing the VP candidate’s hotness and hardly anyone has mentioned her policies.”

It’s similar to the preoccupation with the Dem Prez candidate’s blackness.

But do you think the discussion has anything to do with the above photo & SN’s headlined obsession with weiners?

RBG

# 75 tcc3 said, on September 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am

I’m not saying its off topic. Its the subject of the thread after all. I’m saying the whole controversy is off topic.

# 76 J said, on September 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

# 71 Guyver

“The news does it every day and that’s why there’s no such thing as objective news. ”

Never said news was objective. But it isn’t liberal or right wing either. The whole intent for every news station is to drive viewership. They know who they cater to and they do stories to bring them in. That is all. It isn’t because they favor one candidate or another. They favor money. Any argument otherwise just show your lack of knowledge about Television.

“I don’t have any problem with you telling me you think Fox is pro-Republican ”

They are not. They cater to people who are. That is how they profit.

“On the flipside MSNBC’s house remark during the Palin VP acceptance speech was a sarcastic remark on a breaking news banner.”

OK DUMBFUCK!!!! How many times do I have to tell you it was a comment made by a candidate and they reported it????

“Your stance on honest and ethical news casting seems to me either you’re pretty young or your just simply naïve”

Neither. I work all the time with news originations and I receive reports from Nielsen daily.

“You haven’t figured out that the very reasons why you don’t trust people to give you a factual account of whether or not the news is biased is EXACTLY the point I’ve been making about the news itself.”

Nope you got that wrong. It’s not that I don’t trust it I just know they are reporting only a specific report. They aren’t giving you the whole picture.

“The news is shaping public opinion by way of perception. ”

Yeah and? I never said it didn’t

“But no, you’re predisposed to believe MSNBC is an honest agency and Fox News is nothing but evil. ”

No not at all. They are ALL motivated by money. You only think I look at it that way because you are stupid and think you know more than you do.

“Instead of attacking Fox on their reporting of Olbermann and Matthews getting the boot from MSNBC, you could have looked elsewhere, ……Bla Bla Bla”

I wasn’t attacking them about their reporting about Obermann and Matthews. I was attacking them on their slanted and inaccurate statement about the ratings. Can you fucking read or do you just make up what you want me to say?

“Instead of disqualifying ratings “news” reported from Fox, you could have also easily listed numbers to disprove what Fox “reported”.”

I could but I would be sued. I don’t have the right to post them without permission. You have to pay to get the reports I get. They are not free.

“BTW, whenever someone talks about the TV ratings, it’s almost always with respect to the Nielsen. ”

Yeah no shit! That is who supplies my reports to me. The have a headquarters not that far from my office.

“But no, you went on some self-absorbed rant about how you have access to the Nielsen ratings.”

NO I stated a fact. That link you posted is not what the reports look like. The information is much more detailed and tells you how long the viewers watched and at what point they turned the volume up or down, all sorts of little things like that. See you think you know about it but you don’t because you are some ignorant dolt talking shit with someone who actually knows. What that little link shows is the most unimportant and generic data. NOT WHAT I PAY FOR!

“Looks to me that Fox took the lion’s share.”

It would when you are looking from a idiots point of view. A week long term from a generic report with no breakdown. A week by the way that the REPUBLICAN CONVENTION took place. Talk about bias! You are so fucking stupid. Only a fool like you would take a narrow single sample and claim that it was the entire story. I have reports too that tell a very different tale. I will tell you what, why don’t you look and see how much each station get for a spot on those show and that will tell you the REAL story. You will find the reality is quite different.

“Neutral Story? That’s a dream”

I am not going to argue with you about it because you are too stupid and ignorant of fact on the matter.

” At best you’re probably a college-aged kid ”

Yeah back in 1981. Do you think that somehow age make a person more intelligent ?

# 77 Guyver said, on September 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

76, LOL.

Sure, I can go with the “No Conflict; No Story”. That’s what journalists have told me before concerning their liberal stance of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve also seen them use what troops say out of context just to portray a certain viewpoint.

For a guy who just got done talking about shades of gray, you would rather take a black and white view on the matter of just what was the motive of reporting why McCain couldn’t give specifics over how many homes he owned. Good one.

You never said the news was objective but you never said it wasn’t left/right wing either? What kind of self-contradicting legalese double talk is that? LOL. I’m sure Dan Rather would have loved to have you defending him.

Seems to me the liberals have a beef over the way Kerry was tarred and feathered over him driving around in his wife’s SUVs when he talked about how bad they were and suggested raising gas taxes to curb Americans from buying and using them when he ran for president.

Of course the news is competing for ratings against shows like American Idol. And yes they do cater to a target audience. And no they are not objective.

I didn’t suggest that you should have provided the Nielsen reports directly. I merely said there’s enough out there on the net for you to come up with contrary evidence to what Fox’s claims were. What a cop out. But no, in every rant you come back with you don’t provide one iota of “evidence”. You go whining like a little kid claiming you know how it all works. Why you thought I was trying to tell the entire story is beyond me.

As for my providing information on the REPUBLICAN CONVENTION ratings, I thought it was obvious that it was last week’s ratings. You’re letting your liberal emotions get the best of you which is preventing you from noticing what should have been obvious. AGAIN you could have provided contrary evidence to support your stance for any other week (I just happened to provide the most recent) but no, it seems you’re too self-absorbed in your rants to even do that. You’d rather talk about your special access to Nielsen ratings data and go on with another self-important moment when you could have googled something else rather than explaining how you’d get sued using your own info.

No, my comments about your age had nothing to do with your “intellect”. (Although you do seem overly obsessed about talking about intelligence or how you feel someone is stupid). It had everything to do with noting you have the vocabulary and mannerisms of an 18 year old (not meaning this as an insult). You seem pretty immature for a guy who claims to have went to college in ‘81. That or you need some anger management. You also seem overly anal in that you needed to clarify that you wore boxers instead of panties (as though that changes how you are whining like a little girl). Anyone mature individual who went to college back in ‘81 wouldn’t have bothered to clarify what you wear down there. LOL. But that’s just my perspective.

Keep fighting the good fight! I love how you liberals get into emotional rants.

# 78 Paddy-O said, on September 11th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

#77 Did you see K. Olbermann’s meltdown last night? He was ranting about repubs & McCain. It was so bad you could see the men in little white coats standing by for him to finish…

# 79 J said, on September 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

# 77 Guyver said

“You never said the news was objective but you never said it wasn’t left/right wing either?”

Let me say it clearly one more time so your think skull can absorb it.

THE ONLY BIAS THE NEWS HAS IS MONEY! They target their market audience with what they think will keep them watching. It has been like that since the mid 70’s when news started to become about the profit instead of journalism.

“I merely said there’s enough out there on the net for you to come up with contrary evidence to what Fox’s claims were. ”

The only info Nielson releases for free are reports like the ones you linked to. Still that report is for a 1 week time span. Not a constant statistic. Not to mention… Are even aware of how many households 1 Neilson household represents? It can be anywhere from 38,000 to 180,000 approx. It depends on what kind of equipment the home has installed. There are many different types of data recording. With the amount of data they collect I could prove that any show does better than any other show depending on what data I choose to select. So posting a link to general data is ignorant of the REALITY of the real stats. Any post to any Nielson data online is irrelevant and pointless, except for dolts like you who think it proves their point, without more info and analysis.

“As for my providing information on the REPUBLICAN CONVENTION ratings, I thought it was obvious that it was last week’s ratings. You’re letting your liberal emotions get the best of you which is preventing you from noticing what should have been obvious.”

You don’t think that the fact that you posted the week of the Republican convention that there would be higher ratings on FOX? You really are stupid. Besides the rating that you see are called p2 ratings. They include anyone over the age of 2. Dumb ass!

“AGAIN you could have provided contrary evidence to support your stance for any other week”

I don’t need to because the burden of proof is on you not me. You made the claim that the media is bias and the FOX has better rating than MSNBC yet you provide first only and OPINION POLL then only generic evidence from a limited sub sample.

THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE!!! That is equivalent to me saying that all Republicans are stupid by asking 1 in 180,000 people their opinion about the issue.

“It had everything to do with noting you have the vocabulary and mannerisms of an 18 year old”

Really? Is that from your extensive knowledge of psychiatry and analysis of writing samples or is that just one of your wild guesses back up by nothing more than your ignorant belief?

“You seem pretty immature for a guy who claims to have went to college in ‘81.”

And look who is engaged in the argument with me!!! YOU!!! Look into the mirror much?

“That or you need some anger management. ”

I’m not angry I put things in all caps for dumb fuckers like you so your little brain can’t ignore the statement.

“You also seem overly anal in that you needed to clarify that you wore boxers instead of panties (as though that changes how you are whining like a little girl).”

You are really stuck on wearing panties aren’t you? Like I said whatever floats your boat. Not my thing though You made a claim about me and I wanted to clarify that I wear boxers. I think your sexist side thought I was a girl. I am not.

“Anyone mature individual who went to college back in ‘81 wouldn’t have bothered to clarify what you wear down there. LOL.”

Wow you don’t get out much do you? No friends? Why don’t you get back to me when you are as successful in life as me and then we can talk about maturity pal.

“But that’s just my perspective.”

That’s right and perspectives are like opinions and assholes. Everyone has one and your counts for shit.

# 80 Rick Cain said, on September 11th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Just because I want to have sex with a woman doesn’t mean I want to elect her as VP.

# 81 mtk said, on September 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Response to Mike Cannali,

How can you say Obama has no experience- next to Palin and McCain? Unfortunately, people who think similarly are stifling the progress of this country. Just because he is black and attractive- don’t hate on him. You mean it’s okay to have a hockey mom (admittedly so with little experience to run the country). Like Matt Damon says “Now that is scary”. How would she deal with foreign policy and foreign leaders? We would be in a lot of trouble (like we are now- maybe worse!)
Obama has experience not only in the Senate, but working with all kinds of people from diverse backgrounds – and is out for the common good- and that is change and not this political jargon McCain and Palin are up to. ENOUGH with the political games (as Obama says). Let’s get the country on the right track. Lord knows he can do it and will if given the chance(don’t be so racist). I can’t believe he is not leading in the polls by a much larger margin. The whole reason why McCain chose Palin is to to get the evangelical rights’ vote (and foolishly the womens’ vote- those not too bright on the issues)
Just please America wake up and vote for OBAMA- We need an honest sincere person running this country – not more political jargon that is just denigrading our country to the rest of the world. Obama can get us on the right path again… Also, he is a Harvard grad (magna cum laude), first black editor for Harvard Law Review, Lawyer, Senator, Congressman… not to mention all of his other accomplishments that have gotten to him to where he is today (community organizer that did a lot of good for a lot of poor people in Chicago- not just an average looking middle-aged woman who happened to get chosen for political reasons. Millions and millions chose him in the election (over Hillary)- doesn’t that tell you something?
mtk

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!