It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New study shows McCain Gets Far More Negative Coverage From Media.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:41 PM

Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate)

Vice-Presidential Duties

The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" (Article I, section 3). In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. John Adams holds the record at 29 votes, followed closely by John C. Calhoun with 28. Since the 1870s, however, no vice president has cast as many as 10 tie-breaking votes. While vice presidents have used their votes chiefly on legislative issues, they have also broken ties on the election of Senate officers, as well as on the appointment of committees in 1881 when the parties were evenly represented in the Senate.

The vice president's other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1). Only a few happy vice presidents — John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush — had the pleasure of announcing their own election as president. Many more were chagrined to announce the choice of some rival for the office.

Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers "might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote."

Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent.

The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration.

During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:45 PM
Left wing, right wing, it's all ridiculous. The whole bird is toxic. You don't have to take the coin and flip it, pick a side. Step away from another circus. Ridiculous.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:26 PM
reply to post by depth om

I agree. Left wing, right wing, who cares? I'm a liberal leaning moderate. I like it, since, I get to be inbetween on some issues, and then, I get to be liberal and others, and, I don't have to be so biased with my views.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 12:59 AM

Originally posted by David9176
Yeah, gets negative coverage because of a negative campaign. That's complete BS. Obama doesn't really have to go negative...not with an army made of media on his side to do all the dirty work for him. There is supposed to be honest journalism...but i guess that doesn't exist anymore and everyone seems to be fine with it.

It shouldn't matter what the tone of the freakin campaigns are....the coverage is supposed to be even regardless.

You only see it this way because u are all Obama supporters. He can do NO WRONG in your minds.

In context, i would hope that Obama becomes President just for the fact that you would all be proven how terrible he is at it. We'll have a Democratic Bush. Yay! It's only fair right?

Not worried about the Fairness Doctrine or second amendment rights? We'll be fine!! i'm not worried! It may or may not happen but it's worth the risk right? After all....Democrats have earned the right to F UP THE GOVERNMENT JUST AS MUCH AS REPUBLICANS HAVE RIGHT?


[edit on 23-10-2008 by David9176]

NEGATIVE policy based ads are fair game. Negative CHARACTER attack ads are Hitler-based in origin. IF you like Bush so much, go live with him and follow him. FOR ME, I'd much rather have somebody favor the PEOPLE, and do things to help my song and health insurance for he and I both, and things to help our standing in the world THAN to choose a racist, HOT HEADED, Bush CLONE. Bush is his own restaurant, and Mccain is MCBUSH. They both, along with Cheney and their Neocon friends, aspire to be HITLER's party. LOOK up the psychology of it. DEhumanize, US versus THEM, even if a person answers something it is NOT enough to some. It is psychologically a DIVISIVE style of politics. Mccain, Palin, Cheney, Bush (Sr. and Jr), and, overall, GOP in general have brought the WORST standing for the U.S. in the world, have ruined the economy but made THEIR FRIENDS rich. Socialize debt DOWN and WEALTH up. IF you support that, then you are a FOOL.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:58 AM
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius

hahahaha, McNutty gets more negative coverage because he puts out more negative things to report on.


posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:56 AM
I am still in awe.

The same argument keeps coming up from the left.
Negative campaign = negative MSM coverage.

So i guess most agree then that Mccain does get more negative coverage. Albeit justified by most according to opinion here.

So most people seem to believe Bush is a terrorist, dictator, murderer liar, scoundrel etc. So basically in the same arena as Hitler and that ilk.

So from the beginning Obama has been calling Mccain a Bush clone, essentially calling Mccain a terrorist, dictator, murderer etc.

So by this logic Obama is being just as negative.

On another note, I have searched around for Mccain's voting record. Which has been difficult to find any info beyond 2007/2008
but what i did find was that the further you go back the less Mccain voted with Bush. And only the last year or 2 has he voted with Bush 90-95% of the time which is after the damage was done.

By the way this is not exactly voting with Bush its voting on party lines. So the 90% is him voting with the Republican side. 8 years ago he was in the 70-80 % range when Bush took office, whixh is where he earned the maverick title I believe. (this is what I found, if its wrong feel free to correct).

I am Canadian so sorry if i am not understanding your US politics completely.

By the way if Bush is so god awful bad, how can we expalin the Democratic run congress having an even worse approval rating than the tyrant?

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to [url=
He get's more negative coverage, because he projects more negativity than Obama. McCain is more on the attack, than Obama. Not to judge the two wrongly, but Obama is calmer and more in control than McCain has been. People are going to respond to that, respectively.

So it makes perfects sense people are going to respond to the way hes reaacting onto the world if you like, be it you, mass media, interviewer, country etc.

Why cant you understand that this is only because the media spins Obama's negativity as normal, and launches all the really nasty stuff FOR him? The media NEVER attacks Obama (with the exception of Fox), instead the deflect attacks. If they do cover a negative story about him, its only to reassure the viewer that he is squeaky clean.

Someday, you guys are going to realize just how corrupt our media is and it'll probably be too late.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:12 AM
Oh, I remember this thread. It's the one where several people asked for examples of positive things John McCain has done during this campaign, back on the first couple of pages.

How's that coming?

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:11 AM
I REALLY hate to defend the news media, but I don't think it's their job to falsely manipulate and fudge the news to make it more even-handed. They should give equal time to the candidates positions, but beyond that, they should just report what is actually newsworthy whether it makes one guy look better than the other or not. (of course they report a ton of things that are NOT newsworthy, so I guess it's all moot anyway)

Actually, I think the news media feels a lot of pressure to make their stories falsely even-handed, just to give the appearance of being "fair and balanced". Hence the Foxnews slogan.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by AdmiralX

If you read any of my posts in any of the other threads, you would know that i don't like George Bush. This is a wild assumption on your part.

McCain's campaign was getting negative coverage LONG before he went negative. You are blinded by your own ambitions.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:57 AM
Apparently not enough, the "OMG a black man who loves Obama carved a B into my face" lady should be shown 24/7. At least thats what most McCain supporters seemed to think before they were told the story was FAKE!

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:59 AM
Who runs the media? Who owns the major news cable networks? Ever wondered? You should. These are major corporations.

Who owns NBC? GE

ABC? Walt disney company

CBS? Viacom

FOX? News Corporation

Here is the link to the page:

For those of you who think the media is a magically just and righteous are wrong.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 01:04 AM

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mind is the universe

For your viewing pleasure.

The lady speaks at 1:20.

1.) Look up Psychology or earn a degree in Psychology, Sociology, and have a strong background in Philosophy.

2.) Observe the language, the tactics; DEHUMANIZING Obama, tying him to "Terrorists", stating "Who is he?", calling him "Socialist" and as of today a Communist, always striving to paint him as an OUTSIDER, UNPATRIOTIC, UN-AMERICAN. Mccain, Palin, and their puppets do this. Don't forget emphasizing his MIDDLE name. The underlying strategy; "Mystery man, different, NOT US, not for US" then those seeds and the language they use blossoms into things like you see now, and a sort of CHRISTIAN TERRORISM. I say this able to cite evidence; ADOLF HITLER IS PROUD OF THE BUSH/MCCAIN/ROVE/PALIN tactics.

3.) IF you can stand by those tactics, then you are as "gullible" as those Hitler led to murdering others, and torturing others. It all starts with "THEY" then terms like "THAT ONE" to DEHUMANIZE. There is a reason for this and if you knew history and Psychology, you would realize the TRUE brainwashing is being done by Mccain right now.

--OBAMA might prove to be wrong. WHAT I do know is DEBT and SUFFERING trickle down, corporations have tax loopholes and are not paying those "high" tax rates anyway, Bush and Mccain support torture (LOOK UP THE VOTING ON THAT ITEM, it MAY surprise you), and WEALTH is owned by the top 5% of the U.S. Something is VERY wrong with that. It is a form of socialism, as are other programs MCCAIN and even PALIN support. Palin's Alaska is VERY socialistic in nature (LOOK IT UP). Anyway, to give the poor and middle classes a shot at life, THEN to use a TRICKLE up process that is PROVEN TO WORK (see Bill Clinton economic success stories while he held office), that is MORE FAIR. THE language Palin uses is manipulation. THINGS like that have caused rapes, murders, hangings, and normally RATIONAL human beings to "HARM those not seen AS HUMAN as those harming them." WAKE up, Obama might not be right, TIME SHOULD TELL, but I know voter suppression, and other tactics are wrong, and that what we have had is IDIOTIC. I'd rather have a shot at life rather than continue on the path of Bush/Cheney with their SIDEKICK Mcbush (Mccain) and a MORE RADICAL and ignorant form of perhaps the DUBMEST president; BUSH.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
This is not a surprise to some of us, who have watched as our media transformed in to the propaganda arm of the DNC and Obama. Not that I beleive this will convince any of the left wing folks on this forum. As long as the media is spinning things for the left wing of this country, they could care less. They are only interested in shutting down the lone voices of the right.

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable -- and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three-to-one -- the most unfavorable of all four candidates -- according to the study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says.

Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]
This takes a study? Well at least it is documented.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:46 PM

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent). You call that balanced? OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico. And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues. So what?;_ylt=ArPsgHw0Ivw8J6ZogwV7n5Bh24cA

An interesting article. This guy is another in the media that admits the bias and negative coverage towards McCain.

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in