Why? Because there was a marked deterioration in his performance between the two periods. Here's his verbal skills ten years previous, which were excellent -- and then you can see the deterioration before and during his presidency. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvVi...r-a-year-is-the-condition-why-his-mind-is-deg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fo98SzCGo
Because Republicans are God fearing people, who believe in right to life and are in lock step with the religious right, and other Christian and evangelicals groups. Listen to Christian radio if you want to learn the truth about media bias. Why just today I learned in the radio that Obama will give his acceptance speech from a Greek like structure with columns. Greeks were pagan worshipers. and now Obama is justifying paganism by giving his speech there. Thank goodness for Family Radio and the Christian right for setting me straight on issues like this..... issues that matter!!
Here's two: Some scholarly stuff from the President's Press Corp (more recent stuff toward the bottom): http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp And here's some more empirical data: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455 Statistics are damned lies so I'm sure Democrats have an excuse why this really isn't like it appears. I'll eagerly read all explanations though.
A clip from O'Reily Factor where Mit Romney got exposed as being in league with the devil!! Thank goodness evangelicals dont play favorites when it comes to protecting us from Satan and his pagan followers! Thanks again evangelicals for exposing the truth on Romney and saving us from possibly have satan in the white house! Bless your hearts http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...H-EaToqAL_krTtDA&q=evangelical+preacher&vt=lf
Wow, that is just shocking that you would believe that. First off, this isn't scholarly research -- it starts from the conclusion that it wants to reach and selects the group that it thinks will fit. Don't believe me? Here's the specific goal of the group you just cited as "scholarly:" "Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist" That's not even close to scholarly, or science for that matter. Look, I appreciate that you believe that the film critic for the New Yorker magazine is biased for the Democrats, as is the New Yorker's book reviewer, as is Newsweek's personal correspondent on health and fitness (apparently all those articles she wrote on fitness were liberal) and I'm laughing as I read the list, but then I get down to the Wall Street Journal which apparently has ZERO employees who donate to the Republican cause. Now, as shocking as this may sound to you (and my wife) I am not actually retarded.
I don't believe you are retarded. Just unusually well indoctricated. As for the media bias study, you seem to be under the impression it was an MRC study. The article clearly states it was done by some university professors. How anyone could find its conclusions surprising or quibble with them is beyond me. Of course, you think Obama has gotten negative coverage form the press too. I hate to think what you consider positive coverage.
Wow, "university professors?" And this study shows that no members of the Wall Street Journal editorial team donate any money whatsoever to Republicans? Perhaps they're professors of geology. There's a huge difference between citing intelligent studies and just finding factoids to stroke your ego.