It's easy to debate when you don't make a single counter-argument or post information to counter one's discussion point. The non-debate debate, is it?

I'll address a couple of my points further in an attempt to pull you out of your non-debate cubby-hole.

1. Fox News is an industry leader. They have ridiculously high numbers when compared to their competitors. They often boast an audience 3x-4x what their competitors have. mediabistro.com: TVNewser

2. Fox News also has a more diverse audience than any other news outlet. More of the 'opposition' watches Fox News than any other cable news network. Who Watches What: Party Lines & Cable News - mediabistro.com: TVNewser

I still haven't seen a link or anything of the Bush White House criticizing a specific media outlet for negative treatment. If it happened, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did, than that's just as bad. Where's your consistency? Where's your complaints about this? Why can't we see similar criticism from you and others with prior administrations?

I don't think random Republicans complaining vaguely about the "liberal media" is remotely the same thing, and the fact that that's the comparison being made tells me a lot about the spell Obama has over some of you.

I'd disagree with that. I think there were plenty of people complaining about the NY Times attack. You were most certainly one of them. But once again, that has little to do with the topic at hand. Quit trying to divert the topic.

The discussion is whether these kinds of attacks are a good idea when done directly by the administration. IMO, the answer is no. There's no positive outcome available. At best, it's a neutral outcome. At worst, it's a hinderance to the administration's popularity. They come off as being less than professional when attacking the media outlets.

Yes they are the industry leader, but the raw numbers aren't that great. A huge night for O'Reilly is about 4 million viewers. That will crush all the competition, but even if you assume everyone watching is a voter it's @3% of the voting public.

Cheney: New York Times harms US security

Cheney: New York Times harms U.S. security

Did you not read the last page where I said I agree with you?

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere. This is obviously the traditional argument to minimize Fox News and their standing in the cable news industry. So now that we've noted that they have such a minimal impact on the overall voting public (and in the case of the NY Times it's probably even smaller), why would an administration ever consider throwing away both political and professional capital on a network that has little to no impact on the voting public?

MBBF: You're too clever for me.

Interestingly I can't find any discussions of this article on the board here to see how folks came down on it.

Then what's the problem?

FoxNews is allowed to have a conservative-themed news/commentary network. If the FoxNews viewership is not diverse, and its just hard-core Republicans watching anyway - what does Obama hope to accomplish by attacking it? If their viewership isn't diverse - then its not like they're brain-washing Democrats.

Should the White House release a list of "acceptable" news/entertainment organizations? Isn't that the next step, the obvious implication from the fact that there are apparently unacceptable news/entertainment organizations?

Over here in the Philippines, we get Fox News USA on cable...

...and almost everyone I know who's seen it considers it the channel for the Republican party.

Yes, that's very ridiculous, and I would say worse than Obama's pissing match with FoxNews, because Cheney played the security card. Playing the security card to attack a media outlet is both wrong, and really destructive because it undermines actual security concerns. During the Bush administration, we got to the point where any concern that was raised about national security, legitimate or otherwise, was automatically greeted with skepticism and doubt. That's mostly that administration's fault, because of stuff like this.

Now if a conservative commentator made this critisism - that's a different thing. That's just more political speech. When the president/vp says it, it takes on an added level of creapiness.

How many times do I have to say I agree that the admin shouldn't have made this a big public spat? If they don't like Fox, just don't do interviews with them, but I think especially given the timing this will just serve as a distraction.

So Obama thinks Americans are dumber than Filipinos, as we need the president to characterize these networks for us.

FoxNews is just filling a market niche that a lot of people want. A lot of people think most news organizations are overally liberal (even Obama thinks this, based on the joke he made in the original article - or at least he was having fun with that perception), whether one agrees or disagrees with that is irrelevant to the business. People think the news media is liberal, so they really like one that's conservative (or from many perspectives, "neutral.")

Fox News will always be hostile to Obama anyway, I guess his team felt it was better to have it out in the open. :)

Speaking as someone who worked on Capitol Hill in January, 1993, I can tell you that Clinton blundered into the entire thing and never had a chance. He built no consensus behind the scenes, didn't even bother to prep his own party on the hill, and hadn't even thought through his own position. And he got crucified for it.

Times have changed, but there are still some very powerful entrenched forces against this move, and Obama's caution is warranted.



Oh come on, you guys aren't this naive.

Obama's political advisers hope to tie the GOP to morons like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly in the same way the Karl Rove hoped to tie the Democrats to an alleged "elite" institution called the New York Times or blowhards like Olbermann.

I don't think anyone was wondering what he was doing as much as why. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And once again, you're not getting away with the 'in the same way' comment in an attempt to make it partisan or somehow legitimize it. I've been very consistant in stating that it's the tactic, not who's doing it, that is the issue at hand.

That's the real strange part about all of this. I can't think of anyone who doesn't know about Fox News and their inherent lean to the conservative side, yet the article states that people in the Obama Administration actually believe that there are people who aren't aware of it. That's way out of touch with reality IMO. If people in the Phillipines know it, I think the American public is similarly aware of it, if not moreso than foreigners.

Doubtful, but thanks for the false hope.

And the people that don't understand Fox News' slant probably aren't going to have their mind changed by Obama.

At best, this is just an attempt to group all opposition together, which is just politics as usual. Obama wants 2012 to be Obama v. Fox News/Limbaugh. Those are the two sides. If you fall somewhere else, you don't really matter. Yes, it's similar to Republicans trying to group opposition into a "media elite". But again, isn't Obama supposed to be better than that? Is "just as bad as a Republican" really what we thought we were getting here?

The Republicans are doing something similar right now with Obama. They're tying him and the Pelosi/Reid "leadership" together and trying to make them the face of the Democrats. I think it's a much more significant tie-in since they are all politicians rather than a media outlet.

Fixed

You've definitely hit on Obama's campaign strategy for '12. You're either with him, or you're comparing him to Hitler.

No, I'm saying it's pretty standard these days in politics.

And those mentioning your previous lack of criticism on other administrations was just a way to point out your hypocrisy. It's not a statement on whether it's right or wrong.

Except that I've criticized the previous adminsitration. Other than that, ya.

Why bother with these guys? There are about 4-5 people on each side who just argue the new talking points over and over and over. They claim to be balanced and share points of view from the other side but you maybe see that once every 100 posts. I don't even doubt that they honestly believe that they are balanced but they are the exact problem with this country. Obama has convinced his disciples that health care can't be reformed without massive insurance overhaul. The unions and lawyers are fine though. The Republicans have convinced their followers the exact opposite. I have an idea... how about both insurance reform and tort reform? Nah, both parties wouldn't be able to keep special interest groups that contribute to their campaigns and keep them in office happy. So instead lets throw a bone to the JPhillips and Flaschs of the world and criticize Fox News. That way they will completely ignore how the Democratic party is under the control of unions and lawyers and bitch about the New York Times and a former vice president. And how about the Republicans throw a bone about socialism to MBBF and Molson that way they will ignore that their strategy is just to get back in office and do nothing again. Just this century the Republicans had about 6 years to do something and now the Democrats are going on 3 (with about 9 months of controlling all three). Wonder why they never get anything done???

But why waste your vote on a third party? What we have is so much better. :banghead:

I don't know, this seemed to happen all the time and I highly doubt there is a single post from you or MBBF on this. In fact, I remember the wiretap story being rather large and there are even a couple threads on this forum about it. Yet not surprisingly, no criticism on either of your parts of the administration.
Bush Criticizes Reports About Bank Tracking - Los Angeles Times
Bush Team Criticizes New Report About Iran - New York Times

What people are pointing out is that you aren't arguing an issue, you're arguing a side. What Obama does is wrong no matter if it was right 2 years ago under Bush. It is important in a debate to know whether the other person is arguing the issue or not.

Gosh, so do I. Considering that FXNC outdraws the entire liberal cable news cabal combined every night, I'd take that comparison.


We should be so lucky. Just manage a draw with those who don't watch any of 'em and that show up to vote and it's a win.

They do it because it works. Because in 2004 they were able to portray Democrats as tree-hugging, peace loving, homosexual pussies from San Francisco. I mean fuck, they even portrayed a guy who actually fought in a war as some coward.

Democrats will now push to portray Republicans as uber-Christian, bigoted conspiracy nuts who are Glenn Beck zombies.

Some day this board will come together and just bash BOTH parties constantly.

Lighten up Francis.

How can you not see your own ideological blinders? I've admitted in the past I'm ideological, though I wouldn't classify myself as partisan as I do very little to help candidates get elected. What you and Buc don't acknowledge is that your particular set of political beliefs are just as rigid as anyone you're criticizing. The answer is always smaller government, no matter what the question.

Not every political belief is based on the head of a party. I have thought for many years that our healthcare system is inefficient, Medicare costs will eventually crush us, and a move towards a single payer system could expand coverage and reduce costs. That has nothing to do with Obama. My somewhat tepid support of his efforts on healthcare reform come because I believe in the policy, not because I care whether Obama is seen as the greatest president evah.

We really aren't anywhere near as different as you'd like. We both are strong proponents of a multitude of policy solutions. While you'd like to think you're above it all, you're really down in the mud with everyone else.

This is a country of 300 million people -- I'm SURE there are people who aren't aware of it. Especially since Fox News has by far the biggest font out of all the cable news networks -- this brings in those viewers who are the least aware of anything, old people.

this just in - Olympia Snowe has said she will vote for the Finance Committee's version of the healthcare bill...

Of course. There's always the exception if you're going to take it to that level. Not sure what it accomplishes outside of saying there's a person that doesn't know. Now that we've taken Heidi Montag out of the equation................

cept that im for tort reform and not necessarily sold on the unions but yeah, I get your point.

And I highly doubt that I would not have said anything about the administration in that situation. It appears we're both suffering from a high amount of doubt.

Oh sorry -- I'll just get out of the way -- I didn't mean to interfere with everyone's accomplishments in here.

Just to play devil's advocate here, but if Cheney really believed it was a threat to national security, don't you think he should come out and say it? If something really is threatening our security, I'd want our leaders to be as vocal about it as they can get.

I know the administration destroyed credibility on the national security debate, but I personally want a President/VP to tell a source to fuck themselves if they are threatening my safety.

I think you're giving the public too much credit here. Everyone here is pretty up-to-date on the world and politics, but spend a few hours at the local Wal-Mart and you will lose all faith in humanity.

There are people who don't see the slants because they don't want to. Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann is just the neutral view of the world because they agree with what they are saying.

Good for her. There is a reason that I do say that I'm a Northeastern Republican, because of folks like Snowe. Though I do find myself very close to Governor Schwartzenegger as well... so, Northeastern/California Republican?

But wouldn't most Republicans outside the northeast call a Northeastern Republican an oxymoron? :) RINO for sure.

I used to call myself a Republican (and I used to be more conservative) but having some liberal views got me called a RINO (not on this forum as I didn't post here). So I said fuck it, agreed, and switched allegiances. Now since then, I've drifted plenty further left so as to not be accused of being a DINO :)

You're definitely not a Girly-Man Republican.

I haven't itemized 'em completely but yeah, I'd say the majority of (R)'s in the region would qualify as RINO's.

Given her various positions, I'd say she's more like a blue dog than anything else.

Just so Molson doesn't accuse me of being a partisan hack looking to make Republicans look bad, I'd also say that on the other end of the spectrum, most (D)'s in the South these days are considered DINOs by many.

i think you're less likely to be called a DINO by democrats than a RHINO by republicans. no statistics to back that up or anything, just my opinion

Fuck 'em ;).

And there are some that would fit very nicely from other places other than the Northeast and California (like Bob Dole or, even, John McCain).


I don't think I could be a Democrat. I'd rather be an independant who voted Dem most of the time. But if the Republicans keep shifting and the Dems pick up the former moderate Republicans....

I do get the impression that the conservative side of the spectrum tends to value ideological purity more strongly. Only my impression, nothing to back it up. But having gone through an ideological purge within the party myself (not literally in the Stalinist sense) it's obvious why I get that impression.

I think the first person that mentions Hitler is generally the one needs to lighten up. Isn't that message board 101?

Used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, though it appears to be archaic. I've pretty much accepted that I'm estranged from both parties at this point. I've gotten the feeling that I'm not particularly welcome in the Republican Party as currently constituted and couldn't really see myself ever registering (D), so I've been independent since the 2004 election. I might just listen to panerd and go third party from here on. Though it might not do much, voting for either of the main two has pretty much proven no to do much.