The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Except he just pointed out that the Daily Show has been pointing out Obama's mistakes as well. You just flew by that and ignored it, perhaps because it wasn't convenient for the response you wanted to give? If you want to insult people and call them sheep then maybe you should bother to read their posts and respond to what they actually say.

And Bill O'Reilly will occasionally complains about individual conservatives to try to appear "fair and balanced".

Not convinced.

I'll tell you what though, I'll add up the conservative v. liberal viewpoints expressed on the next few daily shows I watch, and if the liberals are attacked more, I'll have to acknowledge that my perception is off.

I should point out that the daily show certainly isn't required to have any kind of balance, they're just playing to their audience, trying to have a successful show, just like any foxnews show - this is america, and they can do anything they want. I'm just saying in terms of the stuff DT talked about from that time magazine article, there is similar poison for the other side, and the Daily Show (and similar sentiments expressed elsewhere) give out the same poison in a way that's younger, hipper, funnier, and thus less noticed.

And also, yes, you were correct to call me out that I hadn't responded to that directly, that's fine....In a smiliar spirit I'm still waiting for SteveBollea to support the extreme approval/dissaproval ratings he threw out a few page ago, which he used I think to show that Obama is beloved everywhere except the south (and the implications from that with are major, but which I won't get into again).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

Yet of the three opinions expressed - mine, I guess because it mentioned only a liberal show, was attacked as somehow not being as valid as the 1st two opinions. Rainmaker at least expresssed disagreement with the point, which I appreciated, but whereas you and ronnie just went after the underlying validity, even though in that post, I specifically agreed with what flere said about the conservative shows.

I'm not interested in having this discussion again - we covered this only a few months ago, and I regret hopping in again - but since you've mentioned me specifically I will reply and leave it at that.

I don't see the Daily Show the same way as you do; though, as I said I used to. Since the "bogeyman" of Bush has subsided, the show is a lot less predictable and bitter and now, in my opinion, takes on the whole beast that is the political-media complex. I think they do this in a pretty sharp way. Though the audience definitely leans left (which, again, I do not) I think that most of the humor is done pretty fairly and they are not afraid to go after their own side when their own side is shitty.

My response was based on the fact that I do not think you really know a lot about the Daily Show yet you. Consistently. Bring. It. Up. In. This. Context, as if it were a giant windmill for you and Sancho to take on.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm not interested in having this discussion again - we covered this only a few months ago, and I regret hopping in again - but since you've mentioned me specifically I will reply and leave it at that.

I don't see the Daily Show the same way as you do; though, as I said I used to. Since the "bogeyman" of Bush has subsided, the show is a lot less predictable and bitter and now, in my opinion, takes on the whole beast that is the political-media complex. I think they do this in a pretty sharp way. Though the audience definitely leans left (which, again, I do not) I think that most of the humor is done pretty fairly and they are not afraid to go after their own side when their own side is shitty.

My response was based on the fact that I do not think you really know a lot about the Daily Show yet you. Consistently. Bring. It. Up. In. This. Context, as if it were a giant windmill for you and Sancho to take on.

The Daily Show is just the easiest, most recognizable target for this viewpoint and this poison, and it's probably not to the extreme it was during the Bush years (it would be pretty ridiculous if it was)

This poison being talked about is very easy to see in the the conservative talk shows, and on the liberal side, it exists more in popular culture, in the entertainment industry, and on college campuses. But its the same thing, IMO, but its not acknowledged on the liberal side as often (at least on liberal message boards)

I have brought up the daily show too much, but it (and its equivalents) aren't talked about as often as Limbaugh and FoxNews, which are CONSTANTLY referenced here it ways that make no sense and aren't relevant to anything (like to prove that racism exists, and that non-liberals are crazy or something). To me, that all goes back to the spirit of what I was talking about - invalidating dissenting opinions by positioning Limbaugh as the leader of all those that disagree. That creates an interesting backlash too - when liberals hold up Limbaugh and Sarah Palin to the extent they do, that actually makes them MORE important in the Republican party, because the partisian sheep on that side love to get behind someone that the Dems oppose so much. (which is of course great for the Democrats, though bad for America)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I agree!

The key problem here is that I don't know much about Olbermann and didn't realise he was on "the other side", so I missed that one. I've tuned most of these folks for the last several years, so my knowledge of the talking heads goes mostly to Limbaugh / O'Reilly / Franken from like 8 years ago.

yay!

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Geez! Go with what gstelmack said- check out Asimov's "I, Robot". That's much more what you're describing and came over 50 years ago

Handy: Even now, he sulks in his tree house like Achilles in his tent!
Everyone else: {blank stares}
Handy: ...Achilles?... The Iliad?... It's Homer?... READ A BOOK!

SI

hahaha - LOVE IT!!!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

That's true, and flere (I think) supported your opinion, and I agreed with his opinion, adding that IMO, the Daily Show was a major example of this, though the deception of entertainment/news is reversed from the more conservative examples.

Yet of the three opinions expressed - mine, I guess because it mentioned only a liberal show, was attacked as somehow not being as valid as the 1st two opinions. Rainmaker at least expresssed disagreement with the point, which I appreciated, but whereas you and ronnie just went after the underlying validity, even though in that post, I specifically agreed with what flere said about the conservative shows.

i just thought you weren't being fair+balanced in your response and i thought that might be for the purpose of trying to "cause trouble" for lack of a better term

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm not interested in having this discussion again - we covered this only a few months ago, and I regret hopping in again - but since you've mentioned me specifically I will reply and leave it at that.

I don't see the Daily Show the same way as you do; though, as I said I used to. Since the "bogeyman" of Bush has subsided, the show is a lot less predictable and bitter and now, in my opinion, takes on the whole beast that is the political-media complex. I think they do this in a pretty sharp way. Though the audience definitely leans left (which, again, I do not) I think that most of the humor is done pretty fairly and they are not afraid to go after their own side when their own side is shitty.

My response was based on the fact that I do not think you really know a lot about the Daily Show yet you. Consistently. Bring. It. Up. In. This. Context, as if it were a giant windmill for you and Sancho to take on.

yeah - ronnie certainly doesn't lean left, so if he doesn't see the daily show as left-leaning that's saying something!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

The Daily Show is just the easiest, most recognizable target for this viewpoint and this poison, and it's probably not to the extreme it was during the Bush years (it would be pretty ridiculous if it was)

This poison being talked about is very easy to see in the the conservative talk shows, and on the liberal side, it exists more in popular culture, in the entertainment industry, and on college campuses. But its the same thing, IMO, but its not acknowledged on the liberal side as often (at least on liberal message boards)

I have brought up the daily show too much, but it (and its equivalents) aren't talked about as often as Limbaugh and FoxNews, which are CONSTANTLY referenced here it ways that make no sense and aren't relevant to anything (like to prove that racism exists, and that non-liberals are crazy or something). To me, that all goes back to the spirit of what I was talking about - invalidating dissenting opinions by positioning Limbaugh as the leader of all those that disagree. That creates an interesting backlash to - when liberals hold up Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, that actually makes them MORE important in the Republican party, because the partisian sheep on that side love to get behind someone that the Dems oppose so much.

that's partly rush's own fault though, and beck's own fault. and they've made a ton of money by that being their fault.

the daily show isn't out there advocating things like:

a) "We should have segregated busing. Put all the white kids on their own bus with bars on the windows to protect them."

or

b) there's hidden communist propaganda + symbols in the artwork of rockefeller center

Jon Stewart is just out there cracking jokes and making fun of people and pointing out when people are hypocritical or flip-floppish.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

that's partly rush's own fault though, and beck's own fault. and they've made a ton of money by that being their fault.

the daily show isn't out there advocating things like:

a) "We should have segregated busing. Put all the white kids on their own bus with bars on the windows to protect them."

or

b) there's hidden communist propaganda + symbols in the artwork of rockefeller center

Jon Stewart is just out there cracking jokes and making fun of people and pointing out when people are hypocritical or flip-floppish.

OK, I'll try to approach this a different way. I don't think its at all relevant to anything I've said, but OK - Rush Limbaugh is far worse than Jon Stewart personally, as far as I know. I don't disagree.

I don't think anyone in this thread has supported or defended Limbaugh, as far as I remember. I see the obsession with him as an attempt to lump him with any opposition to Obama or the default liberals ideals (and the belief that Obama supporters care about people, and others don't, and that it's compassionate to want big government, but uncompassionate to have concerns about it).

Those last two ideas are usually expressed more subtly here - but occasionally its just totally overt - we had that exchange a few pages back about how Democrats make better Repubilcans than Republicans or whatever, since they're actually more Christian than Republicans because they actually care about people. That exchange perfectly summed up what I've been ranting about here (the "if you disagree with us, you're a bad person" kind of stuff).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I guess I should also say I tend to speak up more when I disagree than when I agree, and I agree with molson fully here. I do think that Limbaugh and Hannity get so much play because the left likes to point at them and say "Wow, I'm so much smarter than they are!" Which is ironic, because they're the ones making a fucking killing doing what they do.

Beck is just entertaining as all hell though. I truly (maybe I have to) believe that he doesn't really believe half the stuff that comes out of his mouth. He's like performance art.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Geez! Go with what gstelmack said- check out Asimov's "I, Robot". That's much more what you're describing and came over 50 years ago

I'm aware of it...but I like to envision a future with Arnold or Laurence Fishburne involved somehow.

[DaddyTorgo]

are there really people who think other people are "bad people" just because of what political party they belong to?

i mean i think racists are bad people, and child molestors are bad people, but i don't necessarily characterize people as "good" or "bad" based on their political ideologies, or even their views on social issues (gay marriage, abortion). Is my "tolerance" really that unusual?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I guess I should also say I tend to speak up more when I disagree than when I agree, and I agree with molson fully here. I do think that Limbaugh and Hannity get so much play because the left likes to point at them and say "Wow, I'm so much smarter than they are!" Which is ironic, because they're the ones making a fucking killing doing what they do.

Beck is just entertaining as all hell though. I truly (maybe I have to) believe that he doesn't really believe half the stuff that comes out of his mouth. He's like performance art.

that's part of the problem and what i was trying to get at with my initial more "populist" rant - we the people are enabling these divisive personalities to make a financial killing and continue to drive the wedges between us, particularly because it's so entertaining (either to us, making us feel like we belong to something, or to laugh at the other side). They're raking in the money hand-over-fist and just continuing to push us further and further apart and away from meaningful dialogue with each other where we might discover common ground. some would say they're doing it for their own profit, others would say that subtley it's being orchestrated by the special interests and powerful corporations in order to keep us divided so we don't spoil their party and interfere with their profit-taking.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

are there really people who think other people are "bad people" just because of what political party they belong to?

i mean i think racists are bad people, and child molestors are bad people, but i don't necessarily characterize people as "good" or "bad" based on their political ideologies, or even their views on social issues (gay marriage, abortion). Is my "tolerance" really that unusual?

The leap I think molson is getting at here is that the race card gets played regularly when conservatives argue issues. For example, locally the mayor of Garner got fed up with his schools being crowded with the F&R (free & reduced lunch) kids from southeast Raleigh in a county effort to balance schools socio-economically, so they withheld permitting approval on new schools in the town until the county agreed to abide by their own guidelines (no more than 40% F&R in a school, but they bussed in kids to kick Garner schools over that limit, in addition to overcrowding them). Of course most of the southeast Raleigh F&R kids are black, so the local black caucus immediately cried "racism!" and ignored all the facts that went into the decision.

So people on the conservative end are labelled racists, bigots, and elitists whenever they try to debate a policy that the liberal/progressive side of things wants to push. So if you like a conservative policy, you must be a racist/bigot/elitist as well, because you support a racist/bigoted/elitist position.

And yes I know this is flying the other way as well.

As a side note, I've been trying to find the name of the local black caucus for part of the ACORN discussion. They have an inordinate amount of clout in the school board policy that is causing so much headache for parents, helping to push monetary spending well beyond what you think they might otherwise be able to control. And their candidate on the BoE (Rosa Gil) is the one who got bumped up to state office when one of the reps got elected to national office.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I know that's the line, but I don't buy it, and yes I've seen the show.

It's a humorous news commentary show. They do what the do well, and they're successful. And no matter what you want to call them, it is a huge source of news for people in their 20s, and it indoctrinate them into a specific way of thinking, by selling the drug of moral superiority. And the show, individually, isn't as powerful as say, Rush Limbaugh, but its just reflective of that kind of young liberal youth culture in the U.S. right now. We're smart, you're a moron. We're wonderful and moral, you're evil. We want to help the world, you want to destroy it (and we need to save it from you). It's just an example of the mindset that just drives me crazy and that I really didn't see a lot of until I moved to a super-liberal city. That kind of poisoned me, and now I see that smugness everywhere, and I just hate how nobody respects anyone's opinion anymore - the goal, taught by these types of shows, isn't to disagree, it's to invalidate their opinion and the actual people on the other side as unworthy. That's the strategy - don't make it about the issue, make it about their underlying flaws as people that make their opinion not worthy. They're racists, they want to control your lives, they're backwards, they're uneducated, whatever. Obviously, those people are out there. And it's not enough to just say, "well, I'm not talking about everyone", because the entire spirt of those validity attacks are to invalidate the OPINION, whether or that a given person has reached that conclusion reasonably.

In shows itself in this message board all the time, that mindset.

People in their 20's get their news from the internet, not the Daily Show.

At some point it's tough to argue the issues. I mean are we really going to debate whether Obama is going to euthanize the elderly? Whether he's a Muslim manchurian candidate? I would love to argue the issues the tea partiers have but I don't really know what they are. I just see a lot of nasty signs about socialism, communism, fascism, etc that don't really discuss any issues in particular.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The Daily Show is just the easiest, most recognizable target for this viewpoint and this poison, and it's probably not to the extreme it was during the Bush years (it would be pretty ridiculous if it was)

This poison being talked about is very easy to see in the the conservative talk shows, and on the liberal side, it exists more in popular culture, in the entertainment industry, and on college campuses. But its the same thing, IMO, but its not acknowledged on the liberal side as often (at least on liberal message boards)

I have brought up the daily show too much, but it (and its equivalents) aren't talked about as often as Limbaugh and FoxNews, which are CONSTANTLY referenced here it ways that make no sense and aren't relevant to anything (like to prove that racism exists, and that non-liberals are crazy or something). To me, that all goes back to the spirit of what I was talking about - invalidating dissenting opinions by positioning Limbaugh as the leader of all those that disagree. That creates an interesting backlash too - when liberals hold up Limbaugh and Sarah Palin to the extent they do, that actually makes them MORE important in the Republican party, because the partisian sheep on that side love to get behind someone that the Dems oppose so much. (which is of course great for the Democrats, though bad for America)

It's not brought up because it's not true. You clearly don't watch the show and just cherry pick a video or two that gets viral every year. The show bashes those who make fools of themselves in politics. From 2000-2006 it was mostly Republicans as they had all the power. There were some major fuckups during that time that gave them a lot of fodder to work with.

Recently it's been Democrats getting the brunt of the exposure on the show. The media as a whole has always been a target and continues to get bombarded by him on a daily basis. The show has never been completely about politics.

I think his show takes a populist stance. It picks up on low hanging fruit and demolishes it. When a President had an approval rating in the 20's, it's tough not to go use him as your target a lot. As Obama's has fallen, he's picked on him much more. Congress and the media have been free game for him as they've always had low ratings. His audience is younger so he's of course not going to take the stance of your average senior citizen, but I don't consider what he's doing pushing an agenda or supporting a party.

Many people who discredit Stewart as some flaming liberal on the same level as Limbaugh don't watch his show. He simply takes public sentiment toward something and runs with it. He's rarely hateful or preaching. He points out hypocrisy or ludicrous things for a laugh.

P.S. You could make the case that Colbert is a left-leaning show. Although I'd argue that I think his show is more of a parody of the ridiculousness of these cable news pundits who have shows. He chose O'Reilly because he's the most popular and well known.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

At some point it's tough to argue the issues. I mean are we really going to debate whether Obama is going to euthanize the elderly? Whether he's a Muslim manchurian candidate? I would love to argue the issues the tea partiers have but I don't really know what they are. I just see a lot of nasty signs about socialism, communism, fascism, etc that don't really discuss any issues in particular.

I agree with this sentiment, RM...but I also don't see what's wrong with people protesting...even if it doesn't make sense or the fears are unfounded.

IMO, protest does not have to always mean disagreement...and in fact, I'd argue it is usually done out of confusion of intent/policy. And (reasonable) extrapolations of policy does not always have to mean it has to be the intent of the policy. Sure, reasonable must be defined...but we define and re-define it through debate and sometimes those lines have to be pushed in order to find itself again. Sometimes those debates become uncivil as passions flare up...all part of finding the best answer, IMO.

So, while I believe it ludicrous to believe Obama is a Muslim or has intention of moving the country towards communisim...it doesn't mean it is not worthwhile to protest the point/fear of that being a reality so that the potential for the slippery slope is at least, acknowledged. EDIT: the communism part acknowledged...not the Muslim part. Point being, one is debunked and the other acknowledged.

"No Blood for Oil" is a good recent example of this, IMO. It was used prior to both Iraq wars and at least put the concept out there that "this is unacceptable".

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Many people who discredit Stewart as some flaming liberal on the same level as Limbaugh don't watch his show. He simply takes public sentiment toward something and runs with it. He's rarely hateful or preaching. He points out hypocrisy or ludicrous things for a laugh.

Propaganda is mostly effective when people can't recognize it.

I would say that most right leaning people would agree that Rush is on their side. I can't say that most liberals would agree that Stewart is on their side. That's where he is so effective.

[JPhillips]

But as long as you can see the truth we're all covered.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Propaganda is mostly effective when people can't recognize it.

I would say that most right leaning people would agree that Rush is on their side. I can't say that most liberals would agree that Stewart is on their side. That's where he is so effective.

Or people who don't watch the show get butthurt when he makes fun of someone in their party and need to marginalize it by saying he's on the other team.

Isn't that the whole liberal media bias motif? You can do no wrong if everyone reporting on your wrong doing is on the other team.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Or people who don't watch the show get butthurt when he makes fun of someone in their party and need to marginalize it by saying he's on the other team.

Isn't that the whole liberal media bias motif? You can do no wrong if everyone reporting on your wrong doing is on the other team.

Liberals can't see a liberal bias, because liberal is just the "normal" way to them - just like conservatives can't see a conservative bias, because conservative is just the "normal" way to them.

I'm watching the Daily Show as I type this....I won't be able to stomach it for long, but I'm putting my time in.

Here's the kind of thing he makes fun of Democrats about (I think someone mentioned this sort of thing earlier) - not punishing Joe Wilson enough. Or not being strong enough on their health care plan. It goes back to the inherent correctness of liberal ideas, and the attacks only come in the context of when those ideas aren't pushed hard enough.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Liberals can't see a liberal bias, because liberal is just the "normal" way to them - just like conservatives can't see a conservative bias, because conservative is just the "normal" way to them.

I'm watching the Daily Show as I type this....I won't be able to stomach it for long, but I'm putting my time in.

Here's the kind of thing he makes fun of Democrats about (I think someone mentioned this sort of thing earlier) - not punishing Joe Wilson enough. Or not being strong enough on their health care plan. It goes back to the inherent correctness of liberal ideas, and the attacks only come in the context of when those ideas aren't pushed hard enough.

Republicans have built a platform on the idea of the liberal media bias. Anytime something negative happens it doesn't count because the media is bias. Extremely smart political strategy.

Like I said, you don't watch the show. He made fun of the media for missing the ACORN story. He made fun of Obama and Democrats for giving away all that money to the banks without any regulations. He's hammered Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, and many others. You are basing your jugements off the handful of viral videos that come out every year. Not on the show on a daily basis.

It's a populist show. He plays to the crowd. The country has shifted to the left on a lot of issues over the last 5 years and his show has as well.

I don't have a political affiliation and probably come down more on the right side of the aisle on most non-social issues. I don't see the bias you see and I don't see how anyone could put him in the same sentence as a Rush Limbaugh. One is a political pundit and the other is a comedy show. I guess I don't put The Onion in the same category as National Review.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Republicans have built a platform on the idea of the liberal media bias. Anytime something negative happens it doesn't count because the media is bias. Extremely smart political strategy.

I'm not a Republican, and I didn't say anything remotely suggesting that something doesn't "count". This is your shtick - exactly what I was talking about above. Someone disagrees with you, and you invalidate the opinion by grouping all people who disagree with you into these broad groups.

And the fact that you view the Daily Show like the Onion kind of proves my point about that show. That's just a joke of a comparison. Unless I missed something and the Onion now does serious interviews with presidential candidates, former presidents, world leaders, and military generals. Even to the extent that liberals are "attacked" (usually in the context of not going after republicans hard enough, or not being organized/strong enough to spread their correct liberal virtues), that doesn't change my point about the overall political relevance of the show, and the window into the way young people view politics today.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm actually not sure how someone can't see the liberal tilt of "The Daily Show". Jon Stewart is quite obviously more to the left of the spectrum than not.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not a Republican, and I didn't say anything remotely suggesting that something doesn't "count". This is your shtick - exactly what I was talking about above. Someone disagrees with you, and you invalidate the opinion by grouping all people who disagree with you into these broad groups.

And the fact that you view the Daily Show like the Onion kind of proves my point about that show. That's just a joke of a comparison. Unless I missed something and the Onion now does serious interviews with presidential candidates, former presidents, world leaders, and military generals. Even to the extent that liberals are "attacked" (usually in the context of not going after republicans hard enough, or not being organized/strong enough to spread their correct liberal virtues), that doesn't change my point about the overall political relevance of the show, and the window into the way young people view politics today.

The show was run by the people behind The Onion. The Executive Producer has come out and said that was his motive behind shaping the show and the reason he was hired. The purpose of the show was to bring a version of the print "fake news" to the television screen. Might be a joke to you, but apparently the network and people running it didn't think the comparision was that far off.

The majority of their segments are straight comedy have no basis on reality. The lone difference between the two are the interviews, which are probably due in part to the much larger audience of the Daily Show and the success it has had. Jay Leno has been able to bring on major guests such as Presidential candidates, former Presidents, and world leaders, yet I don't consider his show a political show like you must.

So does this make the cast journalists? Guys like Steve Carrell and Stephen Colbert? Are Lewis Black and Dave Attell now pundits? Did Ed Helms breakthrough the mold of embedded war reporter and parlay that into a career as a comedic actor? I mean this is a political show on par with Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, so surely you would have to classify those who report on stories as journalists and not comedic actors.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm actually not sure how someone can't see the liberal tilt of "The Daily Show". Jon Stewart is quite obviously more to the left of the spectrum than not.

I think it's tilted toward the views of the public. Bush had dismal ratings and made a lot of huge mistakes that made him an easy target. The show has primarily been in existence during Republican regimes. If Obama has a 30% approval rating next year with major fuckups like Bush, I guarantee they'll be lambasting him every night.

It's entertainment and it wants to attract as big an audience as it can. It's not going to give up ratings so that it can pass some guerilla political message that Molson has dreamed up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's entertainment and it wants to attract as big an audience as it can.

Which means catering to the liberal left, because the right has very little interest in a worthless piece of shit like Jon Stewart & would enjoy seeing him fall on his face (repeatedly actually, on a very hard surface preferrably).
He's about as likely to seriously screw with Obama beyond a tweak here & there as I am of voting for the fence turtle, and even less likely if he's in serious trouble.

[larrymcg421]

I'd never argue that the Daily Show doesn't have a strong liberal bent. But I bet if molson watched it more, he would be surprised how often it goes after liberals.

[Dutch]

O'Reilly has gone after Bush and conservatives, but we know how that plays out long-term...

I watched Jon Stewart compare the extreme protestors of the left and right.

On the right -- AR15 gunman.
On the left -- A guy with an anti-Bush t-shirt.

He could just of easily gone after moltov-cocktail throwing protestors but to be safe, he went with the TV-safe move of not being to rough to the left.

Lame.

[Greyroofoo]

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

[Greyroofoo]

I really think John Stewart is the MAC(ish)* college football of political discussion.

If you beat him in political debate people just say, "Oh you should have beat him because he is MAC level of football". Then again if you beat him then he is, "Well of course you should of beat him. he's a MAC level football opponent."

*By MAC I mean any mid-level when compared to the premier conferences.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

O'Reilly has gone after Bush and conservatives, but we know how that plays out long-term...

I watched Jon Stewart compare the extreme protestors of the left and right.

On the right -- AR15 gunman.
On the left -- A guy with an anti-Bush t-shirt.

He could just of easily gone after moltov-cocktail throwing protestors but to be safe, he went with the TV-safe move of not being to rough to the left.

Lame.

I must have missed the molotov cocktail throwers at Bush speeches.

[JPhillips]

Bias, at least how we traditionally define it as it relates to the media, only matters when there's some expectation of neutrality. IMO Stewart isn't biased in any meaningful way because he doesn't portray himself as being fair to both sides. The same goes for Limbaugh and Beck and the rest.

I don't think Stewart has ever tried to claim neutrality. I do think his major foil is the media as opposed to conservatives, but he's certainly sympathetic to liberal ideology.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think it's tilted toward the views of the public. Bush had dismal ratings and made a lot of huge mistakes that made him an easy target. The show has primarily been in existence during Republican regimes. If Obama has a 30% approval rating next year with major fuckups like Bush, I guarantee they'll be lambasting him every night.

It's entertainment and it wants to attract as big an audience as it can. It's not going to give up ratings so that it can pass some guerilla political message that Molson has dreamed up.

Go after Obama from the left, perhaps, as I've seen Stewart do on occasion (as in health care). Which, btw, isn't exactly 'tilted toward the views of the public'.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I'm aware of it...but I like to envision a future with Arnold or Laurence Fishburne involved somehow.

Red Heat (1988) ?

SI

[sterlingice]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Getting a Bigger House

Now this would be interesting to me. I still think the single biggest problem with the government is the money in it which makes the higher ups easily corruptible. If you have more representatives, the money gets more diluted and the members have to be more responsive to their constituency as they can't just wallpaper over their legal bribes with more money.

That said, it does open the field up more to the rich as outside money becomes more important. I've said all along I'd rather just have publicly funded elections or caps on spending but that will never happen, particularly not with this court going the other direction and a bipartisan support of always supporting removing barriers to re-election.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

As pointed out, this is an idea that has a very, very long beginning. And hence, will never, ever see the light of day.

[Grammaticus]

It would go a long way in dismantling the bribery of lobbying. If you have to bribe enough people in a pool of 435, it is obviously doable. But to bribe enough people in a pool of 10,000 or even 2,000 it becomes a lot more difficult.

[sterlingice]

I think it would open up for more specialized lobbying at least. Which I guess is an improvement.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Woohoo! Even you can be a lobbyist!

[Swaggs]

Pretty funny Joe Wilson sketch from SNL: Update Thursday:

[ISiddiqui]

LOL! I like how they all groaned when he said he was from South Carolina.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I must have missed the molotov cocktail throwers at Bush speeches.

Well, you have the eco-terrorists burning down mansions out west. Or the Greenpeace folks that go after whalers.

But we've got the folks shooting abortion doctors and planting bombs at the Olympics, so...

[JPhillips]

I'm not denying there's violence on both sides, but if the gag was to compare people at presidential speeches I'm not sure why there would be a reference to a molotov cocktail throwing leftist.

"Last week a protester brought an assault rifle to President Obama's townhall, but remember the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace."

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

"Last week a protester brought an assault rifle to President Obama's townhall, but remember the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace."

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

if the gag was to compare people at presidential speeches

Well, to be fair I think this is the first time we've had a president who seems to be doing nothing BUT give speeches. And the talkshow circuit. And wherever else he can get himself in front of a camera and in public.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, to be fair I think this is the first time we've had a president who seems to be doing nothing BUT give speeches. And the talkshow circuit. And wherever else he can get himself in front of a camera and in public.

Saw some interesting numbers on appearances. Note that the numbers below do not include the interview marathon from yesterday morning. Obama is really risking overexposure at this point.

Number of one-on-one interviews through September of first year of first term in office.

Clinton 41
Dubya 37
Obama 114

Yikes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

Obama open to newspaper bailout.......

Obama open to newspaper bailout bill - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Megan notes that Democrats probably will push through their form of health care. She also notes that there's a good chance they'll lose power in the House in 2010 should they choose to do so.........

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/...tarts_look.php

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

To be blunt, Megan McArdle is dumb is she really believes anybody who isn't a politics geek or in the Beltway cares if a bill passes 435-0 or 218-217. Or 99-1 or 51-49 for that matter.

I think you've crossed the line into insanity. If the Democrats push for "reconciliation" on something this big, and it goes party lines (which it would in that case), it's going to be somewhat of a PR disaster, even though they'll get it done. Plenty outside the beltway will care.

The ironic thing is, of course, most of the Democrats who will lose seats in 2010 will likely be ones who will end up voting against the heath care bill.

A false assumption is being made here. They won't lose BECAUSE they voted against the health care bill, but because they represent relatively conservative districts who may not like that the Democrats passed a health care bill.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

This is a totally different media than world than 2001 and especially, 1993. In 1993, there was basically the Big 3 and CNN as far as news coverage goes. Even in 2001, the media world hadn't advanced so far and also, it's not like Dubya was ever a great fan of one-on-one interviews.

Totally disagree. Bush and Clinton were both substance over style, for better or worse. Obama is just the opposite. We're 8 months into his presidency and he's still campaigning. His presidency is an interesting experiment for sure. He's trying to use massive amounts of PR to garner support for his policies.

At this point, I think the copious amounts of appearances are generally detrimental to what he's trying to do. Stop trying to convince people you should do something and just do it already. The large amount of campaign-like appearances demonstrate a real fear from the administration that people don't like his policy proposals. There has been some mention that he's doing it to educate people who don't understand his proposals, but I don't think that's the case. People understand exactly what he's doing on all sides of the policies. The real issue is whether people like it or not and the backlash that could be associated with it.

We're quickly reaching the quarter pole in his 4-year term and not much of note has been passed. Just DO SOMETHING already. You'll have plenty of time to campaign during the last year of your first term.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Generally I think MBBF overstates things, but a dyed-in-the-wool liberal friend of mine just said this weekend (after seeing that Obama will be doing Letterman this week) that he's sick of seeing his face everywhere.