Republicans & Conservatives Archives

Christine and John,

I would maintain that we need to separate the average liberal from the far left socialist/communist sect of the Democratic party.

(And before you far lefties pile on about the differences between socialism and communism I know the differences and the similarities and it’s those similarities that count in this post.)

While conservatives outnumber liberals two to one, the far left is outnumbered more than 10-1 by the entire American demographic according to the 2008 battleground poll:

The Battleground Poll, the most respected and thorough of all public opinion polls:

In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way:

(1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative;

(2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative;
(3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate;

(4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal;

(5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and

(6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.

The MSM is not just liberal, they are far left. But now that the far left wing of the democratic party has reared its ugly head the American people are catching on quick. We are warching the presidents approval rating slide like ski’s down a ski slope. He has lost 1/2 of the Independents who voted for him in most polls.

The far left mistakenly thought since the man they voted for won, that the majority agreed with them. (As can be seen on anyday in many blogs.) They felt the same way in 2006 until they realized that they took over congress with a bunch of conservative Dems. (That can also be seen in the blog postings at the time.)

ACORN, SEIU, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, have all shown the American people just what the far left is all about. I would like to thank them all for this. The tide is turning quickly back now. The reversal of numbers from 43/36 to 36/40 Dem/Rep in your gallup poll as stated above clearly shows this.

The MSM can continue to hide it but at there peril:

Fox News Near 2009 Primetime Ratings Peak, While MSNBC, CNN Are At/Near Lows

But the elections begin soon and as people begin to pay attention, more and more will hear what the MSM has tried to hide.

In this next election the far left has lost a couple of important tools: They don’t have GW Bush to energize their base. Barak Obama is not a new comodity to energize their base. This lack of enthusiasm on the left can be seen in any news blog on any day. The lack of libarl posters as used to be is deafening.

I look forward to this next year. Andrew Briebart has plenty of ammunition and the MSM is becoming very irrelevant. If Obama stays to the far left he is in trouble and if he comes to the center he is in trouble. Maybe the MSM will wake up and start reporting…maybe not…but I dont think we need them anymore!

C&J,
Ho Hum, Yellow journalism is not exactly new, or news for the pun.

I have no problem with Fox news (not commentary), per se, it’s their being a Republican Party wing at Fox News that bothers me.

I just believe in truth in advertising and honest labels.

gergle, then you would have to address the abc, cbs, nbc lack of being stooges for the dems using your line of “reasoning”. Your argument that fox is a part of the rep party doesn’t hold water. Now if you really believe that fox is a wing of the rep party then show the facts; rhetoric is easy facts come harder.

Sunday mornings

Our Sunday morning ritual is to read the Washington Post and watch Fox News Sunday, This Week on ABC, Chris Matthews & Meet the Press. Since they are on about the same time, we have to go sometimes go back and forth among them. Besides on the Chris Mathews show (who unabashedly defends the left) it would be very hard to identify ideological differences. They often have the same guests and the panel discussions include participants from all around the spectrum.

Fox today, for example, featured two NPR liberals on their five person panel. This is how Fox almost always does things.

When you watch CNN or MSNBC, you don’t always get that balance. I remember watching Keith Olbermann constantly calling people in the Bush administration terrible names. His “balance” was Rachel Maddow, whose political views would land her in the 5% most leftist group. The usual song and dance was that Olbermann would make an extreme comment and Maddow would tell him that he had not gone far enough left.

Scottie

We agree with you. Clearly most people who vote Democrat are not liberals. Unfortunately, liberal activists control the agenda of the party. To be fair, Republicans are also beholden to the activists on their side.

The thing that it increasingly clears is that liberals cannot see their own biases. Pew reports that Fox and CNN are about equal distant from the American middle. Yet liberals seem to believe that CNN is some “the news” while Fox is the “right wing”.

Gergle

From your point of view, Fox is a “Republican wing” and we understand why you might have a problem with that. Please understand that the evidence would just as strongly support the view that CNN and especially MSNC are wings of the Democratic party.

A reasonably unbiased person would see that all news outlets have their biases and that Fox is just like CNN or the networks in this respect.

What we see with liberals and Fox is the same syndrome we have long seen with conservatives and the “liberal” media.

C&J,

When the “News” outlets became ratings whores the news ceased to be News. Time was when opinion was labeled as opinion, but for the last couple of decades, that line has been blurred, and often crossed with impunity.
Also, when the politics of the journalist became more important than the actual journalism, the “News” has died a rather slow, ignominious death.

What was the News yesterday, isn’t the “News” today. With the advent of 24/7 “news” networks and the perceived need to fill that 24/7 space the commentators have become more important than the journalists.
The Commentators (Beck, Hannity, Olbermann, O’Reilly, etc.), live their lives safely ensconced in a studio, parsing the words of an actual journalist who may have risked his or her life to get the story.
IMHO the truth doesn’t need to be parsed. I don’t need to have the news explained to me by some opinionated suit with an agenda.

Rocky

Rocky

We agree that there has been a change in how news is made and distributed.

We would argue that actual news (in the sense of who did what to whom and where) has become almost free and easily available to everyone.

You used to have to wait for Walter Cronkite to tell you the way it was. Now you can get the information on demand. We no longer get the facts from the evening news.

This shift in news availability has shifted demand from unbiased news to commentary and interpretation.

I also believe that the “intrusion” of Fox has indeed upset a liberal space on the news. We recall in the 1980s how the MSM mistreated Ronald Reagan. It was a great amazement to them that he still managed to get to the people and remain so popular.

Today Fox provides a place for alternative opinions. If you want the liberal questions asked, go to CNN or MSNBC. If you want to hear conservative questions, you probably have to go to Fox.

Consider the Acorn scandal. It was ignored by non-Fox MSM. When it did break, CNN asked about the legality of the tape. W/o Fox, Acorn would still be going strong.

C&J,

“Today Fox provides a place for alternative opinions.”

Really?

Alternative opinions you claim provided by Fox are ubiquitous.
As a point of fact, the voices of the left are hard pressed to be heard over your “alternative”.

Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly, all have radio shows that are broadcast in virtually every city across this country. I would submit that, like on these guy’s shows on Fox, the left would find it difficult to get a word in edgewise.

On 24/7 “News”;
I would bet that I could tell you what the “News” was on Monday was by listening in only on Fridays.

In other words, as Chevy Chase put it so succinctly, “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead”.

Rocky

I have to laugh that a “conservative” is using a South Park episode entitled “Butter’s Bottom Bitch” to make their point. How does that sit with the poster from Bob Jones U?

You’re a little behind the curve on Fux. O’Reilly is considered to be a liberal who says something conservative once a day, Hannity almost the same. As for Beck, many consider his show to be a cynical attempt to marginalize the right wing by pushing it farther and farther away from the mainstream. The owner has his own goals, unknown to his servants.

You claim a greater self-identification for the word “conservative” than for “liberal”, but how many of those “conservatives” consider what they are viewing on Fux as entertainment, rather than news? This is where your theories fall apart.

People love conspiracies, like the vast ACORN attempt to turn the country over to a Kenyonian-Indonesian, shove commie socialism down our throats, and get federal assistance for sex workers. These conspiracies often start with something real that happened, and then weave a fictional story around it to create interest the way Charles Dickens would, a fiction writer.

Fiction is a business. News is entertainment.

Rocky

It has always been that you can just read a good magazine at the end of the week and know more than if you kept up with the cable news.

Re Alternative - Fox always features liberal voices. CNN and MSNBC are rarely so fair and balanced.

But there is really no need to have balance on each program. There are certainly plenty of liberal leaning news sources. The problem for liberals is that they are less and less popular.

The liberals are selling a bill of goods that most Americans don’t want to buy. Until talk radio and Fox, there was no where else for them to go. Now they don’t have to take it anymore.

Liberals made a big mistake in interpreting the last election. They thought that rejection of Bush was a endorsement of their own policies. Democrats were successful with an anti-Bush campaign, promising nothing but a vaguely defined change.

Now that Americans are learning the meaning of the liberals’ change, it is not the change we can believe in.

ohrealy

If you really believe that O’Reilly & Hannity are liberals, what do you care?

Speaking as conservatives, they don’t seem very liberal to us, but maybe you know better. Frankly, we are more concerned with the policies than the labels, so call them what makes you happiest.

The identification of conservatives v liberals is from a long-running Gallop poll. I don’t know whether conservatives watch Fox News for entertainment or news. I do know that about 33% of Fox’s audience are Democrats and another 28% are liberal or other, according to Pew, so whatever attracts Republicans is also attracting others.

re South Park - not all conservatives are the same. As you see from the graph, conservatives make up the largest group in America, so unlike liberals we have a little more variety.

Re Acorn - it is not a vast conspiracy. They just caught a some of crooks feeding at the government expense while subverting our democratic process. It was good to catch them.

“re South Park - not all conservatives are the same.”

Two different posters in this thread referenced this sometimes pornographic cartoon show. The other guy is from Boulder, so I understand his interest more than yours. Are Parker and Stone “conservative” news sources? Global climatologists? I thought they were comedians, producing entertainment. Do You Know What I Am Saying ?

“If you really believe that O’Reilly & Hannity are liberals, what do you care?” I don’t, true conservatives do, a closet liberal RINO might not. They are liberal, compared to Beck and Limbaugh. Are you “independent” now because you have left the Rpblcn party, or because the Rpblcn party has left you in the dust in the continual movement further to the right.

Do you know how you get more people to identify as conservative rather liberal? By defining the terms in such a way that “liberal” is bad, and “conservative” is good. That’s been happening for longer than the lifespan of the majority of those who were polled.

C&J,

You missed my entire point.

The “News” on Friday isn’t a summation of the week as it would be in a weekly magazine. It’s merely a repeat of what happened on Monday, Tuesday, etc.

Important “News”, “News” that matters, doesn’t happen every day, and therefore the networks find it necessary to stretch Monday’s “News” (dog bites man) to Tuesday (man bites dog), and so on (rinse, repeat), ad nauseum.
There comes a point when the “News” is nothing but static, white noise to be shuffled to the background because it is not truly “News” anymore.

In this sense Fox is just as guilty as any other network, with one exception. Fox has commentary that most networks don’t have. This commentary is merely a continuation of the commentary featured on literally thousands of “talk radio” station across this country.
On a daily basis, and with very little variation Beck, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Gallagher, Prager, Medved, Levin, Hewitt, Boortz, Ingraham, and more explain to their listeners what the “News” means as if there isn’t one intelligent listener left anywhere in this country.
In other words, “Fox reports, these guys will explain it to you”, again…, and again…, and again, and if you don’t get it today we will repeat it again tomorrow, and the day after that, and… wash, rinse, repeat.

Like I said before, Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is still dead.

Rocky

Ohrealy

We never said South Park was anything but entertainment. Making fun of ACORN was funny. W/o Fox we doubt that the South Park guys would have heard about the real ACORN joke.

Re conservatives - there are more conservatives than there are Republicans. If you talk party identification you are in a different sphere. Most Democratic voters are not liberals and many of the far left liberals do not identify themselves with mainstream Democrats.

We don’t care what you want to call people. I don’t think Bill O’Reilly calls himself a conservative. Most of his detractors put him in that camp.

You have been reading what we write. You can call us what you want too. We write for the conservative column, which overlaps Republicans, but we are not registered with that party. We run with the conservatives because we believe in smaller government, moderate regulation & narrow interpretations of the Constitution. We like free enterprise, are generally supportive of the American military and as annoyed by politically correct things like speech codes on campus. If that makes us conservatives, that is what we are. If that makes us something else, that still is what we are. Name it what you want.

Words only mean what people think they do. If you want to go with original meanings, we (C&J) are closer to liberals in the original sense. Today’s “liberals” are more like the state control folks classical liberals opposed. Word meanings change, sometimes more than behaviors.

Rocky

We are trying to agree with you and we do.

We used to leave CNN on all day. We realized that it was not 24 hours of news; it was a 1/2 hour of news repeated 48 times.

It is also true, however, that events tend to repeat. If you read a thirty year old magazine, you find a lot of the same themes. Just change the names and update a few things.

Generally -
- The poor are still with us
- The environment will collapse in a short time
- There is conflict and terror in the Middle East
- We are running out of energy
- The American economy is going through the worst period since…
- The president is lying
- Some politicians and celebrities are involved in sex scandals.
- We want change we can believe in.
- The change we got last time wasn’t good

There is nothing really new in the news.

“We run with the conservatives because we believe in smaller government,”

Well, I believe in MUCH smaller government, on all levels, and am on the left. People who have vastly increased the size of the government, and mortgaged the whole country, also claim to believe in smaller government. It’s a slogan, like those who tried to persuade everyone that “conservative” was good for forty years. It seems to me that military adventurism is not a “conservative” value by any stretch of the imagination.

sometimes pornographic cartoon show.

Pornographic? No. Adult? Yes. Problem?

Beyond that, it is one of the best commentaries on our society that exists today.

Further beyond that, Parker and Stone are libertarians…

So, I can see why some people don’t like as they lambast both liberals and conservatives on the show.

C&J

A reasonably unbiased person would see that all news outlets have their biases and that Fox is just like CNN or the networks in this respect.

Based on what reasonable assumption?

Rhinehold,

Best commentaries? I doubt it.

Funny as hell? You betcha. (wink)

“There is nothing really new in the news.” Like people claiming to be against big government when they expand it, because the issue sounds good to people for whom big government means more people unlike them will be employed by the government.

“wash, rinse, repeat.” should be lather, rinse, repeat, IIRC.

Quoting from my more usual forum; “The cop creampieing out an entire bag’s worth of semen after the frat bust wasn’t graphic enough?”. You say adult, I say sometimes pornographic, from the BBB ep of SP. {porno (prostitute), graphic (writing)}

Even more O/T: Alan Ball did two “panel discussions” for the DVD issue of Towelhead, because several groups were complaining about the title. One of his comments was that, on a popular cartoon show, the word “gay” is often used as the worst insult that one kid could hurl at another.

Best commentaries? I doubt it.

Who would you say is better? Stewart and Colbert are the only ones close. SNL is at best occasionally funny but rarely makes any kind of real social commentary more meaningful than ‘that person was stupid’.

Two good examples are ‘Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow’ and the episode just after the election where those who voted for Obama were shown that life the day after the election was not much different than the day before the election and the people who were hiding in their garage because of the doom that Obama would bring were equally as wrong…

Oh, and I can’t forget ‘Vote or Die, Bitch’ where the kids were left to vote for a “Giant Douche” or a “Turd Sandwich” where we learn that to get to be nominated as a presidential a person has to compromise so much that we ALWAYS have to vote for either a giant douche or a turd sandwich…

Gergle

Pew research (not a liberal group) finds that Fox is about as far right as CNN is left. Audiences are deciding which they trust more.

We watch a variety of stations and read lots of things and we find it useful to watch Fox.

You don’t have to watch Fox if you don’t want. Not all the shows are equally good, but if you avoid Special Report and Fox News Sunday for ideological reasons, you are the one missing out.

Gergle & Rhinhold

Re South Park

It is funny. At first we didn’t like the boys watching. It can be gross. But overall we agree with Rhinehold.

Generally if idea cannot stand up to some ridicule they don’t deserve to stand up at all.

I dunno thoughtful commentary seems better to me, but if funniest qualifies as best, I’ll defer since I have no idea how to determine funniest.

Christine,

Public perception is not an unbiased view of news coverage. This simply becomes a game of semantics and is mostly pejorative, much as the words conservative and liberal are. Popular opinion is a product, often, of media campaigns. That’s why there are political consultants and Madison avenue.

Without getting into the question techniques and sampling data, these polls are virtually meaningless.

That said, I give you this link about the Pew study:

http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/10/30/who-says-tv-news-is-biased-tv-news-viewers-do/

I’m not sure this author exactly echoes your sentiments.

For me, as I stated, differentiating news from opinion is important, and isn’t a part of this studies.

“What news consumers are looking for now is interpretation and context. They want help to make sense of this flood of information. They need someone to turn unorganized information into useful or at least understandable knowledge.”

Speaking for myself I would prefer to have the facts presented in context. What we get from Faux is false advertising. They more than any other network force their interpretation upon us IMHO, much more so than any other network. The one that claims to be “fair and balanced” and the “we report you decide” network is neither guys. FAUX force their interpretation of “news” and facts on their audience which is why I seldom watch it anymore.

Your example of ACORN is misleading because Faux made this a bigger story than was warranted IMHO. Faux attacked ACORN because ACORN is considered a liberal group. Look at the example in this link
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/04/criminal-charges-filed-against-acorn-two-employees/

and we find that the fraud was voter registration fraud not voter fraud as you state. We find that the probable reason for the registration fraud was for financial gain by a few employees, not a concerted effort by the group itself, in fact we find the local ACORN group turned in suspected registration fraud.
In your link above regarding ACORN we find that some conservative group performed a sting operation on a few selected ACORN office an made them look bad. Why is that such an important story? Faux made it an important story by whining along with other extremist that other news outlets did not make such a big scandal out of a rather localized event. The claims in your link that it was a “major national scandal” being ignored by other media outlets. Yet at the same time it looks to me like it is an attempt by Faux and other far right news outlets to manufacture a “major national scandal” out of a small scandal in an attempt to harm political opponents.

Yet where was Faux when the repubs/conservatives were embroiled in scandals? Seems they may not have been so quick to bring out these facts to the primarily repub/conservative they cater to.

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/05/wheres_the_fox_news_coverage_of_republican_scandals.php

Generally if idea cannot stand up to some ridicule they don’t deserve to stand up at all.

umm, how do ideas stand up? I think you meant people.

My sister once argued that drugs were bad because comedians make fun of people stoned.

Does that mean anything you can make fun of is invalid?

In honor of Rhinehold’s infamous flowchart:

http://wagthedog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/palin-debate-flow-chart.gif

“news outlets to manufacture a “major national scandal” “

Exactly, the news is a manufactured entertainment product, on Fux, frequently resembling a soap opera, but without good looking actors. They should hire Dana Perino.

J2t2

If you want raw news I suppose there are places you can find it. The information environment is very rich. But you won’t find it on CNN, Fox or MSNBC.

Re ACORN – it is good they caught the crooks. There is no shortage of news operations investigating Republicans.

Gergle
We are not sure what you mean by the drugs joke. If indeed making fun of druggies helps people understand that drug abuse is bad it is a useful ridicule.

Ridicule is a strong weapon, often used to prick the powerful. In a more modern form, it is used to tell the truth about politically correct subjects.

Of course you can ridicule things and people who don’t deserve it. That is bad manners. Often a joke is in really bad taste the public or those hearing it will turn on the joker, as happened to Letterman. So it is self-correcting in some cases.

I hate Fox News because I know I can’t get straight facts out of them when a Republican’s agenda is concerned. I quit trusting them as a news source after the fourth or fifth time I picked up on a claim that they found WMDs, only to find everything retracted.

The media bias theory has become a trap of self-denial for Republicans. You cannot hold accountable a party whose bad press you continually excuse as the result of a conspiratorial bias by reporters.

The Republicans are constantly rationalizing, constantly flattering themselves as to how much they represent the core of America, it’s best values. I don’t think, though, that a careful survey of opinion reflects that.

If the Republicans could content themselves to be mere mortals, who lost some political battles, who had to pay attention to social standards of behavior, who could not simply say anything and do anything to keep Republicans elected, no matter what, the party could heal.

But The Republicans have put themselves in a position now where they have no way of ratcheting down their political fight with Democrats and liberals. Nobody wants to appear soft, or conciliatory.

The Republicans don’t have to give up, but they ought to acknowledge that they’ve not done much good for their country or themselves by doing things the way they’ve been doing.

Look at that Letterman thing. I’ve heard ten times worse jokes coming from that guy. Most people would leave it alone, not dignify that question, and just let it be forgotten, with all the other wisecracks of the monologue.

Palin struck back, making absolutely nonsensical charges against Letterman, more or less calling him a child molester for a joke that any person up on current events would know right off the bat was not aimed at the younger daughter.

While we’re still on Palin, why the hell is this woman, who can’t even make it all the way through a term as governor, considered the future of the party? Why is this woman, who indulged in earmarks like it was going out of style, considered a Reformer?

If the Republicans were less interested in continuing to reinforce the Gingrich/Rove brand of politics, with it’s internalized hypocrisy, it’s perpetual “reinventions” and self-described road to Damascus moments, they might shed this mediocre to terrible candidate, and get somebody out there that people regardless of their ideology would actually feel comfortable leading them.

But instead, the Right has to insist that EVERYBODY has to vote for somebody who represents the far right of the country’s politics.

You may succeed in blocking Obama, but you blunt his momentum only to create greater force for the next guy that comes along. People will still want what they want out of their government. They just won’t ask so nicely, compromise so easily, the next time.

That’s the trouble with the Republicans: they’ve failed to resolve the issues that got Liberals elected. They may succeed in temporariliy scaring off certain people from the base, they may succeed in limiting bipartisanship for the time being, they may succeed in making him a one-term president.

But if they don’t deal with the issues that got Obama elected, if they don’t do better than the Democrats at fixing people’s problems, they’re just marching themselve right back into the quicksand.

Republicans must realize that small-government policies that don’t work are advertisements for big government policies. It doesn’t matter how many of these policies you can shove down people’s throats, if your neglect damages the economy, or threaten’s people’s way of life, you will pay the price in terms of what people support.

Stephen

Have you noticed your theme. Let me sum it up:

YOU folks need to be less partisan. REPUBLICANS are dumb.

Ever entertain even the possibility that there might be another point of view?

President Obama’s approval ratings are below 50%. He got there faster than Bush. Republican win on a generic ballot according to Gallop. Maybe not everyone agrees with you.

Christine,

Sara Palin is an idiot.

She is made fun of a great deal.

Obama is not an idiot.

He is made fun of a great deal.

Heard the latest Mother Theresa joke?

Making fun of something has no correlation with the actual value of an object of ridicule.

Black Jokes are often funny.

So are Misogynist jokes.

Yes, it is bad manners, but it also is no proof of idea. It’s a friggin’ joke.

Christine-
No, Republicans aren’t dumb. I might put it this way: you don’t have to be stupid to be foolish. And I think much of what the Republicans are doing is foolish.

And I have two elections lost, and your party’s indentification numbers in the twenties, despite your ideological ID numbers being in the forties to back me up on my assertion.

The Republicans have taken positions that are about as partisan as you can get. They all voting together to prevent even a vote on many Democratic legislative items. They are doing so at a rate literally unheard of before this point.

Again, I have numbers that back me up on this assertion.

I’m not merely trying to psych you out here.

As for Obama getting somewhere faster than Bush? You guys obsess about that. Your party, though, is like a person who criticizes somebody’s driving while they’re fighting for the wheel from the backseat. You were removed from the majority by a pair of fair elections. Yet you continue to insist that the American people still favor your politics.

What’s going on here? How does a party that lost the last two elections, and saw its minorities amplified to even greater levels turn around and tell us that they have the mandate from the people? From the polls that could be just as much about stalled legislation as it is about disliked legislation? The Republicans are essentially making a circular argument, by doing their absolute best to make sure that Democrats can’t do their job, and then saying that people are approving so little of them because they don’t want Democrats to do their jobs.

But when push came to shove last time, and Democrats had little to show for their two years in the majority, Americans STILL voted for Democrats. At best, you will win only if you can convince Americans that Democrats cannot do what they want them to do.

But then, there is considerable difference between disapproval that stems from a sense of a party’s inability to do something, and disregard for its actual actions. Republicans still struggle under the legacy of the Bush Administration, a legacy they could have set aside if it weren’t for this driving thirst to justify and rationalize away its problems.

I think you guys broke something in the political consensus, and I’d hope you realize that even if you don’t all turn into Liberal Democrats, your party cannot stay the way it was before Bush got into office. Your party changed things by pushing too hard, and too rigidly on certain policies, and its doing itself few favors by continuing to be so unyielding, so focused solely on the opposition of Liberals and Democrats. Are Republicans simply the folks who run around contradicting Democrats and their policies? Are they simply the folks who beat on Democrats for their party’s benefit?

I think the Party of Lincoln has some good principles left, but it’s sacrificing those principles, sacrificing their usefulness to the American people, to gain election wins that they have not won back by good policy or wise counsel.

BTW, One of the dumbest ad campaigns…ever. Kinda funny when you realize the stupidity of the people composing it.

http://gawker.com/5420175/presenting-the-worst-health-care-issue-spot-ever-i-guess-im-a-racist

Fox News is not a wing of the Republican Party.
They are fair and balanced.

Exhibit A: “Who would be the most likely to cheat at cards— Bill Clinton or Al Gore?”—Fox News Channel/Opinion Dynamics poll (5/00)

“There’s a certain sameness to the news on the Big Three [networks] and CNN… . America is bad, corporations are bad, animal species should be protected, and every cop is a racist killer. That’s where ‘fair and balanced’ [Fox’s slogan] comes in. We don’t think all corporations are bad, every forest should be saved, every government spending program is good. We’re going to be more inquisitive.”—John Moody, Fox News Channel’s senior vice-president for news and editorial (Brill’s Content, 10/99)

I don’t mind that Fox news has an agenda. However, I dislike it promoting itself as “fair and balanced.” It consistently does things like mislableing Republican politicians caught in scandals as Democrats; playing footage of past rallies to imply a large turnout at a recent Tea Party, etc. Shepard Smith is the exception at Fox. He calls it with some objectivity and fairness.

Rich

I watch Fox and I have never once seen them mislabel a Republican or Democrat involved in a scandal.

I have noticed on some others, however, that Democratic crooks aren’t labeled by party at all.

A consistent labeling is to label a conservative expert or scientist as conservative and just call the liberal an expert

Christine,

Fox indeed mislabels Republicans as Democrats in instances of scandals or for other political purposes. There is no mistake of their intent. Mark Sanford, Mark Foley, Ted Stephens, Larry Craig, Lincoln Chafee, have all been mislabeled by Fox for obvious political purposes. A mistake of an obscure politician could be excused. But, really, is there any excuse for the above list?

Gergle

What is your point? Lighten up while you still can. I try to make a joke of most things because the world is indeed endlessly amusing.

BTW – I have heard some Mother Theresa jokes.

When you make fun of someone or something it doesn’t always mean you think it is bad or you dislike it, BTW.

Take our president. He is certainly intelligent, but he is also a little self-important and more interested in talking than doing. This provided ample opportunity for humor.

Stephen

I would think you would be happy if Republicans mess up, since you believe they do no good anyway. What do you care?

The numbers that back you up also apply to president Obama’s quick fall from favor. You like to look at how fast Republican numbers have fallen. It is the same thing.

I suppose Republicans will regroup and try something else. If not, they will not win elections. As I see it, the system is self-correcting in that way.

You might check out the numbers over time. The only party that is growing is the “other” party. There are more Democrats than Republicans and this has long been the case. The reason Republicans often still win elections is that many independents go for them. Meanwhile, the number of Democrats has hit a four year low. Nothing in politics stays the same for long.

BTW – even C&J are not registered Republicans, but we tend to vote that way.

Andre

I think Gore is more likely to cheat at cards. Maybe Clinton is more likely to cheat at other things. Is that the right answer?

Rich

Did you see this or have you a link (that isn’t from moveon.org or Daily Kos?)

I have never seen that happen. I am not saying that mistakes never occur, but it is not common.

Maybe you were tuned into MSNBC

gergle
what is your definition of an idiot? I need this from you to understand where you are coming from in your name calling exercise.

“I watch Fox and I have never once seen them mislabel a Republican or Democrat involved in a scandal.”

Jeez Christine are you sure you really watch Faux? To not have seen a mislabeled Repub involved in a scandal on Faux is akin to a miracle. Perhaps this link will clear up the mystery for you.

http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/

j2t2

They are sloppy mistakes, but not all involved in scandal. If you monitor enough of any TV you will find such things.

Well then Christine why don’t you prove that statement with similar mistakes that other cable stations have made on such a consistently reoccurring basis? Show me that MSNBC has consistently mislabeled prominent government officials with the wrong party on each scandal they have reported on over the past several years.

What exactly does it take for you to accept the obvious when it comes to FAux? I kinda doubt that Ailes will come right out and admit it was intentional but would you cut MSNBC the same slack? Perhaps instead you could prove this earlier statement of yours-
“A consistent labeling is to label a conservative expert or scientist as conservative and just call the liberal an expert” or perhaps you could eat these words-
“I have never seen that happen. I am not saying that mistakes never occur, but it is not common.
Maybe you were tuned into MSNBC” or prove to us that MSNBC deserves such derogatory remarks when it is obvious your network of preference has proven that they are the leaders in misinformation, half truths and outright lies.

Christine-
Did Obama fall from favor, or was he pushed by a GOP that has this set as its main goal?

The GOP could represent its constituents with No votes and negotiations, before they picked the option of joining together for a filibuster.

Instead, they started breaking records on obstruction in January 2007, and haven’t looked back since. They’re not talking with us, they’re not negotiating in good faith. They’re not raising reasonable objections to the systems, they’re making **** up. Scary **** that unless you weren’t already wrapped up in the emotional maelstrom that is currently the Republican party that sounds like the most bizarre paranoid fantasies this side of the X-Files.

I mean, ACORN, for crying out loud. One of the strongest majorities in recent American political history, and they’re trying to claim Obama stole the election.

Death Panels. Like the President and the Democrats would actually put their names to a BS bill that would actually seek out people and kill them.

This is what passes for “facts” among Republicans these days. This kind of horse-**** and worse.

Am I supposed to be understanding? Tolerant? There seems to be this vile undercurrent of partisan hatred that I can’t for the life of me understand why Democrats deserve. We are nothing like the monsters you guys constantly portray us as.

And, God, there’s nothing but this BS for the past year.

And there’s been little legislation, little compromise, little else than just this toxic pollution of the discourse with this kind of blood libel, not far from claims that Gypsies or jews sought to kidnap children for hideous purposes.

If you doubt me, what does Sarah “future of the party” Palin say about what Obama wants to do to her Down Syndrome-afflicted son?

This is what people like me have to absorb on a daily basis. These kinds of malicious lies. It wears you down.

Rather than pull people up, I think the Republican’s tactics have drug the process down. Winning is more important than winning the voter’s trust in good faith again.

j2t2

If you look at the few examples given, most are just silly mistakes, clerical errors. Why would fox plan to mislabel John McCain, Arlen Spector or Alen Spector’s opponent?

Why don’t I do it for MSNBC etc - because I have more important things to do than monitor TV shows for clerical errors.

I didn’t notice them on Fox (since your source had to include such stretches like McCain I don’t suppose they are that common); I have also not noticed them on MSNBC.

BTW - you notice that I never stoop to the low-brow humor/derision of misspelling a proper name. It does show a certain bias when someone does that, don’t you think?

“If you look at the few examples given, most are just silly mistakes, clerical errors. Why would fox plan to mislabel John McCain, Arlen Spector or Alen Spector’s opponent?”

Oh puleeze Christine silly mistakes, clerical errors on each and every repub scandal how foolish do we have to be to fall for such nonsense? Defend them to the end if you will but please don’t try to convince any thinking person that it is just an ongoing string of clerical errors, so many times on the same issue. Why do you suppose it is that they never seem to get the wrong label when it is to the benefit of the Faux ideology? How easily mislead you conservatives seem to be.
They do it because it works with the conservatives that use Faux as their main source of news and information, such low standards you conservatives have set. When it is CBS it is deception, when it is Faux it is a clerical error, I guess it fits with the whole “fair and balanced” shtick that many on the right accept as journalism. IMHO it is just more misinformation, half truths and lies.

“Why don’t I do it for MSNBC etc - because I have more important things to do than monitor TV shows for clerical errors.”

Whatever. As it seems to be a time issue for you why not try to google “MSNBC mislabels republicans”? when I google “Fox mislabels republicans” ….

“I didn’t notice them on Fox (since your source had to include such stretches like McCain I don’t suppose they are that common); I have also not noticed them on MSNBC.”

Really, as often as they occur wouldn’t it be hard to miss them especially if you were a regular Faux watcher? Why is it that McCain doesn’t count? When the mislabeling is as common as the repub scandals and the mislabeling also occurs with other repubs that are not in favor with the far right and Faux why would you try to convince us that it is just a clerical error? If these “clerical errors” as you call them were as common on MSNBC or any other network would you be running this same line?

“BTW - you notice that I never stoop to the low-brow humor/derision of misspelling a proper name. It does show a certain bias when someone does that, don’t you think?”

Christine it is because I do have a bias against Faux. They have lowered the bar for the rest of the media IMHO. Have you noticed how conservatives constantly complain about the MSM, yet the big dog on the MSM block gets a pass when it comes to many low brow things such as the extremely short skirts worn by many Faux female anchors. You can continue to prop they up as worthy of respect if you will but lower your standard for the rest of the media to the same level or risk being considered just another far right biased quack by the rest of us.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/fox-news-anchor-babes-short-skirts-video-photo

Thomas Hume:

Definition of an idiot:
Sarah Palin and her followers, with the bigger idiots following her. :)

Christine:

Lighten Up? Are you saying I’m too dark? What kind of racist slur is that? :)

My point exactly is that your statement that things people make fun of are bad is an example of poor critical thinking skills.

I’m getting up in years, I’m 52. I know that intellectual abilities dwindle, on average, as people age. Thinking tends to become more rigid. I’m hoping, like anything, that somehow I can avoid that. I’ve watched people I once knew as fairly intelligent descend into the mistake of assuming something they intuit as truth over the years. I’ve particularly seen this as the angry old man shouting “Get off my lawn” in some, as rage seems to overtake their reason. All or nothing thinking, fatalism, and magical thinking seem to creep in with age. I just hope someone shoots me before I get there. BTW, that is not a request.

gergle
that is not a definition. that is rhetorical insolence. She would probably run circles around those who continually attack her in the areas of sportsmanship, leadership, knowledge and charisma. The lefties are affraid of her because they cannot measure up to her standards. but that is the lefties problem and they cannot deal with it. Now give me your definition of an idiot. I don’t need your imagination of an example.

Tom,

“She would probably run circles around those who continually attack her in the areas of sportsmanship, leadership, knowledge and charisma.”

Sportsmanship? The cute running suit aside, does that include being a sore loser?

Leadership? Including quiting on the State of Alaska.

Knowledge? Oh you mean like she showed during interviews on the campaign trail.

Charisma? Like Dan Quayle? I wouldn’t follow her anywhere, but I guess in certain circles one out of four might be acceptable.

Rocky

Tom Humes-
Don’t be concerned about what scares us liberals. Be concerned for what doesn’t scare you.

It doesn’t scare you that you’re pushing a candidate who couldn’t even complete her first term’s worth of executive experience, who bailed without having been elected or appointed to another job first?

It doesn’t scare you that your candidate can’t even handle simple interviews without amazing people with her stupidity?

It doesn’t scare you that your candidate’s past includes connections to a party whose founding leader was murdered in a explosives deal gone wrong, who refused to be buried on America’s soil for his hatred of his country?

Or that the leader of that same party pushes a secessionist agenda, this from a candidate for high office who belongs to the party of Lincoln?

The truth is, her folksy appeal to low-information voters is about all that’s going for her. Unfortunately, your folks seem ready to try and stretch that figleaf into a bodysuit for your candidate.

What scares me is the remote possibility that she ever gets elected to an office where she has people’s lives in her hands. A person like her will get Americans killed in another war or dead in some other disaster, because people like her are so narrowly focused and specialized in their politics, that they don’t even bother to figure out how to govern properly.

Stephen
You should be runnin’ in fear concerning BHO. With his trusted advisers and covorting with the Ayers, Wrights etc. and getting trusted advice that has directed his path from admitted reds. Others that can cause one to run like the dickens are Hairy Reed and Nuancy Paloosey. Or Dicky “Turbin” Derbin. Or Stoney Hoeyer. And a raft of the other side of aise also.

Gergle

I know you are joking, but the example you chose is not humor; it is the kind of thing often used in deadly earnest by the PC crowd. A good use of humor, if you could get away with it, would be to ridicule such hypersensitivity on race and gender issues.

I don’t think the things people make fun of are always bad and I am sorry if I gave that impression. IMO, humor is a very powerful way to take some of the pomposity out of people and it is a valuable way to speak truth to power. It is sometimes the only viable way to attack politically correct orthodoxies.

I think that people like Letterman go overboard with meanness toward Palin and joking about child-rape is truly in bad taste. I would not stop him from doing it, but I would castigate him if possible.

Thomas Hume:

Rhetorical drivel doesn’t deserve more than rhetorical insolence in response. You may not like my response, but it is my response. There are those that just hate me because I could run circles around them in sportsmanship, leadership, knowledge and charisma. You, betcha! (wink)

Tom Hume,

Rhetorical drivel deserves rhetorical insolence.
You just hate me because I run circles around those who continually attack me in the areas of sportsmanship, leadership, knowledge and charisma.

Christine:

To quote/paraphrase Rhinehold’s deleted comment:

I think that people like Letterman go overboard with meanness toward Palin and joking about child-rape is truly in bad taste.

True, except that wasn’t what he did at all.

to quote and paraphrase my comment that was also lost, I believe Letterman when he says he didn’t mean that. But Letterman was clearly walking the fine line and he fell over it. It is like a kid playing with matches who doesn’t mean to start the house on fire, but does.

Tom Humes-
You are talking to somebody who cares little for your debunked arguments and name calling of Democrats. What do you intend to do, bully me and belittle me into agreement?

Politics, in the end, is a game of persuasion. Your politics is about as persuasive as a stomp on the foot.

Christine-
Palin made a mountain out of a molehill, just to *****slap a comedian who insulted her. Is this a mature response? She could have just said, I found that joke in poor taste, my daughter has learned a pretty strong lesson in the value of abstinence.

But really, she wouldn’t have to do even that. It would have been a forgettable joke, if she’d let it be. Now you and I and many others remember it, and probably recall the context with it.

Palin’s trying to build an image, overall, that does not comport with the way she actually runs her life, her political operations, or her office. That’s what makes her such a rich target for pundits and comedians.

I don’t get the attraction to Palin when McCain picked her i about fell out of my chair ,I understood the need for a woman or for that matter a person of color on that ticket, I remember years ago when he was considered a “Conservative” Today he’s a moderate and his daughter is very moderate, Can you imagine Palin addressing the congress and the supreme court and our military, Something i try not to think about, That party has some deep soul searching to do..