Obama vs Fox
October 21st, 2009 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarFox News reports on the war against them by the Obama Administration:
The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.
This has of course sent ratings at Fox upwards.
The White House stopped providing guests to “Fox News Sunday” after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August.
Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was “something I’ve never seen a Sunday show do.”
“She criticized ‘Fox News Sunday’ last week for fact-checking — fact-checking — an administration official,” Wallace said Sunday. “They didn’t say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check.”
“Let’s fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign,” Wallace added. “A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn’s facts were just plain wrong.”
How dare they fact check.
Fox of course does lean to the right. Nut the New York Times (for example) leans heavily to the left, and I don’t recall former Republican Governments refusing to be interviewed by the NYT.
Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House’s decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: “I don’t always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree.”
David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: “I totally agree with Donna Brazile.” Gergen added that White House officials have “gotten themselves into a fight they don’t necessarily want to be in. I don’t think it’s in their best interest.”
I’ve never known politicians who take on the press head on, to win. You can make your case on biased coverage when and if it occurs, but to have the actual Government try and freeze a media organisation out if silly and will not help Obama.
Media columnist David Carr of The New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox “may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling.”
“While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence,” Carr wrote over the weekend. “So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year.”
Carr sums it up perfectly – even though he works for the NYT 
He added: “The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight.”
And I think they will regret it.
Tags: Barrack Obama, Fox News, media bias
October 21st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Sometimes you do make me laugh, comparing the NYT to Fox, you are kidding yes?
Lets look for example at Glen Beck, of Fox on Obama
“Obama has “over and over again” exposed himself as “a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is…”
When Fox’s Brian Kilmeadeon pointed out that many people in Obama’s administration are white, so “you can’t say he doesn’t like white people,” Beck pressed on. “I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem,” Beck said. “This guy is, I believe a racist.”
Just like the Grey Lady eh David?
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Sonic has started taking his medication. That post was readable and didn’t abuse the English language!!!
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Shit. I thought Sonic had died.
BOT, Herr Clark is going to find out the very same thing. The hard bitten journos of New York will not take kindly to an impudent antipodean Boadicea telling them how they are going to behave.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Sounds like there is a new spin team in town – the Simpson Clark Media Management Consultancy. Shoot the messenger, bury the messenger, provide your own messenger with your own message.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
How long until the IRS, SEC and other organs of state enforcement step up to “help out” the White House I wonder?
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
The Messiah’s administration appears to be riddled with radicals, such as Van Jones and Anita Dunn, the latter caught on video praising Chairman Mao, the vile Chinese criminal. These elements are now being exposed by Fox and that riles the administration.
More ammunition for those who claim Obama is Carter reincarnated and could become another one-term president of the United States.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Just got bored with you and your ilk Adolf.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
The White House… no class at all. They need Clark over to a give a lesson on how to progressively ‘freeze out’ unwanted MSM interference, and on how to use a publicly invisible PR-Rottweiler like H2 to manage the whole process.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
What is amazing (and disturbing) is the number of people on other blogs (HuffPo etc) demanding in all seriousness that Fox News be banned because it “misreports”, “lies”, “is not real news”, “incites hatred”, etc. Now the White House itself is calling for the other news outlets to ignore stories originated by Fox. Can’t see this working out well for Obama.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Sonic/Chronic/Catatonic…. (3.05 post)
Who the hell broke him out of his trance?
Another two and a half hours till the nurse comes round with his medicine.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:47 pm
ignore him – he’ll go back to school.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I can understand the administration, there is a lot of seriously blatant crap coming out of Fox. But this isn’t the way to deal with it, I think the Obama camp are on a hiding to nothing taking this approach. It’s not the first time they have tried to confront bullshit (and foxshit).
The Dems latest call ‘em out email:
Recently:
August:
and
I really don’t think these will make any difference, they are preaching to the faithful (and a few others on the mailing list).
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Why does he bother? Fox preaches to the converted, to people like Redbaiter who discern “the truth” based on whether it agrees with their prejudices or not.
To everyone else Fox is a joke, best ignored.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
The New York Times (for example) leans heavily to the left
Maybe they used to. Now they lean heavily towards whoever is in government. They were uncritical cheerleaders for Bush, now they’re uncritical cheerleaders for Obama.
I think the ‘war’ works out great for Fox and Obama. As Bush’s former speech writer David Frum puts it:
I am revising my theory of what the Obama administration is doing in its frontal assault on Fox: I think they want us to take sides. Are you a Fox person or not a Fox person? And I think they want to identify Fox as the standard bearer of American conservatism. If you’re a conservative, you’re for Fox (ie, is that who you want to be?).
It’s a perfect convergence: What is good for Fox is good for Obama, and what is good for Obama is good for Fox, and their mutual victim is the Republican party.
Republican voters look at FOX anchors like Glen Beck and like what they see. But very few american’s are republicans, most people look at Beck and see a lunatic. Obama is asking people whether or not they want to side with him or the lunatic. It’s smart.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“Fox News reports on the war against them by the Obama Administration” and surprisingly it’s pro-Fox! Next up, the Tamil Tigers amazingly condemn the Sri Lankan Army and a shock announcement from the Labour Party thinks National isn’t doing the right thing…
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Of course, by singling out Fox as a “right-wing” news source, it gives the American public the impression that the other mainstream news sources are “centre” or perhaps even “left-wing”, when really they’re all pretty insanely right-wing.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I agree with the Obama Adminstration, Fox News is terrible, they are so bias, its getting to be like Satire now.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Coupled with stories like this, it shows Obama’s crew up as incredibly arrogant and control freaks…..He really does have some very scary people on his staff. Scary if you happen to like freedom at least.
Can you imagine the uproar from the Dems and the MSM if GWB’s Communications director had claimed to be a fan of Mao?
And then goes on to brag about this:
“Aide admits Obama team ‘controlled’ the media ”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10604554
This throws a poor light on all MSM. They might wish that Fox take the heat but even the most dem friendly MSM must realise that they are targets also.
This is a fight that has just started and the White House is already on a hiding to nothing.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:14 pm
“………They were uncritical cheerleaders for Bush,……”
Shall we file that comment under humour, satire, or “I haven’t ever read the NYT” ?
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Obama is beginning to look like “Mr Thin Skin” with this attack. After everything the MSM threw at Bush and he still maintained his composure this administration is beginning to look like freedom of expression is an option not a right in the USA.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
David, I’m pretty sure that you don’t know what you’re talking about with the “Obama vs. Fox” post.
That’s probably because you don’t live in the United States, (still here in Austin, TX, U.S., the job offer in Tauranga fell through) and don’t have to deal with Fox News.
The reason Fox News is getting frozen out of the White House press conferences is not because Obama declared ‘war’ on them, whatever that’s supposed to mean, but simply because Fox News makes crap up. Fox News isn’t just biased, it actually seeks to influence the election towards the Republican party. And it does so without any regard for journalistic accuracy – or even basic truth.
Fox News funded, promoted, and launched a “protest” where they were caught coaching protesters, then covered it on their network – while ignoring any other, non Fox-news related protests, for example.
Or there’s the fact that Fox News has a habit of labeling Republican politicians who are undergoing some sort of political scandal – like, say, soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom – Democrats. I’m not saying that Fox News says that scandal ridden Republicans act like Democrats – I mean that Fox News actually lies to it’s viewers and tries to tell them that Republican politicians who have been caught in embarrassing or illegal shenanagans are members of the Democratic party.
And my problem with Fox News isn’t ideological bias. I don’t always agree with what you have to say, but I don’t have a problem with you saying it, because, well, it’s just your opinion. What Fox News is different – they’re not putting their opinion out there – they are trying to actively misinform the people into believing things that they absolutely know to be untrue.
Fox News “fact-checking” is a joke because Fox tries to make up it’s own facts as it goes along. Like, for example, when they claimed American forces butchered Nazis at Malmady. (It was German troops who killed Americans – but Fox repeated this lie, even after it was called to their attention – in order to drill up support for torture at Guantanamo bay.)
The Obama administration is still willing to talk to conservative press organizations here in the U.S., including the Wall Street Journal (also owned by Rupert Murdoch) and U.S. News and World Report (also very conservative.) Fox News isn’t being shut out because of ideology but because they make stuff up, and like any kindergartener who makes up lies, you stop giving them attention.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Obamao might indeed doing a classic: Pick The Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, And Polarize It.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Fox and Rush might make some of the regulars here all sweaty and moist, must they are poison to 70% of US voters.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
“RRM (1461) Vote: 2 2 Says:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Why does he bother? Fox preaches to the converted, to people like Redbaiter who discern “the truth” based on whether it agrees with their prejudices or not.
To everyone else Fox is a joke, best ignored.”
For a cable news network that has approx 100 million subscriptions (thats homes) out of a population of 300 million people, I would suggest that there is a lot of converted people out there.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I thought I’d go have a look at fair and balanced Fox, they are running this lovely poll on this very subject
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/19/white-house-attacking-fox-news/
The White House is still attacking Fox News, 10 days after its original comments. Why?
They want to shoot the messenger
They don’t have a good case to make
They confuse News and Opinion
I don’t know
Fair and balanced, who could argue!
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:48 pm
“a cable news network that has approx 100 million subscriptions (thats homes) out of a population of 300 million people,”
You get it free on basic cable, everyone has it how many watch is another matter. It averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter.
So 80% of people who have it do not watch it.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Sonic: Obviously the 3rd option, they confused Fox (opinion) with news!
I also like how one of the “What’s hot” items in the masthead on FoxNews.com is “Hadron collider sabotaged from the future?”
I hope we never see so deranged and slathering a right-wing lobby here in NZ…
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
The Frum comment quoted by Danyl is on the mark. The GOP is increasingly divided amongst itself, with the religious-nationalist-populist tail wagging the more moderate/mainstream dog. Fox reflects the views of the zealots, several of whom have unsavory personal histories and political beliefs (the Limbaugh drug dependency and racist comments being emblematic in that regard). Given the shifting demographics of the US away from a conservative white majority, and given that Fox slavishly bent over for the W Bush administration on all policy issues while casting a blind eye on its corruption and incompetence, the White House seeks to accentuate the divide between reasonable and disloyal opposition (which Fox is). For most people in the US, Obama is a reasonable moderate faced with enormous problems left to him by his predecessor, not some fanatical Muslim communist. By focusing attention of how Fox negatively slants its coverage of the president, it alerts the moderate Republican base to its disloyal zealotry (remember that the zealots were happy that Chicago lost the Olympic bid and crowed about that). It also reaffirms to most Americans that Obama gets attacked simply because of who he is more than on issues of policy. As Frum says, Fox profits and the administration gains some room for maneuver vis a vis the GOP as a result. Hence, what is at first glance a bad move–taking on the media–in the polarised context of GOP and American politics, it is actually quite cunning.
And BTW, regarding the administration “controlling the media.” What was actually said is that the Obama campaign controlled the message by doing direct approaches via the internet rather than have the stories filtered by the press. Controlling the message is what all modern political campaigns are about, and is exactly why McCain lost–once he brought Palin on board he lost control of them message he was trying to send to the moderate majority.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Are you seriously comparing NYT to Fox, I mean SERIOUSLY. I know you have an agenda to pursue, fine. But comparing one outlet that has a level of intregity which is on the upper end of the scale with one which has next to none is beyond appalling. Comparing Fox to MSBNC would be fair, both are crap.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Why is Obama so desperate to censor the information that goes out to the citizens?
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I think it’s good that there is ONE right-wing news group. Yes, Fox is ridiculously biased and it can be pretty funny to watch Fox News, but the rest of the media leans overwhelmingly to the left. It’s important that both sides of the story are presented rather than having every single media outlet worshipping Obama as a messiah.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
@Brian Boyko:
1. You say: “Fox News isn’t just biased, it actually seeks to influence the election towards the Republican party”. How is this different (or better/worse) from, say, the New York Times officially endorsing the election of Barack Obama? [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html]. Is that not an example of seeking to influence an election towards the Democratic Party?
2. You say “like any kindergartener who makes up lies, you stop giving them attention” – if the WH believes that, then why are they doing the EXACT OPPOSITE! You could say they WERE ignoring Fox, but now they are actively attacking Fox. Why?
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Interesting clip, from media matters so take from it what you will:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI2iV_TgHJU
http://www.youtube.com/user/mediamatters4america#p/u/1/YRx5ethd8JU
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Fox does not “lean” to the right. When you are actively organising and promoting anti-taxation protests (tea parties) and have a commentator that called Obama a communist for promoting volunteerism then you ARE the right. (Bush also promoted volunteerism but I don’t think Fox called him a commie for it)
I agree that Obama is planning to create a polarising point. If he can convince America that Fox is the republican mouthpiece then centre voters will be put off voting repub by the crazies on Fox. Watch some Glenn Beck and you’ll see what I mean.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
But comparing one outlet that has a level of intregity which is on the upper end of the scale …
NYT has a level of integrity on the upper end of the scale? Tell me your joking….
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
The more hardcore dems claim Fox is evil, the more I check it out. I think that’s called an inverse relationship.
I frequently click on MSNBC & Fox News. More often than not their news headlines match up. However Fox New’s commentators are unashamedly on the right – but they’re pretty open about it. I used to enjoy Alan Combes show – one of Fox’s liberal commentators.
The Obama administration needs to out fox Fox – rather than declare war.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
It’s another manifestion of the Streisand effect. And it’s working.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
If DPF thinks NYT leans heavily to the left, I wonder what he thinks of DemocracyNow!
And to say merely that Fox “leans to the right” is an understatement of a degree probably unparalleled in human history!
Bill O’Reilly can claim one kill at least, the late term abortion doctor, George Tiller, who was arguably murdered as a direct result of O’Reilly’s campaign of demonisation: “Tiller, Tiller, baby killer.” How he escaped charges is beyond me.
Vote:
October 21st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Paul G. Buchanan (4.49) makes interesting contributions to Kiwiblog and is steeped in US politics.
Paul can you please elaborate for us the political effects of the demographic changes occurring in the US that you touch on in your post? This I presume is chiefly the increasing Latin American and Asian populations?
Do Latin American descendants in the USA typically transit from left to right as they move up the wealth ladder, and if so won’t many of them become Republicans? Many Asians, particularly Chinese and Koreans, are fairly steeped in Confucian values, which aren’t unlike those of traditional Puritan-Protestants and some Catholics. Won’t they, too, be potential Republicans?
Also, is intermarriage between the ethic groups (and specifically Asian, Latins, and “whites”) as frequent as in NZ? If so, I imagine this complicates forecasts of political effects of demographic change.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
The simple truth is that no Fox presenter that is right wing tries to hide it, unlike all leftist “journalists”. Fox should be commended for making viewers aware of their political leanings rather than pretending they are objective.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
except that they DO say they are objective, sector 7g, They say they are “fair and balanced”; that they give you the real news, without the BS of the “left-wing mainstream media”; o’reilly’s (heavily editorial) show is called the “no-spin zone”.
Vote:What Fox does is present a right-wing, conservative antidote to the perceived left-wing slant of the MSM. Fox is deliberately as far slanted to the right as certain publications, like the New Yorker for example, are to the left. That was the objective that Murdoch and Ailes founded the network on – and I suppose that, (if we’re being generous and ignoring the massive cashcow that Murdoch probably saw in this), we could say that this creates an overall media “balance”.
BUT Fox does not sell themselves to the public as such – they claim to be the only objective network. And people lap it up. They see a network that reflects their values back at them, telling them that it is presenting objective, unslanted news, and they WANT to be believe it. And they do.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Imagine if Dubya said the same thing about MSNBC.
What a sad little shit smear of an administration this is.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
7 Lies in 2 Minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0
Fox news who needs it. Many know Obama is scum already without Fox.
Get your jollies lefties Fox vs Obama only an argument lefties can have as most on the right knows American is heading over the cliff with Obama. Anit gonna matter what fairy tales Obama comes up with in a few months time. Obama crashing faster than the US$.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Nice to see you back too, Chronic, I thought you’d snuck into Hulun’s luggage and ended up in Ulan Bator.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Maybe you should watch Fox a little more salt. Maybe then you would realise that when they talk about “balance” they are talking about how they always invite one guest from the Democrats and one from the Republicans to debate the issue (shit, sometimes they even invite an independent) . This is what they call being “fair and balanced”. If you equate that to being objective then i would have to say that they are the only “objective” news channel out there
Vote:They do it really well though salt, they put one in a blue frame and the other in a red frame and introduce them and their political leanings prior to them talking just so no one gets confused.
I do understand that not inviting anyone from the right to talk at all while introducing leftists as “objective experts” is more balanced in the eyes of the left, but don’t you think those on the right should be allowed to voice their opinion?
October 21st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
@salt: Of course they say they are “fair and balanced”. To their hosts and many of their audience they are. This is where the left-wing thought police (like you) say its wrong to think that a certain perspective is “fair and balanced” – the left-wing thought police will TELL you what is “fair and balanced”.
No-one disputes Fox New is “right” on a political spectrum – in fact they frequently acknowledge it on air. But you (and others) are making the mistake of assuming there is a “centre” against which all media can, and must, be judged.
How can you be seriously suggesting ANYONE is “fooled” by Fox News? Everyone knows where it is coming from. As you say, people lap it up. Conservatives love it because it is… conservative! Liberals love MSNBC because it is… liberal!
PS You know what MSNBC changed its slogan to leading up to the 2008 election? “The Power of Change”.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Candidate Obama said his political philosophy could be judged by the people he surrounded himself with. Fox, led by Beck, are merely taking him at his word. It seems that Obama did not really mean what he said (funny that) as he is now having fits about the light being shone on the radical agendas of many of his confidantes. And it is not surprising.
The suckhole media are either followers of Fox, or totally awol on these stories. Thanks to Fox and Beck a little bit of light has been shone into the White House.
Obama would talk to Ahmadinejad without pre conditions. He cannot bring himself to talk to Fox News. What a whiner.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
I entirely agree, DPF. This is one of those situations where the Obama Administration is going to lose. But it’s rather interesting, as Fox is blatantly right-wing (and unashamed of it, which I sometimes find irritating, as I’m told I’m ‘right-wing’ and Fox makes me look like a pinko half the time), but when most of the media are extremely left-wing it’s ‘objective’. The US media, and most Western media, cannot see the difference between left-wing statism and objective criticism. Yet now that the White House is showing its true colours, maybe they’ll be appropriately lambasted for this silliness. It’s not surprising how socialists, no matter in sheeps clothing, always seem to act like it. This ties in nicely with your blog about Helen Clark not giving press conferences. Maybe she and Obama have the same PR strategists?
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Hmm Danyl and Paul Buchanan
Lots of sweeping statements some of which are just plain not true. Danyl first:
“They were uncritical cheerleaders for Bush” – that was true for a year or so after 9/11. From 2003 onwards the Grey Lady waged an unrelenting war on the Bush Administration. Its reporters breached federal intelligence laws to leak a series of confidential and successful counter terrorism programmes (the financial tracking measures that unearthed the plan to blow up the 10 transatlantic airliners) and the domestic to international warrantless wiretap programme (that unearthed the plan to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and New York subways on 9/11/2003) . They published unattributed and ultimately unprovable rumours of John McCain’s supposed affair with a lobbyist and swept under the carpet a raft of controversial issues from Obama’s past in their rush to carry his and the Dems water. Just recently former ACORN senior staffer Anita Moncrief has revealed how the NYT editors shut down an attempt by Times reporter Stephanie Strom to publish Moncrief’s attempts at whistleblowing ACORN’s ties to the Obama campaign namely the $800,000 the Obama campaign sent to ACORN to assist in its voter registration efforts (now the subject of some 15 federal and state voter fraud indictments) mere weeks from the election – a revelation so explosive as to be described by internal memos in the NYT’s as “game changing”. The Times are coming out against the White House beat up on Fox because as a Democrat friendly organ they see the huge political mistake Obama’s people are making with this Nixonian enemies list. The veritable whose who of Democrat strategists and sympathizers have gone on the record stating how counterproductive this campaign will be.
“But very few american’s are republicans” Define few please Danyl. After all some 59 million voted for McCain. Right now the generic poll asking voters if you are Republican or Democrat has the Dems at 35% and the Republicans at 31% (Gallup a slightly wider gap they poll adults and Rassmussen, the most accurate pollsters in the 06 AND 08 election cycles, has the party identification gap at only 3% and they poll only likely voters). Bear in mind that this gap was 16% in these same polls leading up to the 2008 election and Obama only led McCain by 6%. When Gallup and Rasmussen recently asked voters whether they consider themselves liberal or conservative the split is 24% liberal and 35% conservative with the remainder stating they are independent.
Now Paul:
The GOP and Democrats are big tent parties. Your comments about the tensions inside the GOP can be equally made about the Democrats. The current health care debate has fractured the Democrat party along progressive vs more conservative lines. The progressive caucus of the House (about 65 members) has said they will not vote for a health care bill unless it has the so-called government option IN and the conservative (Blue Dog) coalition of House Dems (about 47 members say they will not vote for a bill WITH the public options. The same split exists in the Senate but there it is a much more serious issue for Obama to manage as he needs 60 Dem Senators on side to invoke cloture (stop a filibuster) and 7 have written letters to Obama stating they will not vote for cloture is there is a public option.
How does your comment “shifting demographics of the US away from a conservative white majority” square with the recent polling on ideological identification and the very narrow generic party identification polls? FYI to readers – in the 1994 GOP rout of the Democrats where they seized control of the House and the Senate on the backs of Clinton’s initial lurch to the left, the Gallup generic party identification polls still had the Dems 4% ahead. The reason why more people can tell a pollster that they identify as a Democrat and yet that party can still be spanked in the mid-terms is because the GOP usually has a better turnout (08 being an exception) and it is much harder to enthuse the voters of the party in the White House in mid-term elections without their President on the ticket. This will be a particular issue in 2010 as Obama is not on the ballot and his presence on the ballot enthused black and younger voters who historically have poor turnout records to vote in record numbers.
An analysis of special elections for Congress and various State legislatures and executive positions across the US since Obama has been elected shows a huge swing to the GOP. The Republicans look almost certain to pick up the Virginia governorship (lead by over 10%) and likely the New Jersey one as well (3% lead – Obama won NJ by 15%!).
“and is exactly why McCain lost–once he brought Palin on board he lost control of them message he was trying to send to the moderate majority”. You seem to have forgotten but the Palin pick vaulted McCain into the lead over Obama after trailing since their respective nominations in all the daily tracking polls and gave him leads over Obama above the MOI in the battleground states from the GOP convention until the market meltdown in late September according to Rasmussen polls (by far the most accurate pollster in 2006 and 2008). McCain not only handled that event poorly (the 3 day campaign ‘suspension’) but frankly a market collapse of that magnitude so close to an election was always going to seriously tar the candidate of the ruling party in the White House as they would be seen to be at fault. Obama wisely stayed silent and above the fray, he retook the lead, almost lost it again over the Joe the Plumber incident but spent his way back into the comfortable lead that carried him to victory.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Simon
only 7 lies?
I’ve stopped listening as it is clear he is all puff and is aiding America’s enemies with his prevaricating.
I’m leaning towards that maybe he and his team are America’s greatest enemy?
He has sealed all of his past that he can and is spending millions in legal fees to not have to disclose in court.
For someone who posited himself as clean and transparent in relation to his predecessor I find that risible.
If I were to be classified by the lefty’s I would probably be a right wing denier birther, add homophobe anti-Muslim fanatic and probably some more (emotional blackmail) painting words that the lefty’s bandy about.
I’m not of course but they need to paint you, to label you and make you a non-person so that you have no voice.
Fox do give left and right and independant the opp to speak which is more than the left do.
I am enjoying the sight of a group of people who won’t be bowed and speak their mind against tyranny.
America was the beacon of hope and light of freedom for the world, that may not be so in the near future.
First they came for Fox and who’s next.
Vote:Some in the MSM are just waking up to that.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
FOX are so biased they report false information. And the worst thing is their network line is “fair and balanced”. Commentators pose as journalists and the anchors just go on each others shows to reinforce their right-wing agenda. I would not support this on the left or the right, its plain wrong.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Some one posted the political compass
mine is apparently
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.92
http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=0.25&soc=0.92
be interested to know others for what it’s worth.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pm
at the other site I appear to be a centerist but just on the border with the right.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/quiz.php
personal 30% economic 60%
what are you?
I’m about the same place as Kevin Rudd on the political compass picture. ha!
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Jeez
Libertarian for me at http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/quiz.php
economic 70% personal 100%
I’m dazed. Lindsey P, I take it all back!
So Mike, where did you go wrong on the personal stuff? You LIKE censorship?
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I’m on the line between Libertarian and Right
Vote:Personal 50%
Economic 90%
October 21st, 2009 at 9:22 pm
The FOX haters have come out in force. Just days after all the other big media outlets have been caught out using fabricated Rush Limbaugh comments. Yes guys, there’s just no reason why FOX would be doing so well in the ratings.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 9:29 pm
And here http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/quiz.php
Economic Left/right -5.38
Social libertarian/Authoritarian -9.59
So: getstaffed you only believe in 50% personal freedom? Which 50%?
I wonder where so called control freak Helen would fit? I’m just pleased not to be in the same quadrant as Hitler
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Luc, 3xMaybe 1xAgree 1xDisagree for Personal. I’m sure you’ve pigeonhole’d me well enough to guess the allocation
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Jack5:
My impression is that Americans do not inter-marry as much as do Kiwis, but that it is a generational thing: once you get to the third generation things “loosen” up in terms of suitable partners. We saw that with the Irish, Greeks, Jews and Italians during the mid-20th century, East Europeans at the end of the 20th century, and Asians and Latinos now. Muslims are still slow to marry outside of the their communities, as are recently arrived Sub-Saharan Africans. But the main issue appears to be intergenerational acclimatisation over time eventually transcending traditional cultural beliefs and hierarchies. As for moving to the Right as wealth increases, that is generally true, but it has to be filtered into an institutional mix in which certain groups have traditionally been favoured by specific parties and shirked by others. Thus the traditional political patron of new immigrants, particularly Latinos and Asians, in states like California, Illinois, New York, Texas and Florida has been the Democratic Party. Hence, even as they accumulate wealth, these groups tend to stick to their traditional patrons and distrust the GOP (which has traditionally shunned them). They also understand that the Democrats are also a corporate-oriented party, so are not going to reverse the gains these rising migrants have made in favor of blanket redistribution. This includes traditionally conservative Cubans as well as traditionally liberal Mexicans and Central Americans,as well as the varying ideological beliefs of Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese and Cambodian-Americans (which are by no means uniform regardless of wealth). So the short answer is yes, the newer migrant groups drift to the right as wealth increases, but they do not necessarily abandon the Democrats as a result.
KIA. I think that you overestimate the fractures within the Democratic Party, and underestimate the reasons for the 2008 GOP defeat and its subsequent (and continuing) disarray ( I hate to say it but it was not just the market collapse that doomed McCain). The GOP can only block policy but has nothing else to offer. Its spokespeople are media talking heads (some with apparent mental health issues) rather than politicians. The Democrats can certainly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but it is only they who can do so. Citing polling figures pre-2008 seriously misunderstands the nature of voting shifts incurred as a result of the Bush 43 fiascos and–again–a demographic shift towards younger non-whites as the electoral centre of gravity. I realise that you are a GOP supporter and do not begrudge you that because we all have our flaws (just kidding), plus I have several Republican friends and family members so I know what a decent republican looks and sounds like. But for the sake of your preferred party you need to realise that the halcyon days of Reagan and the Gingrich revolution are over, the world is different, the electorate is different, and having Fox news as the spearhead of the Republican counter-offensive is akin to having Custer lead the charge against Crazy Horse–it is gonna end in tears for the white guys.
As I said before, but will rephrase: the Obama offensive against Fox is a sucker ploy to draw out and increase the rabidity of its talking heads, whose egos blind them to the fact that they are the useful fools in this project. O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity (and Limbaugh) may crow about their ratings, and FNC may make increased revenue, but the real target of the offensive is not them but the GOP. The latter will have to either side with Fox or repudiate it, thereby accentuating the fight for the heart of the party. If it goes hard right the Dems win because of the broad-based fear of the nutters taking over; if the political leadership moderate their discourse in order to distance themselves from the media-led zealots the risk an open split of the party ranks and the emergence of another right-wing party that will siphon votes away from the GOP (either of the Paul/Buchanan type or of an overtly Christian persuasion). Either way, the Dems win (barring, of course, some major disaster in the handling of health care reform or the wars, in which case all bets are off).
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
# Hurf Durf (740) Vote: Add rating 7 Subtract rating 2 Says:
October 21st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Imagine if Dubya said the same thing about MSNBC.
What a sad little shit smear of an administration this is.
unquote
Actually, haven’t you heard? Dubya’s Dad just called Keith and Rachel (MSNBC) “sick puppies” while pleading for civility in political discourse
He’s pissed off at what they said about his boy. 
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Hmm, I’ve never really watched it. For those who can get Prime TV though, Fox News is on at 2am in the morning.
There’s also a YouTube video with Dunn admitting that her team “controlled the media” (as reported by the Herald – includes video)-
Another interesting article I read in the print Herald (it’s surprising how some of these articles don’t make it into the online version), is that people are claiming Obama’s new pastor is Carey Cash, great-nephew of the singer Johnny Cash.
Obama has has praised [Cash] for delivering “as powerful a sermon as I’ve heard in a while”, adding: “I really think he’s excellent.”
Cash has said some things about Islam (true things, no doubt) that Obama probably doesn’t like to be associated with. In his book, the Rev Cash states that “extremist manifestations, such as the actions of suicide bombers and crazed gunmen, don’t arise out of thin air”. Rather: “They are part of a religious tradition that from its very birth has used the edge of the sword as a means to convert or conquer those with different religious convictions.”
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:06 pm
If anything, Obama is attempting to soften up the American electorate for reinstatement of The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC rule requiring broadcasters to give honest treatment to both sides on any issue – something the Reagan administration removed, paving the way for the rise of Fox and its screaming pundits.
Regulations about what is deemed ‘fair and balanced’ are unremarkable in most countries – they guide Britain’s broadcast news output, for instance. Ironically, in Britain, David Cameron is making noises about removing this criteria from broadcast news licensing, allowing ‘opinion-based journalism’, akin to the American model.
This will benefit Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News, which will no longer be hampered with appearing a second-rate version of the BBC and instead become a televisual version of The Sun.
Or, like Fox.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Fox doesn’t lean to the Right. It leans to the insane fundamentalist Religious. There’s a big difference.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Also, whatever your views on Fox (I am ambivalent, myself), to compare it with a broadsheet newspaper like the New York Times is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Does the “Fairness Doctrine” extend to the WaPo, ABC and MSNBC?
As for Sky News it’s far, far, far better than the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation’s shite (which is already opinion-based, so hey).
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Paul said…
It also reaffirms to most Americans that Obama gets attacked simply because of who he is more than on issues of policy.
I think that is not true. Can you name one president in the entire history of the US who has pushed socialism into it’s most extreme end apart from Obama? I find none. His skin color is just a catalyst, but the real issues are his massive socialist policies that he is pushing which have never been seen before from any president in the entire 200 year history of the US.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@Hurf Durf
The Fairness Doctrine extended to all American broadcasters until sometime in the 1980s. By WaPo, do you mean the Washington Post? That’s a newspaper.
Your view is that the BBC is already opinion-based, but you should wait and see how it would look if it behaved like a an American news gathering outlet. Then you’ll know all about opinion.
My point about Sky News was that they have to compete with the BBC with far less resources and market penetration. They would welcome any restrictions for fairness lifted, so they can develop a niche of their own, akin to that which tabloid newspapers already occupy in the UK.
I personally believe this should reinvigorate broadcasting in the UK, as media converges- thanks to the internet, newspapers have become broadcasters too, without any such restrictions.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
What a demonstration of the bottomless pit of ignorance that underpins leftist opinion this thread is. The truth is FOX and Glen Beck in particular are just as hard on the Republicans as they are on the Democrats, because neither of those two parties measure up in terms of constitutional government.
As for the morons above who say that FOX is unsupported and unwatched, this is the height of ignorance, for the truth is that FOX’s ratings are often greater than all of the other networks combined. The posts denigrating FOX news only demonstrate what evil lying cowardly propagandising scum today’s left really are. They’re the biggest threat to freedom since the Third Reich, and the mainstream media that has earned their favour, those Obama sycophants liars and attack dogs, are just a Goebellian disgrace as broadcasters.
And as for the extreme left idiots who say the NY Times was supportive of the Bush government, then I am honestly left almost speechless at such ignorance, for it is well known that that paper has been almost treasonist in its war coverage and that the Bush government has stated this on more than one occasion.
If anyone ever needed to be reassured as to the utter bigotry and ignorance that underpins your average leftist’s thought patterns, then a quick read of the above appalling comments will do so in a way that you will remember for along time to come. Never ever forget what evil these people are capable of, what depths they will sink to, and what extremes their obsession with power will lead them to.
100 million citizens killed last century by their own governments, and in almost every case, these mass murders were committed with the connivance of the media. Joe Stalin, one of histories most efficient and cruel killers, was lauded by the western media at the same time as he was engineering a famine in the Ukraine that killed 7 million people by starvation.
Learn from history. The first objective of the leftist killing machine is always the control of information.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:37 pm
@Falafulu Fisi
“Can you name one president in the entire history of the US who has pushed socialism into it’s most extreme end apart from Obama? ”
It was George Bush who administered the bank bailouts.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:53 pm
FF:
Two thoughts: 1) it is a bit rich to think that any successful US candidate is a bonafide “socialist.” You do not get into that position without trading favors with the corporate sector, and you certainly do not prosper by turning your back on the corporate world once in office. Being a real lefty may get you to, but not through the primaries, bottom line. Thus, Obama may be in favor of redistribution and expanding entitlements to the poor and disadvantaged, but I do not see him socialising the means of production any time soon (bank and auto company bailouts were not that). You simply cannot be a real socialist and win a presidential election in the US.
2) FDR and his New Deal was a wee bit to the Left of Obama’s project and it set up the US for its triumph in WW2. LBJs anti-poverty programs and Carter’s human rights programs both were to the left of Obama. And as ephemera said, Bush senior authorised the first round of bank bailouts in the early 1990s. So even if we consider the latter evidence of “socialism” (I do not), then the GOP has something to answer for when it comes to “socialist” policies and Obama is by no means the furthest Left.
As to the question as to whether Obama gets attacked because of who he is. Surely, as a thinking person, you have seen the anti-muslim, xenophobic and racist subtext behind a significant some (not all) of his opposition. If not, you are missing a major part of the picture.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Fox is a private network. They should be doing what is best for them and not according to what others think of what they should do. If their report is bias, then so be it. Moaners should just bugger off and watch some other news channels. After all, people who watches Fox News are adults and they can tell if its bias or not, because it’s not hard to tell. The market decides.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Regarding ‘fairness and balance’ in the media
Vote:Consider this, I would guess that the most unpopular ideas that Fox would routinely push would have the support of atleast 30% of the US population. I won’t speculate on what that is because I don’t see enough of it
On the whole our media supported a wacky idea that we know to have only 12% support (Banning smacking)
Political correctness would dictate that a right wing idea only supported by 12% of the population would dare not even be mentioned in public. Maybe it is better that way, but the same should go for the left.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:20 pm
So what if people get Fox for free on cable, that doesn’t mean they don’t watch it.
Vote:I asked the whanau in NYC, Penn, DC and they all watch Fox as well as other channels for balance.
Most use the internet apparently and read local papers though one is a NYT nut, he’s also a NYY fan too.
Go figure.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
@emmess
I would agree with you if I thought news media should pander to public opinion or tell us all what we wanted to hear.
But the truth is, newsmakers have a responsibility to elevate our discourse (IMHO, anyway).
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Newsmakers have a responsibility to report the news. They can’t even get that right most of the time.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 11:55 pm
@Hurf Durf
If, by ‘report’, you mean comparing Obama to Hitler, then you are absolutely right.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
Nah, Germany got the Olympics while Hitler was in charge. Comparisons are totally off now.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 12:03 am
Well, the standard of discourse is important to me.
Since I left intermediate, anyway.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 am
@ephemera
Vote:If media want to support an idea that is supported by a significant minority (30-49%) in a editorial capacity
Fine, thats up to them
But pushing an idea only supported by a tiny minority (<20%) that will never be accepted while claiming to be impartial makes them undemocratic radicals in my book
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 am
@queenstfarmer
1) Re: ““Fox News isn’t just biased, it actually seeks to influence the election towards the Republican party”. How is this different (or better/worse) from, say, the New York Times officially endorsing the election of Barack Obama?”
You missed the most important part of that quote.
What I said was: “Fox News isn’t just biased, it actually seeks to influence the election towards the Republican party. *And it does so without any regard for journalistic accuracy – or even basic truth.*”
Newspapers in America – and in New Zealand – often endorse candidates *on their opinion pages.* And, in fact, I had no problem when the Wall Street Journal endorsed Sen. McCain on it’s opinion page, because even newspaper opinion pages are required to use true facts to make the case for their respective opinions. You can’t lie on the opinion page any more than you can lie on the front page.
Fox News – and this is the important part – lies. It doesn’t just “get the facts wrong,” as journalistic publications do from time to time, but it *knowingly and deliberately* presents information that is untrue as fact, for the purpose of slandering Democratic politicians.
When I say “slander,” I don’t mean “criticize” because criticism of Democratic politicians is welcome, and there are plenty of publications that do a very good job at it. I mean slander because Fox News simply makes stuff up and outright lies in order to defame democrats and the center-left with malice.
2) There is no good reason for the Obama administration to engage with Fox News, because Fox News is not interested in what the Obama administration has to say except to find some way to use it against them. You don’t give a man who has been beating you up a steady supply of sticks, and you don’t give credence or credibility to a news organization that makes stuff up in order to defame you.
@Falafulu Fisi
Re: “Can you name one president in the entire history of the US who has pushed socialism into it’s most extreme end apart from Obama?”
I’d say that Teddy Roosevelt (R), William Taft (R), Franklin Roosevelt (D), Harry Truman (D), Dwight Eisenhower (R), Lyndon Johnson (D), Richard Nixon (R), and Jimmy Carter (D) pushed social (or if you prefer, socialistic) reforms more vigorously than Obama has. Obama isn’t a socialist. He isn’t even a liberal. If you compare them, Obama’s to the right of the Nats on most areas of policy, and the only reason he’s been labeled a “socialist” is because “socialism” is a dirty word in American politics (synonymous with “communist”) and Fox News repeats the lie often enough people begin to believe it.
Of course, the above list doesn’t include Reagan and Bush organizing bank bailouts – privatizing gains and socializing losses.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 am
Paul
I dont know where you live but I have to assume from your comments about electoral shifts that you dont live in the US. From New Zealand it is next to impossible to have any sense of the political sea change that is going on in the US. You also seem to be oblivious to the historical electoral patterns and have been caught up in drinking the Obama Kool Aid.
The hard fact of electoral life in US politics is that it is the Independent voters who decide elections. There are not enough true believers on the left or right for their respective parties to prevail. Translated into the 2008 elections, the much vaunted increase in the youth vote for Obama was in reality only a modest increase from historical trends. This demograph is notoriously fickle, disinterested and very difficult to turn out. With the tsunami of youthful ‘Hope and Change’ messaging, the unprescedented money the Obama campaign spent and the veritable gale force wind of positive media coverage Obama got meant the actual youth vote turnout was surprisingly disappointing. It is always (and was even in 2008) trumped by the larger and more highly motivated senior vote. Obama increased the black vote by a large percentage but going from 73% to 92% for only 10% of the population does not build a winning coalition. The only state where the greatly increased black vote made any electoral difference was South Carolina and possibly Indiana.
The electoral college system always inflates the winners vote and so Obama’s win can be categorised historically as a solid and unequivocal win (most especially when you compare the results from 92 – 04 elections that were all very close or skewered by Perot). It was not a landslide by any stretch of the imagination. It was nowhere near the two Reagan or Nixon landslides nor even the Bush 41 win in 88. Therein lies the problem for the Democrats. They believe the media’s breathless mantra of an electoral sea change. Obama won the old fashioned way – he won over sufficient Independents and that combined with a motivated base and a low turnout on the right to give him more than enough votes to win. Independents voted for Obama because they were sick of Bush 43, tired of GOP fiscal waywardness and felt that Obama was an eloquent CENTERIST.
If Obama governed as he campaigned, then the kinds of demographic shifts you assume would carry them easily to victory. But that is not what has happened once the Democrats had total control of the levers of power. It is very difficult from NZ when all you can view is CNN and Fox and then the NZ media’s take on the US situation to have a sense of how the Independents have reacted to Obama governing as a true progressive. The sense of buyers remorse from this vital demographic is palpable and it is reflected in the very negative numbers in all the polls when you drill down to the Independents. The most recent Rasmussen polls where each of the 10 major issues are examined in terms of Dem vs GOP proficiency are a case in point. The Democrats began Obama’s term in office with all but ONE of these issues not only in their favour but quite strongly in their favour. As of this week, ALL TEN are now in favour of the Republicans – even the signature issues (such as health care) that historically the Democrats have dominated. On the issue of the current attempts at health reform, Independents oppose Obamacare by margins exceeding 2 to 1. When you examine the internals of even the presidential performance polls that heavily oversample Democrats (such as the mainstream media polls – ABC/Post, NYT/NBC, even Fox’s own polls do this) Obama’s approve/disapprove amongst Indies is in the toilet. If you take the Rasmussen tracking polls (who sample only likely voters and whose party affiliation mix is much closer to reality hence the reason why their polling is the most accurate), the prospects for the Democrats in the 2010 mid terms holding on to the crucial Independent voters is looking decidedly bleak.
Let me tell you what a sea change election looks like and then let me educate you as to what is going on on the ground here in the US. Clinton came to power with almost the same electoral college vote spread as Obama and the make up of his Congress was also very similar. He too campaigned as a centerist and began to govern as a liberal. He too attempted to impose government run health care reform on the US electorate and he too genuflected to the left base of his party with a series of controversial policy moves that angered middle America. The shift back to the GOP (and I’m talking about actual real elections not just polls) began with GOP victories in Virginia and New Jersey. For some quirky reason, these two states hold Statewide elections in the year following the Presidential election cycle. In 93 the Repubs not only won the governorships but also took control of some of the State legislatures. This trend was backed up by the myriad of special elections (by-election equivalent) across numerous state legislatures and in the federal House where the GOP took seats that were long held by Democrats and increased majorities of their own seats. This signalled the wave that enabled the Republicans to take both the House and the Senate in 1994.
You can talk all you want about demographics. The fact is that Obama was elected by Independents and the cumulative weight of the massive deficits he is running up, the inexorable rise in the unemployment rate to close to 10% (that the near $1 trillion stimulus package was supposed to peg at 8%) and the raft of liberal/progressive policy initiatives and controversial ideological fellow traveller appointments to the so-called czar positions has caused this VITAL electoral demograph to desert the Dems in droves. How has this played out electorally in REAL elections. If you look at all the local state special elections you are seeing a redux of 93 – the GOP winning normally strong Democrat seats and holding their own with huge majorities. The swing in some seats has been remarkable. The same is true with the Congressional special elections and, based on current polling, the GOP will sweep the ticket in Virginia (Governor and the other executive offices on the ballot and likely both state legislatures) and a likely governorship pickup in NJ (a very strong and reliably Democrat state). The similarity to the 93/94 situation is striking. The polls look the same and the ACTUAL ELECTION results look the same as well.
As for your contention that the war of Fox is part of some cunning plan to goad the GOP to lurch to the right – that is nothing but wishful thinking. Right now the GOP are essentially powerless and in fact Obama has a supposedly filibuster proof majority in the Senate so should be able to pass anything he wants. He is floundering on healthcare because the centerist Congressmen/women from so-called Red states can read the polls and many tested the waters back in their districts over the summer and found them to be hostile to a government takeover of healthcare. Obama will only manage a very watered down version of his signature domestic agenda. The more he talks, the more press conferences he holds, his appearance on all 5 Sunday political commentary shows (except Fox of course) and his address to Congress have only soured the electorate even more on his legislative attempts to socialise medicine. His Jimmy Carter II disasterous forays into foreign policy are also starting to have some negative electoral bite (his siding with Castro and Cavez against the Honduran Supreme Court enforcing their constutional limit to Presidential term/his Middle east policies that have won no concessions from either side and have dramatically strengthened Netanyahu’s position in Israel/his failure to back the popular uprisings in Iran because of his backroom dealings with the repressive regime in a pathetic attempt to talk them out of their nukes-the Iranians have rebuffed all attempts and proceed apace/the sacrifice of missile defence of allies in Eastern Europe to persuade the Russians to deal to Iran more forcibly -another epic failure as the Russians cant believe the naivite of the neophyte President)
The objection is not the demonisation of the usual Fox targets such as O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck. They are unashamedly partisan commentators and not hard news guys. The White House wants everyone to believe and think that the hard news guys (Marshall Garrett, Shepherd Smith, Mike Wallace etc) are in the same boat as the polemic commentators and the fact is that everyone, even the partisan commentators from the left, knows that this part of Fox really does try to follow the corporate slogan of fair and balanced. The O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck crew have become more shrill and ideological but the hard news team have maintained their positioning. A number of independent academic surveys such as the Project for Excellence in Journalism at Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy and the UCLA Political Science Dept studies both showed that Fox News (not the commentators) offered the least biased coverage. The GOP are not run or ruled by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh much as the left would like the world to believe. A big tent party like that runs the same ideological gambit as their Democrat rivals with liberals and conservatives (albeit further to the right obviously) as reflects the ideological diversity of the various States and districts that they represent.
With the Indenpendent voters recoiling from Obama’s lurch to the left (from the cool cerebral centrist ‘dont scare the horses’ campaign persona), if I were a Congressman/woman facing the voters in 2010, I know which party I’d rather be representing. Baring some last minute Clintonian lurch back to the centre, Obama and the Democrats are going to feel the electoral reality that you cannot stray too far from the ideological centre of America.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
Latest Rasmussen polling
Generic party identification: Republican 42% vs Democrat 37% But Danyl said “very few Americans are Republicans”
Obama: Approval/Disapproval 47/53 (-6)
So-called Passion Index (Strongly approve/Strongly disapprove): 27/40 (-13 highest ever)
I guess the war on Fox is really working huh
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 7:03 am
All I can say is that I have never seen a Fox news reporter, opinion show host or guest say that they got tingles running up their leg when they see Obama on the telly. So Fox is on the right, compared to all the other networks who lean to the left. So what? I think the major objection seems to be that they are successful. And contrary to what some posters here think, a big part of Fox’s audience are Independents and Democracts.
Some lefty university in the States did a study on all items on major network and cable channels in the lead up to the last US presidential elections and Fox had the most balanced coverage when it came to positive/negative items on each of the major candidates. Who knew?
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 am
Latest Rasmussen polling
Generic party identification: Republican 42% vs Democrat 37% But Danyl said “very few Americans are Republicans”
Obama: Approval/Disapproval 47/53 (-6)
So-called Passion Index (Strongly approve/Strongly disapprove): 27/40 (-13 highest ever)
I guess the war on Fox is really working huh
According to Rasmussen, their latest poll has 37.5% of Americans identifying as democrats and 32.1% as Republicans.
I’m curious KIA, did you source those numbers from somewhere (a cable news network, perhaps?) or are you making shit up again in the vain hope I won’t find you out?
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 am
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
“Generic Congressional Ballot
GOP Up By Five Points In Generic Ballot
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The GOP advantage over Democrats increased from two points to five in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.
Support for Democrats dropped two points this week, while support for the GOP slightly increased.”
There are two different polls – the party self identification poll that I correctly cited in an earlier post and the Generic Congressional Ballot poll which again I correctly cited.
Your apology is graciously accepted Danyl!
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
And in the blue corner…….
Thank you Kiwi in America
Vote:I’ll go to that site again.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:21 am
I think that everyone got it wrong about the popularity of Fox News. The reason that they’re so popular is because they’ve got awesome looks female hosts.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 8:29 am
I’m sorry James, I take it all back. You didn’t make anything up – you just got deeply confused. Generic party identification is different from who voters will support in a congressional ballot, and you incorrectly(?) cited the first instead of the second. Perhaps this link will help:
http://teachers.net/mentors/remedial_reading/
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
The real point Danyl, seemingly lost in your semantics lesson, is that the party identification gap is shrinking rapidly and is now at a point narrower than it was just before the 94 Democrat rout. The Generic Congressional Ballot poll that had the Dems up by substantially by 2008 has collapsed and indeed reversed. But of course in your world there are very few Republicans.
The Messiah has become electorally rather ordinary rather quickly and for those on the left who dreamed of a new progressive age, they are running up hard against the reality of where Americans really sit ideologically. In laymans terms it’s call misreading the mandate.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 am
@Brian Boyko;
A lot of people (on the right) would say the same about say MSNBC (for the purpose of slandering Republicans). I have no doubt that Fox News does on occasion grossly and outrageously distort important things. Just like any other media outlet you can name – even Saturday Night Live “distorted the facts” about Obama according to CNN!
Are you so naiive to think there is such a thing as totally objective, opinion-free, distortion free political reporting? One mans fair comment is another man’s lie. Ditto for “opinion masquerading as fact”. It’s a matter of perspective – this is the essence of free speech. Does anyone NOT know that Fox News has a strong conservative bias?
While the far-left continues in its perpetual state of apoplexy and the White House throws its toys, Fox (a commercial organisation remember) simply gets on with putting out its [honest/nuetral/biased/false] [facts/opinions/lies] (delete as applicable according to your personal perspective) and winning by far the most viewers.
Who is being the smarter?
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Calling him messiah tends to taint one’s perception of balance.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
Thanks for posting on this DPF. Fox News is my favourite news channel and I watch it every chance I can. I think the Liberal New Zealand media is pallid and lightweight by comparison.
I really enjoy Bill O’Reilly — yes he is hard on Obama, but he is hard on everybody. Now I didn’t have access to Fox when George Bush was in power, but I believe he would be very hard on him at many points as well. O’Reilly says that he is an independent. I think his news show is excellent and anyone who can I recommend they give it a look — normally on at 1 PM on Fox News and repeated at 9 PM.
Now there are some people on Fox who will never say anything nice about Obama. Sean Hannity would be one, he is definitely coming from a Republican viewpoint. Glenn Beck would be another, but what viewpoint he is coming from I don’t know. I find Glenn Beck unwatchable.
But there are plenty of Liberals on Fox News. Geraldo would be one, Greta would be another. Also every show — whether Hannity or Greta will have a balanced panel — clearly identifying whether someone is a Democrat analyst or a Republican, whatever.
Now when you compare them to CNN — there is no comparison. CNN appears to me to be in love with Obama. MSNBC even more so. One commentator even got a thrill up his leg after an Obama speech. The New York Times has consistently endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate. In fact the last time they endorsed a Republican for President was Eisenhower way back in 1953.
Finally Fox News is entertaining and in my mind much easier to watch than CNN. So I would recommend to everyone that they give Fox News a try. At the very least it is a balance to the overwhelming leftward bias of our mainstream media, particularly in our own country.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
“On Monday, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were among several people who attended an off-the-record briefing with Pres. Obama at the White House. Sources tell us other attendees at the two-and-a-half hour chat included Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS and Gloria Borger of CNN. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one from Fox News was in the room.”
A modern day Joe Stalin calls in his propagandists and sycophants for a strategy meeting.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
There certainly has been a lot of nonsense posted in this thread. I particularly had to laugh at Danyls post saying the NYT was an uncritical cheerleader for Bush. Thanks to Kiwi in America for his enlightening posts. I’m usually pretty good at telling when someone is on the money and that’s certainly the impression I get from his post.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Scott
You’ve eloquently summed up why Fox dominates the ratings. I find Beck hard to watch, I enjoy O’Reilly and whilst Hannity is partisan for sure, he gets good articulate Democrats on who give him a run for his money. O’Reilly and Beck’s ratings are so high that if you add their time slot competiton together they still DOUBLE the combination.
If Fox is so horribly slanted then why do so many watch and continue to watch? If CNN and MSNBC are more reflective of middle America why do so few people watch them compared to Fox? NZers think because CNN is global that somehow they are dominant and yet in America they are feeble and dwindling all the time because they are largely in the tank for Obama.
The Fox commentators make no bones about the fact that they are conservative and during the latter part of the Bush 43 Presidency, many were pretty scathing of Bush. The non partisan academic studies I cited in an earlier post are reputable and highly credible and they give credence to the motto “Fair and Balanced”. Fox are not perfect, they do get a few things wrong and even their hard news guys do tilt to the right but they dont tilt to the right nearly as much as the hard news reporters at NYT, WaPo, NBC, ABC (except Jake Tapper) and CBS and the aforementioned cable competition to Fox tilt to the left. In the marketplace of cable news, the American consumer, who can simply click the remote, choses Fox in larger numbers than their competition. Furthermore the research on Fox viewership shows that many Independents and some Democrats watch.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
“I find Beck hard to watch”
KIA- you need to watch Glen Beck. He is the only commenter in the US or probably the world who is bringing the public the truth (in well documented and credible form) on the criminality and extreme left objectives of the Obama administration.
He leaves O’Reilly and Hannity for dead. This is why he often beats both of them in the ratings even when his show is in a bad time slot.
The extreme leftist Keith Olbermann stated “Glen Beck must be stopped..!!!!”
That should be reason enough to ensure you take the time to sit down and focus on and understand what Glen Beck is saying. He is ripping the deceit and lies and propaganda of Obama and his gang of crooks cronyists and czars wide open.
Doing the job the mainstream media, that poisonous and politically perverted organisation of Progressive liars and propagandists, should have been doing decades ago.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I don’t call Obama OB1 for no reason.
Vote:Stalinlike he might well be, for me his character is coming to the fore more and more and also those who support him.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Red
Vote:The reasons why I find him hard to watch is because of the histrionics and the waffling. I agree that he is like a hot knife through butter on a number of issues. I find him easier to watch in edited clips on blogs like Hotair who cut to the chase. He brought down Van Jones and was the first to expose the Mao worship of Anita Dunn so he does good work but just over eggs the pudding at times.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“I find Beck hard to watch, I enjoy O’Reilly and whilst Hannity is partisan for sure..”
I find exactly the opposite to be the case for me.
Single-handedly, Beck has torn appart, shred to pieces, the credibility of the Messiah’s administration. The brutal expose of Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Lloyd and other czars; the unmasking of corrupt ACORN and NEA are all due to Glen Beck’s investigation and relentless pursue.
That’s the reason why Obama followers have declared open season on him and Fox News.
You may say he’s emotional, theatrical, etc, but his show is compeling viewing.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
KIA:
That sure was a lot of text used to beat the same old horse. Suit yourself. We shall have to agree to disagree.
FYI, I divide my time between the US and a foreign country (not NZ). I vote in the US. I own property in the US, pay taxes in the US, have a circle of friends and family in the US, and maintain contacts with my former colleagues in DoD and the Democratic Party. Oh, and I study and teach politics for a living. Thus your condescending remarks about my being out of touch because I live overseas are an unwarranted insult. I realize that it is hardly practiced here, but just keep your argument on topic, and keep the personal nonsense to yourself. Otherwise you read like the sociopaths.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Oh you’re a Democrat Paul, I’d have never guessed.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I thought Kiwi in America made a pretty good case. His comments about living overseas were very much in passing. To be honest Mr. Buchanan I found the whole tone of your postings intemperate.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
No Mike,
I am an Independent. The Democrats I mention (and you should read more carefully) are former colleagues of mine from my days in the Pentagon. I have military and civilian Republican friends from my work with various security US agencies other than the Pentagon, but in the context of this thread, and why Obama would attack Fox news, I mentioned the Democratic former colleagues because they are back in office or have access to leadership thinking on this matter (which is how I came to the vies I have expressed above). Had the thread been about Bush 43 ignoring intelligence professionals and special operators warnings against invading Iraq, then I would have referred to my Republican former colleagues on that score.
I will admit to having no time for the Fox ranters and what passes for GOP leadership in the current context. I say bring back Colin Powell…
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Scott: Intemperate is what RB and his ilk are. I just gave my opinion and merely reminded KIA that an argument can be made without ad hominums.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Paul
You criticised me for ad hominums and then engage in a few yourself. Your views, by your own admission, reflect those of the beltway elites – on both sides of the isle (eg bring back Colin Powell – yes a sophisticated insider who eshews this terrible populist stuff and saw the light and endorsed Obama – in your eyes a Republican to be respected). I note no attempt to engage on the facts I detail. You say you are an Independent but I would venture to say that you voted for Obama and still support Obama so the fact that you may not carry a voter registration card that says “Democrat” is irrelevant – your attacks on Fox News are essentially Democrat talking points and you have regurgitated essentially White House talking points on their strategy – a strategy that is clearly having a negative effect on Obama’s poll rating.
Since you teach politics then dissect the Fox rants. Give us chapter and verse precisely what Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly has said that is factually incorrect. Educate us ‘ranters’ rather than sneer from inside the Beltway and cite all your insider connections.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Very well said KIA.
Lefties and fox haters are one and the same, they are unrelenting in their attacks on Fox, of course they cannot argue that Fox are telling lies because they are not, they attack Fox simply because Fox have not fallen for the Obama Messiah.
I have not read the entire thread but I would wager that Mr Buchanan does not have a problem with the biased and unbalanced reporting of Katy Koric and the rest at MSNBC or the Obama fawning that goes on over at CNN.
What the White(red) House are trying to do is control the media, it is what all left wing administrations do, anybody who does not play their game is ostracised.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Manolo
Beck is far from the only individual on the right who has been onto these issues. He certainly has been front and centre in bringing them into the living rooms of Fox viewers. A number of right leaning bloggers have been at the forefront of all these issues and a bunch more that Beck obviously cant squeeze into a 1 hour show. I refer you to Michelle Malkin and her own blog site plus the Hot Air site, Redstate, Powerline (they brought to light the fraudulent Bush Air National Guard story in 2004 that ended Dan Rather’s career as the CBS anchor), Hugh Hewitt, National Review, Breitbart, The Weekly Standard – each of these sites has several bloggers and/or journalists who have done sterling work. So yes Beck has torn the Obama Administration to shreds but not singlehandedly.
There are a number of talk show hosts that are a lot more thoughtful and less bombastic than Rush who in my opinion have almost as much influence on right wing thought even though their ratings are far below Rush’s stratespheric ratings. Hugh Hewitt is a Constitutional lawyer at Chapman University and conducts the longest and most insightful interviews with a centre-right perspective than any other host. Ditto Dennis Prager.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I’d like to thank KIA for the very insightful information provided. It really was quite a long and interesting approach which actually bothered quoting sources, rather than just making sneering remarks (as seems to be the preference of the left, sneer sneer). It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. I’ve been against Obama from the start, so I’m somewhat biased in favour of him doing stupid things like fighting an unwinnable ‘war’ against Fox. But I must say your analysis will make it a lot easier for me to explain to family members in the US why they shouldn’t vote for the guy (beyond my usual arguments that he’s a fool). Thank you very much!
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
@QueenStFarmer
While alot of people on the right could “say” that MSNBC slanders Republicans, they would be factually incorrect.
MSNBC does lean to the left, and I’m not going to suggest that a network with Olbermann and Maddow doesn’t. But *objectivity isn’t the issue here*. MSNBC at least reports true facts, even if you disagree with the opinions they conclude.
Every news organization has bias, the best news organizations try to limit their bias. What makes Fox News different – what sets them apart – is that Fox News *deliberately misinforms* it’s viewers. That, by definition, makes it not a news organization.
We’re not just talking about differences of opinion, but things like having Chris Wallace, a Fox News anchor, pretend to be an anonymous, concerned parent. Things like reporting that members of the Republican Party caught breaking the law are actually members of the Democratic Party. Things like organizing and funding fake news events and presenting them as grassroots and genuine.
“Right or Wrong” is a matter of opinion, and that’s a healthy debate that we can have in society. But “True or Untrue” is not a matter of opinion – either something is true, or it isn’t, and if it’s untrue, it has no business in a news publication.
And calling Fox News a popular news channel is like calling Coke a popular juice.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
KIA:
I do not see where I resorted to any personal attack in this thread, and have already told you that your selected citation of pre-2008 polling data and your argument about current voting demographics s skewed to the point of distortion. The old adage about lies, damn lies and statistics applies here. As for dissecting Fox rants–you must be joking. Not only have several others done that here, but the list of factual inaccuracies and blatant lies is too long and to tedious to belabor (and I am sure you know that). Just take the Beck comment about Obama being a racist and hating white people, or any of the Hannity/O’Reilly smears of people they disagree with as “far Left,” “looney left,” “socialist” etc and you get the drift–but of course, you already know that.
I do not regurgitate anyone’s talking points. I simply started my comments by noting that another strategy could be at play in the Fox/Obama “war”, and why I thought so based upon what I have read and heard. I answered jack5 on a few points, and then the responses went downhill. Your insider/beltway comment is a straw man in any event–that is where the power dynamics are being played out (including with regards to the criticism of Fox), so that is where the action is. Your self-styled populist “outsider” pose is just that. Likewise your attempt at playing the US political expert may wash on others, but just like your predictions of a McCain victory last year, I am afraid that you engage more is wishful thinking than factual analysis. There is no sneering going on here (and your accusation of such was just a low blow delivered without merit), just a dispassionate read of the situation. That is why I politely said that we should agree to disagree. Instead you come back with more ad hominums.
Big Bruv: Save your speculative clairvoyance for conspiracy theorists. You have no way of knowing how I feel about unbalanced reporting on either side of the ledger. My general view is that news shows should be objective and opinion shows should be opinionated, but that they should be transparent in what they actually are rather than masquerade opinion as news.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Brian
Blinkers alert! So MSNBC broadcasting the fake Limbaugh quotes can never be deliberately misinforming can it. Or other MSM outlets unquestioningly publishing ACORN’s lies about the hooker/pimp visit to the Philadelphia office just now revealed by Brietbart’s latest video to be lies. The public option support rallies were reported on the MSM as genuine grassroots support – it took locals with a video posting on You Tube to show the SEUI union buses bringing in the astroturfed Obama supporters made to look like a spontaneous local love fest. Of course the same media you laud were uninterested in investigating the people at Obama Townhalls who were asked at ‘random’ to ask patsy questions. Simple detective work by right leaning bloggers revealed a panoply of people who contributed to Obama, who were on his website as 2008 Obama organisers or who were low level Democrat party functionary. Reporting the partisan leaning of the questioners would change the complexion of these so-called grass roots events but that might meaning raining on the Obama parade. The MSM sins by OMISSION as much as COMMISSION.
Of course the 47 private detectives the MSM sent to Alaska to dumpster dive for dirt on Palin was matched by the ….zero MSM reporters who tried to research the Annenberg Challenge Foundation minutes (the only organisation the soon to be CEO of the nation was ever the CEO of). One right leaning reporter did go and unearthed the funds this lefty education organisation lavished on its pet lefty causes and of course the fact that the only other person who attended most of the board meetings Obama attended was one domestic terrorist called Bill Ayers.
Of course the NY Times editors squashing the story of their own reporter who had all the inside dirt on ACORN whistle blower Anita Moncrief (senior ACORN manager) about the financial ties between ACORN and the Obama Adminstration because, by the admission made in their own internal memo to the reporter, could be a “game changer” just prior to the elections could never be seen as “deliberately misinforming” could it now Brian.
It took Fox News or the right wing blogosphere to unearth Van Jones radical Communist extreme environmental past that led to his departure not the truth seeking from the alphabet networks or the NYT/WaPo. Ditto Peter Jennings (safe schools czar support for pedophile group NAMBLA) or Anita Dunn’s ode to Chairman Mao in her talk to high school girls. There was chirping crickets from the networks you revere over the multiple ACORN offices gladly advising a pimp and hooker on setting up a child prostitution ring of illegal aliens. The list goes on and on Brian and it is getting late here in the US.
Go look at these two studies and then come back and tell me where the Havard and UCLA people got it wrong.
http://www.journalism.org/node/8197
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Paul
“I do not see where I resorted to any personal attack in this thread” how about: “Otherwise you read like the sociopaths”.
Lets keep this very simple. Identify the current demographics “skewered to the point of distortion”. Are the CURRENT polls (not pre-2008) I cite false, incorrect or distorted? They show Independents are souring on Obama- Nothing to skewer here – just plain facts. So why not look at real post 2008 election results. Care to comment on the large swing to the GOP in the myriad of state legislature races that have occured over the last 6 months? Care to comment on the likely GOP sweep of the GovernorSHIP on down the ticket in Virginia? Care to comment on a similar trend in NJ? Compare these results with 93 and tell me what’s different. These are not polls – these are actual elections. You are saying that somehow its different today – how?
Paul – the issue at stake is not what the polemic commentators on Fox News say. There is agreement between you and I that they indulge in hyperbole, personal attacks and they push the boundaries. Just like Rachel Maddow and Keith Obermann do at MSNBC. So what – its the market place of political commentary and in that market place and polemics of the right handily beat their counterparts on the left? Why is that Paul? Surely there is a reason. What I have asked for is chapter and verse on the lies and distortions made by the hard news team. It is this team that the White House seek to dismiss as in the same boat as the partisan commentators. No one cares that Obama would be annoyed by Beck and Hannity – I would be if I were Obama, jusy as Bush was miffed by Obermann.
You assume that I’m the only person in the world who has ever made a political prediction that was wrong. Because so many of the political commentariat picked Kerry to beat Bushin 04, does this mean that all their pronouncements from that day forth are now wrong because that is your logic.
You attack my analysis as wishful thinking and yet make no attempt to debunk it – except to make huffy comments that reveal that actual real debate is beneath you. So tell us the percentage and numbers of the youth vote (defined as 18- 30) in 2000, 2004 and 2008 and tell me that the analysis I posted was wrong. Prove to us unlearned ranters that Independents were not the key to Obama’s (or any President’s victory). You are the political scientist – you come on to this blog and pontificate and assume that we will all just take your word because ….you teach politics or you have contacts in Congress or the DoD.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Look at the karma Paul – the readership of Kiwiblog votes on the merits of our arguments.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Correction – the MSM’s chirping crickets re the ACORN scandal was their initial reaction for the first week or so that the videos were released. The MSM only began to report on the pimp/prostitute scandal once the US Census cut ties with ACORN and some federal agencies also froze or cancelled funding.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Geez KIA:
Up late and obsessing.
Mid term electoral swings away from the President’s party amongst all voter demographics are staple of US politics so nothing you have said is unusual or insightful. Why should I engage your polemics when you say nothing incisive?
I do not measure my worth by Kiwiblog karma marks, and I seriously doubt that argument merit has much to do with a lot of the voting anyway.
Equating my comment that you should refrain from writing like the sociopaths with your now repeated deprecatory tone is just cowardly, and what I would expect of said sociopaths.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Paul
You attacked my analysis and then refuse to rebut it sniffly hiding behind the comment “when you say nothing incisive”. I repeat – prove what was “skewered beyond distortion”.
I wonder who is the coward here. You invite deprecatory tones by your arrogant refusal to debate as if you are somehow above this tawdry right wing blog stuff.
The truth is your man is floundering and you and your fellow travellers are somewhat aghast and Fox News is an easy target to blame. It doesn’t occur to you that his minute resume and consummate lack of executive experience combined with his thinly veiled leftist ideology that he now seeks to foist on the country lies behind his tumbling poll ratings and the likely drubbing his party will receive. Its not what the Colin Powell beltway types were expecting.
[DPF: Can I just ask everyone to tone things down a bit. Both KIA and Paul B are amongst the best commenters in terms of analysis, and I value both their contributions greatly.]
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Simply put, Paul, you aren’t providing any real debate. You may jab here and there, but your position is that of an arrogant political scientist (not that I’ve met modest ones). Provide an argument with some basis, or dispute KIA’s point, but do not just make backhanded remarks, insults, and think yourself above the whole thing. If you are, why not refrain from commenting and leave us mere mortals to our wallowing. Wouldn’t that make everyone (yourself included) happier? Or do you think condescending down to our level with your moments of snippeting makes you somehow superior for the mere effort? If you don’t have anything productive, or nice, to say, why say anything at all?
Vote:October 23rd, 2009 at 3:04 am
Point taken DPF – got a bit wound up last night.
Paul – olive branch mate.
Vote:October 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
Good debate Brian.
And that’s the whole essence of this debate, isn’t it. In politics and political media, almost everything is opinion or opinion-based, even if largely based on “fact”. Exhibit A: statistics (should I say damned lies and statistics).
Of course there are “discrete” (in the mathematical sense) facts, with 0% opinion-content, such as what party a person belongs to. I totally agree mis-labling a Republican as a Dem is a major error, dumb and hits credibility, though I have always found truth in the saying “Don’t attribute to malice, what can be attributed to human stupidity”. In politics (and lots of other fields) almost everything is a case of “you have your facts, I have mine” (again, I refer to the entire branch of mathematics called statistics).
People tend to assume the worst about their ideological enemies – hence the far-Left knows that any error/slip/falsity on Fox must be a deliberate, calculated lie cunningly crafted to decieve the public and advance some diabolical scheme (the VRWC?). The far-Right do the same with the likes of MSNBC. We all make our own judgements. Name one media outlet that hasn’t got it wrong (putting aside any personal assessment of malice for the moment). Just the other day CNN apologised for falsely attributing a controversial statement to Rush Limbaugh.
Vote:October 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
the readership of Kiwiblog votes on the merits of our arguments.
Ha!
Vote:October 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Rush Limbaugh in His Own Words
As the apologists all over the right wing blogs continue to focus on one or two disputed quotes, here’s a lengthy collection of racist and/or race-baiting quotes from Saint Rush Limbaugh — all of them verified, cited and attributed: Limbaugh: My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society
Vote:October 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Sure KIA, no problem. Were it though, that some of the other commentators shared your sense of propriety.
Vote:October 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 pm
# kiwi in america (774) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:04 am
Point taken DPF – got a bit wound up last night.
Paul – olive branch mate.
# Paul G. Buchanan (125) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Sure KIA, no problem. Were it though, that some of the other commentators shared your sense of propriety.
And it was just getting interesting!
Vote:October 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
And the White House finally decides to act on their threats.
And the other four major networks grow a spine – finally.
And the White House , caves
And in far away lands, Putin, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, the Iranian Mullahs and others are laughing. Netanyahu, the Saudis and Mubarek are just watching.
As are we all.
Vote: