[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.[/quote]
Uh, isn’t that one of the shining characteristics of American politics?
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.[/quote]
Uh, isn’t that one of the shining characteristics of American politics?[/quote]
doesn’t that suck? I cannot remember the last time I was excited about someone running for office
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Now, Max…
Admit it…you’re just mad because California may get “Moonbeam Brown” back as Governor!
By the way…is there really ANYBODY…conservative or liberal…that really “likes” that opportunist-of-all opportunist Gloria Allred? (Except for maybe Brown at this moment…)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.[/quote]
I think the answer is that you should vote for the person that best represents your opinions even if they don’t stand a chance to win.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Now, Max…
Admit it…you’re just mad because California may get “Moonbeam Brown” back as Governor!
By the way…is there really ANYBODY…conservative or liberal…that really “likes” that opportunist-of-all opportunist Gloria Allred? (Except for maybe Brown at this moment…)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.[/quote]
I think the answer is that you should vote for the person that best represents your opinions even if they don’t stand a chance to win.
[/quote]
Well of course I do. Thank goodness you helped me with that. Even then, there isn’t one that I see as a bright and shining light.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Now, Max…
Admit it…you’re just mad because California may get “Moonbeam Brown” back as Governor!
By the way…is there really ANYBODY…conservative or liberal…that really “likes” that opportunist-of-all opportunist Gloria Allred? (Except for maybe Brown at this moment…)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.[/quote]
I think the answer is that you should vote for the person that best represents your opinions even if they don’t stand a chance to win.
[/quote]
Well of course I do. Thank goodness you helped me with that. Even then, there isn’t one that I see as a bright and shining light.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Now, Max…
Admit it…you’re just mad because California may get “Moonbeam Brown” back as Governor!
By the way…is there really ANYBODY…conservative or liberal…that really “likes” that opportunist-of-all opportunist Gloria Allred? (Except for maybe Brown at this moment…)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.[/quote]
I think the answer is that you should vote for the person that best represents your opinions even if they don’t stand a chance to win.
[/quote]
Well of course I do. Thank goodness you helped me with that. Even then, there isn’t one that I see as a bright and shining light.[/quote]
:)[/quote]
my bad, the bitchy sarcasm was uncalled for
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Now, Max…
Admit it…you’re just mad because California may get “Moonbeam Brown” back as Governor!
By the way…is there really ANYBODY…conservative or liberal…that really “likes” that opportunist-of-all opportunist Gloria Allred? (Except for maybe Brown at this moment…)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.[/quote]
I think the answer is that you should vote for the person that best represents your opinions even if they don’t stand a chance to win.
[/quote]
Well of course I do. Thank goodness you helped me with that. Even then, there isn’t one that I see as a bright and shining light.[/quote]
:)[/quote]
my bad, the bitchy sarcasm was uncalled for
[/quote]
Don’t mention it
The point is that he is entitled to speak his opinion. Stop crying unless somehow the right to free speech doesn’t apply to him.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Rolling Stone? Really? You cite a mag that glorifies drugs, hollywood, narcissism, hedonism and dysfunctional culture in general. Awesome! I wonder how many lines of coke the author did while writing this. [/quote]
LOL. Yep, this is true. 'Course “I” didn’t cite RS, the OP did (through a second source). Personally, this and the Mcchrystal article are the only times I’ve read the mag (since I was a kid). Looks like they’re trying to be serious or something…lol. You’ve got a good point.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Heh, yes. The President conducts an interview with Rolling Stone to bash Fox News and otherwise the lament of objective journalism. [/quote]
Good point. 'Course Pat is correct about why below.
[quote]
There is plenty of good and legitimate reasons to complain about the lack of objective journalism in this country - but the President doesn’t have the credibility to be one of the complainers.[/quote]
Yeah he does. You might not like it, or him, but he does.
It speaks to how well fox has been doing. That said, it’s pretty obvious he wasn’t going for people who have left him, but his base. Direct attacks like this are sure to fire the base up.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
GL,
How do you sit there and talk shit about Fox News, for pointing out things that do not fall in line with the president and his plan, yet chest-thump about loving free speech? Hi pot, meet kettle.
This is typical Lib thinking… (only I am entitled.)
Libs can’t be racist, they can’t discriminate, they don’t have to follow the rules because they are always the victim, they deserve exemptions (and how dare you question the why of it.) [/quote]
I’m not “talking shit” about Fox here. I think they’ve been amazingly effective. So effective, in fact, that they’ve got the progressive base up in arms and the president commenting. As far as “victim-hood” recently I’ve been seeing far too much of it on all sides. It surprises me coming from the conservative sources that claim to be so against it though.
[quote]pat wrote:
He’s the best advertising they ever had! By deriding them he acknowledges they are very powerful and he is afraid of him…
Name another news organization a president was publicly afraid of? [/quote]
This is completely right. It’s obvious by the “presidential shout out” here that Fox has been extremely effective and is a powerful force.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Yeah he does. You might not like it, or him, but he does.[/quote]
No, he doesn’t, because he has made it clear he has no use for objective journalism.
No, “diect attacks” like this aren’t going to fire his base up - this is nothing new for the President. He’s been bashing the critical editorialist du jour since being in office. Fox-bashing is old schtick the base has seen and heard before.
And, Obama doesn’t need the “base”. He needs the “moderates”. The “base” won’t keep the House in 2010, and it won’t win him a second term in 2012.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The point is that he is entitled to speak his opinion. Stop crying unless somehow the right to free speech doesn’t apply to him.[/quote]
No one is complaining that he shouldn’t be entitled to say it, they are complaining about what he is saying - i.e., countering free speech with more free speech.
Good Lord.
There certainly is plenty of whining in this thread, if not from the President.
I watched the mainstream liberal media pummel George Bush for 8 years and, to my knowledge he never once whined about it. I think that’s the difference between a full fledged man and man/boy Obama.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Commander Hope’n’Change the man-child whining about Fox News:
Where is his opinion of MSNBC? They are every bit as biased. This country elected a whiny little crybaby, not a leader.[/quote]
He’s the best advertising they ever had! By deriding them he acknowledges they are very powerful and he is afraid of him…
Name another news organization a president was publicly afraid of? [/quote]
Washington post.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Yeah he does. You might not like it, or him, but he does.[/quote]
No, he doesn’t, because he has made it clear he has no use for objective journalism. [/quote]
Assuming an objective journalist could actually be found, I’m sure POTUS could think up a use for him/her.
No, “diect attacks” like this aren’t going to fire his base up - this is nothing new for the President. He’s been bashing the critical editorialist du jour since being in office. Fox-bashing is old schtick the base has seen and heard before.
And, Obama doesn’t need the “base”. He needs the “moderates”. The “base” won’t keep the House in 2010, and it won’t win him a second term in 2012.[/quote]
That’s an interesting perspective. But regardless of if you are right or wrong about this. It is hard to deny he was attempting to fire up his base. His comments about fox were only a small part of that effort.
Take the ending for example:
[i] [Signaled by his aides, the president brings the interview to a close and leaves the Oval Office. A moment later, however, he returns to the office and says that he has one more thing to add. He speaks with intensity and passion, repeatedly stabbing the air with his finger.]
One closing remark that I want to make: It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election. There may be complaints about us not having gotten certain things done, not fast enough, making certain legislative compromises. But right now, we’ve got a choice between a Republican Party that has moved to the right of George Bush and is looking to lock in the same policies that got us into these disasters in the first place, versus an administration that, with some admitted warts, has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward.
The idea that we’ve got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible.
Everybody out there has to be thinking about what’s at stake in this election and if they want to move forward over the next two years or six years or 10 years on key issues like climate change, key issues like how we restore a sense of equity and optimism to middle-class families who have seen their incomes decline by five percent over the last decade. If we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties, we’d better fight in this election. And right now, we are getting outspent eight to one by these 527s that the Roberts court says can spend with impunity without disclosing where their money’s coming from. In every single one of these congressional districts, you are seeing these independent organizations outspend political parties and the candidates by, as I said, factors of four to one, five to one, eight to one, 10 to one.
We have to get folks off the sidelines. People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up. Bringing about change is hard â?? that’s what I said during the campaign. It has been hard, and we’ve got some lumps to show for it. But if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.
If you’re serious, now’s exactly the time that people have to step up.[/i]
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Assuming an objective journalist could actually be found, I’m sure POTUS could think up a use for him/her.[/quote]
That isn’t ths issue - the issue is when you publicly commit to a position of “MSNBC/Olbermann/Maddow do good work for this country and Fox News does things that hurt this country”, you don’t have standing to complain about biased journalism. If it bothers you when it is unfavorable, it has to bother you when it is also favorable as a matter of principle, because bias is bad, no matter which way it cuts - and the President has shown no interest in that principle.
There is no doubt that he is trying to fire up his base - I am not denying it. But, while it isn’t a great strategy, it’s clearly the only strategy he has left,. Moderate voters have left him in droves, and there’s no amount of speeches between now and November that can repair that loss, and maybe not ever, given the President’s ideological commitment to hitch his wagon to Pelosi-driven policy no matter what.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Now, Max…
Admit it…you’re just mad because California may get “Moonbeam Brown” back as Governor!
By the way…is there really ANYBODY…conservative or liberal…that really “likes” that opportunist-of-all opportunist Gloria Allred? (Except for maybe Brown at this moment…)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.[/quote]
I think the answer is that you should vote for the person that best represents your opinions even if they don’t stand a chance to win.
[/quote]
Well of course I do. Thank goodness you helped me with that. Even then, there isn’t one that I see as a bright and shining light.[/quote]
Don’t vote then. I’m not deriding you, I just suggest that not voting is a submission of no confidence for any candidate. You are still participating in the process by omission.
Better yet, if you feel passionate, about ACTIVELY participating, would be to participate in the party process for candidate selection or run for office yourself.
I was flipping channels the other night and said, Hey let me check out some news channels, Haven’t watched any news in a while. MSNBC, Maddow. I literally felt nausea after 3 minutes. FLIP, Fox, Hannity. Same feeling, only this time it took 5 minutes.
It’s one thing to have an opinion, but to be so detached from reality, so one sided, it’s just mind blowing. I’ll give Hannity this, he knows what he is. He was discussing the bias in the Matt Lauer interview with Obama and he said something to the following. "my show is a discussion, it’s opinion. I’m bringing up ITEMS the news has covered and we are discussing them and I have my views. I try to bring the other side in and we debate it, but I do have my positions but thats what my show is. Lauer is supposed to be doing journalism, he isn’t supposed to be advancing a “side” yet he didn’t ask about 5 really big and tough questions that people want to put the president on the spot for. He basically gave him a free ad, some free good press. Etc…
Not word for word, but I’ll give him credit, as annoying as he is, for knowing he is just an opinion show. Maddow is batshit crazy.
V
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I watched the mainstream liberal media pummel George Bush for 8 years and, to my knowledge he never once whined about it. I think that’s the difference between a full fledged man and man/boy Obama.[/quote]
Nope like a full fledged man he let his daddy talk for him
oh and before you ad hominem me as an Obama supporter I’m not.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Now, Max…
Admit it…you’re just mad because California may get “Moonbeam Brown” back as Governor!
By the way…is there really ANYBODY…conservative or liberal…that really “likes” that opportunist-of-all opportunist Gloria Allred? (Except for maybe Brown at this moment…)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.[/quote]
Exactly this. It saddens me that we seem to be driven by negative voting rather that positive voting. By this I mean the average voter is being driven to vote against a candidate rather than voting for a candidate. Both parties campaign in this manner, so I’m not some naive party liner swallowing the kool aid. My belief is that any candidate, especially in this economy and current conditions, could really do well running a positive campaign that stresses what THEY would do. A campaign that was tirelessly optimistic about the future; highlighting the greatness of the United States and the greatness we as countrymen could yet achieve. Reference Reagan and his shining city on the hill speech. Reagan compared this country to a great, shining city upon a hill, now we have Obama apologizing for “American arrogance” at every turn.
We’re a long way from Reagan…