ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [212] -- Economic Messaging

[ Posted Friday, May 25th, 2012 – 17:12 PDT ]

We're going to open with what we'll call "Constitutional Tomfoolery, Part One" (you'll note that this implies, through a technique known as "foreshadowing," that the Republicans have exhibited some sheer silliness in reference to our country's founding governmental compact more than once in the past week). John Brunner, Republican candidate for the Senate from Missouri, made an extraordinary statement this week in a radio interview: "When I'm in the U.S. Senate, I'm going to tell my scheduling guy, 'Here's how we're going to work it here: I'm going to have a pile of Constitutions on my desk, I'm going to have a can of yellow highlighters. Anybody who wants to have a meeting with me, you grab that yellow highlighter [and] mark it in the Constitution and we'll have a meeting. If it's not there, no meeting.' "

Um... Ohhh... kayyy. So let's see... the head of the United States Air Force tries to schedule a meeting, but Senator Brunner turns him down because military force in the skies is not mentioned in the Constitution? Really? The list of things which simply were not around back then is indeed a long one: the Internet, automobiles, telephones, television, radio, nuclear weapons, drug laws, labor laws, Social Security, and a whole host of other important legislative subjects. But anyone desiring a meeting with the senator will just be out of luck, one supposes. The good news? The senator's door will likely be open for lobbyists on the burning issue of letters of marque and reprisal.

OK, we understand that this is garden-variety election pandering to the Tea Party base and all of that, but we feel duty-bound to offer up a little garden-variety ridicule to go with it. Which brings us to "Constitutional Tomfoolery, Part Two." Some New York Republican state politicians feel it's a good use of their time to attempt to ban anonymous online comments. No more cute login names, sorry folks. No more pretending you're someone you're not. Name, rank, and serial number will be required (OK, not really, but we just couldn't resist). I wrote about the sheer idiocy of this legislative elevator-fart earlier this week, and my prediction that, in the unlikely event that the bill passed and is signed into law, it will soon thereafter be laughed out of court by a federal judge. Seriously, all you Republicans -- have you guys actually read the Constitution? The whole thing? Amendments and all? Because from where we're sitting it really seems you need a quick remedial course on the basics.

The Senate just gave a very serious finger-wagging to one of its own... well, no, they didn't, really. They certainly didn't give Republican Tom Coburn anything approaching a smack on the wrist. But then, politicians are notoriously bad at policing their own ranks.

Speaking of which -- a right-wing icon has apparently taken to likening Senator Chuck Schumer to Nazis, for pushing a bill to lay a tax on people who give up their American citizenship to make a few more bucks. Because, um, the Weimar Republic (and then Hitler) taxed the Jews or something? It's hard to follow such logic, and Schumer showed some righteous outrage in response. The entire Republican Party was, of course, silent on the matter. Maybe they're afraid of losing the vote of those who think Democrats are Nazis... at this point, it's just hard to tell what the Republican Party is thinking.

Liberals are apparently being mean to the Supreme Court, which (as we all know) Republicans would never in a million years think of doing... (pause for extended laughing fit)... (wipes eyes)... seriously, you guys just crack me up sometimes.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

President Obama, a few weeks back, offered up his support for gay marriage. Since that time, it seems he's changed a few minds in the African-American community. The NAACP announced its support. The polls are even more startling -- in Maryland, support among African-Americans for gay marriage went from 39 to 55 percent in two months. In a national poll, support jumped from 41 to 59 percent. There's a word for this sort of phenomenon, and that word is "leadership." We already issued a special "Most Impressive" award for Obama when he made his announcement, but we did want to update the positive effects of his stand.

But this week, our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is none other than Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, for reintroducing the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would strengthen federal law on paycheck equality for women. She was joined in this effort by fellow senators Patty Murray, Debbie Stabenow, Dianne Feinstein, Ben Cardin, Al Franken, and Barbara Boxer, who are all hereby awarded Honorable Mentions for their support.

Republicans can keep howling at the monstrous unfairness of those mean Democrats using the term "War on Women" against them, but American women are smarter than they think. Because most women pay much more attention to what you do rather than what you say -- and time after time, Democrats are on the side of legislatively helping women, while Republicans are either against such laws or are instead trying to actively hurt women with their own legislation. Mikulski's bill is an excellent example of this, and you had better believe we'll see this issue highlighted out on the campaign trail of more than a few Democrats.

Which is why Barbara Mikulski is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week -- for her attempt at shaming the Republicans into doing the right thing. Well done, Senator Mikulski!

[Congratulate Senator Barbara Mikulski on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We simply must hand out at least a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week to Ted Vick, a South Carolina Democrat (currently in state government) running for a U.S. House seat. Vick was arrested for suspected drunken driving and speeding. Oh, and he had a handgun in his pocket. And by the way, a 21-year-old college student was reportedly in the car with him, because he had "offered the student a ride home" -- after he met her at a local bar.

You just can't make this stuff up, folks. Sigh.

Ted Vick would have been the clear winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, however his award status was downgraded -- because he immediately did the right thing and withdrew from the House race.

Instead, our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Newark mayor Cory Booker. Last Sunday, Booker made news on one of the political chatfests by stating it was "nauseating" what the man he was ostensibly appearing on the show to support -- President Barack Obama -- was doing. This stomach-churning on Booker's part was apparently caused by the Obama team being mean to Mitt Romney about Bain Capital. Booker was immediately featured in a Republican ad, crowing about how Obama's got a real "with friends like these..." type of problem. Booker then tried to walk his comments back, not very convincingly and not to any noticeable effect.

Booker would have been better advised, in the video he released walking his own comments back, to have spoken the truth: "I am planning on running for higher office soon, and I have a lot of buddies on Wall Street who might just give me piles of money to achieve this ambition. I was very sad that Obama was so mean to them, and I thought it was in my own self-interest to say what I did, in the hopes of furthering my career as a politician."

But since he didn't say anything remotely like that, he has more than earned his Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. Note to Obama campaign: maybe a little better vetting is called for, in future, for your surrogates on Sunday morning? Might be worth a thought....

[Contact Mayor Cory Booker on his official Newark contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 212 (5/25/12)

We're going to take a week here to focus on economics here in the talking points portion of the program. It's the economy, stupid, and all of that sort of thing. While still exhibiting a healthy amount of distrust for any sort of "conventional wisdom," as is our wont, this election may indeed hinge on one overarching issue -- the American economy. Democrats need to start making their case in a broader way, heading into the election.

Fortunately, Mitt Romney has provided a wonderful opening to this conversation. Enjoy, as always, and feel free to use these suggested talking points either around the water cooler or on the set of your favorite Sunday morning chat-a-thon.

 

1
   Government spending equals jobs and growth

Once again, when Mitt's handlers let him loose on a non-conservative journalist, Mitt opened his mouth and went off-script.

"I notice in a recent interview with Time magazine, Governor Romney pretty much admitted that the Republican Party's plans for all-austerity-all-the-time would destroy the American economy. The Governor said, and I quote: if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. Unquote. Mitt also said he was 'not going to do that, of course.' Really? Does anyone think if the Republicans took over Congress and sent him a bill which slashed the budget in a seriously-destructive way, that Mitt Romney would stand up to his own party and essentially say, 'hold on there, guys, ending all this government spending would kill jobs, growth, and the GDP, so I'm going to have to veto this bill'? Does anyone really believe that? Mitt Romney just committed what is known as a 'Washington gaffe' -- he accidentally spoke the truth about the economy and the budget, and admitted that the Republican austerity-only plan for the future would be devastating, and would cut growth."

 

2
   This goes beyond the Pentagon

Which brings up another point, on the same subject.

"I notice that the House just passed a military appropriations bill which spends us even further into debt. They are ignoring budget cuts they previously agreed to, which will increase the federal deficit -- but, somehow, because it is going to the Pentagon, that's supposed to be OK. Republican hypocrisy on the subject of government spending simply could not be clearer. Republicans are for increasing government spending because it brings jobs to their districts even when the money has to be borrowed -- which runs counter to pretty much every single thing they've said for the past three or four years. You can't have it both ways -- either government spending creates jobs and grows the economy, or it doesn't. Whether the money cycles through the Pentagon or not. Republicans trying to straddle this issue simply look foolishly inconsistent, in my opinion."

 

3
   Tax cuts do not pay for themselves

This used to be a Republican go-to talking point, but you just don't hear it much anymore. So point out why!

The link in this one is to an excellent article this week by Bob Cesca, which has many helpful charts that I'll be referring to here. For this particular one, please see Bob's first two charts.

"I remember decades and decades of Republican leaders trying to sell the American people the line that 'tax cuts pay for themselves.' They had some voodoo economics which said the more you cut taxes, the more money comes in to the government. Well, you know what folks? It's just not true. The biggest reason -- by far -- for the explosion in the deficit is the Bush tax cuts. Tax cuts cost the government money. It's just common sense. And yet Republicans continue to advance their tax-cutting ideas, but absolutely refuse to pay for any of them. For anyone who can do elementary-school math, this leads to one inescapable result: the deficit goes up when you cut taxes. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and it's about time Republicans just admitted they've been wrong all these years."

 

4
   Some Republicans are waking up

A glimmer of light dawns in a very dark place.

"I see that fewer and fewer Republican candidates for office are willing to sell their soul to Grover Norquist and his pledge. Maybe some of them are finally waking up to economic reality, who knows?

 

5
   Investors do better under Democratic administrations

We turn to Alan Grayson's fine article to make this point.

"The New York Times showed, back in 2008, how much better investors do under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. If you had invested $10,000 in the stock market during the years Democrats had been president since 1929, you would now have $300,671. The same money invested under Republican presidents would have only left you with $11,733. Democrats in the White House are good for business. Barack Obama's term has been no different -- the stock market is booming once again, after falling off a cliff just before he was elected. As Alan Grayson put this, 'No wonder Republicans hate government -- they're so bad at it. Particularly when it comes to preserving national wealth.' "

 

6
   Reagan and Bushes hiked spending, not Obama

This has become a Republican mantra, but that doesn't make it the slightest bit true. Once again, we cite Bob Cesca, and his third and fourth graph (particularly the fourth).

"Republicans are lying to you when they tell you that spending has 'exploded' under Barack Obama. Ronald Reagan hiked spending by almost nine percent his first term in office, and five percent his second term. George W. Bush saw spending jumps of over seven percent and eight percent in the budgets he signed, and his father saw a climb of over five percent. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has kept spending increases in the federal budget down to less than two percent so far. It'd be nice if journalists stopped just repeating Republican falsehoods, and looked up these simple facts when discussing the issue."

 

7
   Taxmageddon!

Sigh. The continuing "let's put -mageddon or -pocalypse at the end of everything to because it sounds so cool" fad apparently has not yet gone away. Yes, this is actually what Beltway types are calling it, so expect to hear this saccharine term through December. You have been warned.

"The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a stark report this week, which shows what will happen if Congress fails to act on the austerity measures already built into the budget by past agreements -- many of which are scheduled to take place at the beginning of next year. This 'Taxmageddon,' as it is being called, needs to be dealt with, because the C.B.O. is giving us the choice between a growth rate for the American economy next year of 4.4 percent, or -- if Congress does nothing -- 0.5 percent. The C.B.O. says we will enter into a recession due to going over what they call a 'fiscal cliff.' Congress should begin working on this problem now, instead of pushing it off until after the election."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

75 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [212] -- Economic Messaging”

  1. [1] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Sigh. Michale will twist your thoughts into his usual pretzel while Bold-facing his "facts"...My over/under for his comments disagreeing with this is 15 posts, beyond that who knows how many additional comments he'll make trying to buttress his "logic"? I'll probably refrain from commenting for a week whilst he makes me look like a psychic...OK, Michale, let your silliness begin.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are on the side of legislatively helping women, while Republicans are either against such laws or are instead trying to actively hurt women with their own legislation.

    Report: Murray, Feinstein, Boxer paid female staffers less than male staffers
    examiner.com/article/report-murray-feinstein-boxer-pay-female-staffers-less-than-male-staffers

    'Nuff said on THAT....

    nstead, our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Newark mayor Cory Booker. Last Sunday, Booker made news on one of the political chatfests by stating it was "nauseating" what the man he was ostensibly appearing on the show to support -- President Barack Obama -- was doing.

    Oh, come on... Booker simply told the truth. What's it called. A Washington truth?? Beltway truth??

    Obama's attack on Bain is hypocritical in the extreme when one considers how much money he is taking in from Bain people and how badly HE has frak'ed up people's jobs...

    I'll get to the TPs later this weekend.. :D

    Kevin,

    Obsess much?? :D

    I realize that facts are an annoying thing... Especially since 98% of the facts these days are going against Obama and the Democrats...

    6 Nov simply cannot come soon enough..

    But just THINK of all the fun we're gonna have under a Romney Administration.. :D

    Michale.....

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Bain...

    The accusation from the Obama administration is that Romney (as Bain) went in and took over control of a bunch of companies and thousands of people lost their jobs..

    Ignoring the fact that NO ONE has been able to point to a Bain acquisition that fit the criteria when Romney was with Bain, wouldn't Obama's actions with the auto industry meet the same criteria??

    Didn't Obama acquire control of 3 of the major Auto Companies and didn't tens of thousands of people lose their jobs??

    I mean, everyone around here likes to tout the fiction that Obama "saved the auto industry" nearly single-handedly..

    But wasn't the result of this, that tens of thousands of jobs were lost??

    So, it seems to me that the claims against Romney from the Obama camp could ALSO be made against Obama..

    I won't even bother mentioning all the companies that went bankrupt AFTER Obama poured billions of taxpayers dollars into them.. Hell with one company, Obama was touting it in the morning and it went bankrupt THAT AFTERNOON...

    Talk about the kiss of death, eh??

    When you compare the numbers on the job losses where Romney had a DIRECT hand in to the number of job losses tied to Obama, Obama has the higher total hands down, every day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    There are dozens of Democrats out there who say that the Bain issue is a BAD to VERY BAD issue for Obama to base his entire campaign on...

    I have a feeling those Democrats are going to turn out to be dead on ballz accurate..

    Michale.....

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you compare the numbers on the job losses where Romney had a DIRECT hand in to the number of job losses tied to Obama, Obama has the higher total hands down, every day of the week and twice on Sunday....

    Cue claims of "Oh, that's different"... :D

    Michale.....

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Especially since 98% of the facts these days are going against Obama and the Democrats...

    And yes... I hyperbole much... :D

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, since we're talking economic issues, maybe someone can explain something to me.
    (Yes David, I am looking at you.. :D)

    What the frak is up with all this Facebook/"Zucked Up" stuff???

    Thanx in advance...

    Michale....

  7. [7] 
    dsws wrote:

    The biggest reason -- by far -- for the explosion in the deficit is the Bush tax cuts.

    Depends on the time frame, and on what numbers you happen to pick out.

    You can take any significant chunk of the budget, wish it away, run the numbers, and see that hey presto the deficit vanishes. The Bush/Obama tax cuts are certainly one thing that I would wish to have go away as part of dealing with the deficit. But you can take baseline military spending, or medical costs, or retirement-related costs directly or indirectly affecting the government, or demographic changes in earning power, and do the same thing.

    If you treat all baselines fairly, the spike in the deficit from 07 to 09 is almost all from the Great Recession. That's not a problem. It's a good feature for government spending to have. We tax stuff (mostly income) that goes up when the economy is overheating and down when it's below capacity; we automatically spend on stuff that's more costly when the economy is in the gutter and less costly when it's pretending to grow faster than it really can. Such responsiveness automatically helps stabilize the system.

    If you look at the deficit in the decade or two ahead (which is when it really matters), the big issues are medical costs and retirement.

  8. [8] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What the frak is up with all this Facebook/"Zucked Up" stuff?

    Heheh. It's the new norm on Wall Street. Insiders get the profits, the public takes on all the risk. The system is seriously broken.

    It would be nice if the SEC made an example out of JP Morgan, Morgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs, but the odds of them receiving anything other than a slap on the wrist are likely low.

    -David

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heheh. It's the new norm on Wall Street. Insiders get the profits, the public takes on all the risk. The system is seriously broken.

    Then let's get it fixed! :D

    It would be nice if the SEC made an example out of JP Morgan, Morgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs, but the odds of them receiving anything other than a slap on the wrist are likely low

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record (too late!! :D) it's unlikely they will be punished at all, since they seem to be the Administration's golden boys... :D

    What was it Obama said?? Something about JP Morgan being one of the best run banks there is??

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW... When ya get a chance, could ya fix #4 for me. Don't want to look like an idjut...

    Again.. Too Late! :D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kevin,

    I'll probably refrain from commenting for a week whilst he makes me look like a psychic.

    Don't pat yourself on the back TOO much... :D

    Predicting that I am going to bring a bunch of facts to the weekly FTP is like "predicting" that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west..

    It's, pretty much, a guaranteed event.. :D

    "You have a problem with the way that I am...
    Well that ain't no problem cuz I don't give a damn.."

    -Whitney Houston, QUEEN OF THE NIGHT

    :D

    Peace out....

    Michale...

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Then let's get it fixed! :D

    Here, here!

    The trouble is that in order to fix it, we need a lot more people to stop buying what Wall Street is selling.

    In other words, what we need is more regulation. But I'm guessing we'll have to see a lot more financial disasters before this happens.

    -David

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    The trouble is that in order to fix it, we need a lot more people to stop buying what Wall Street is selling.

    Or, more accurately, we need our leaders to quit prostituting themselves to Wall Street..

    In other words, what we need is more regulation. But I'm guessing we'll have to see a lot more financial disasters before this happens

    I wouldn't automatically say that more regulation is the answer..

    Unless it's the RIGHT kind of regulation, simply piling on more regulations would likely do more harm than good..

    It's like Gun Control.. We don't need MORE gun control regulation. We simply need to enforce the regulations that are already on the books..

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Unless it's the RIGHT kind of regulation, simply piling on more regulations would likely do more harm than good.

    Fair enough. All I want in the case of the financial industry is what we had under Glass-Steagall. Basically, what worked for 60 years to separate investment banks from federally insured banks.

    It's like Gun Control.. We don't need MORE gun control regulation. We simply need to enforce the regulations that are already on the books.

    I don't know this area as well as financial regulation, but I'd likely agree on this. Enforcement has been a big issue in the finance world as well. The SEC has largely been neutered by folks acting on behalf of Wall St.

    I'm against regulations for the sake of regulations. All I'd ask is, let's look at what's worked and what hasn't and try to come up with a balance that's best for everyone.

    -David

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    agreed, what we need is not more rules, it's stricter enforcement.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ANOTHER consensus formed!!!

    Holy crap!! :D

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    All this agreement is making me nervous...

    Barack Obama is facing his Jimmy Carter moment
    As Mitt Romney closes the gap, it is 1980 all over again for the man in the Oval Office.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9289994/Barack-Obama-is-facing-his-Jimmy-Carter-moment.html

    ahhhhhhhhh I feel better now... :D

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    dsws wrote:

    Privatized regulation is part of the problem. FINRA has no basis in democracy.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Investors do better under Democratic administrations

    We turn to Alan Grayson's fine article to make this point.

    So, what you are saying is that, under Democrat Presidents, the rich get richer??

    Is that it?? :D

    Seriously, though.. What was the make up of Congress under those Dem Presidents??

    I betcha quatloos that the GOP held the power in Congress...

    Therefore (if so), Grayson's conclusion is false.

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm against regulations for the sake of regulations.

    That's dead on balls accurate..

    But it seems that every time there is an incident that affects (Joshua: "effects"???) either the financial area or the gun control area, the Left goes batshit with new regulations..

    Conveniently forgetting that regulations are already in place, but are just not enforced...

    I think that ANYONE who advocates for more regulation to address an incident should unequivocally state that from the outset that there is no regulation currently on the books that would have addressed and/or prevented said incident..

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, Beryl was a wimp... :D

    Michale......

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But it seems that every time there is an incident that affects (Joshua: "effects"???) either the financial area or the gun control area, the Left goes batshit with new regulations..

    in this case, i think "affects" (changes/influences) was indeed what you meant, not "effects" (implements/achieves). it's a bit muddy because every time the government effects new regulations, it affects the old regulations.

    confused yet?

    :)
    JL

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's a bit muddy because every time the government effects new regulations, it affects the old regulations.

    confused yet?

    "Wait a tick. Basil, if I travel back to 1969 and I was frozen in 1967, presumeably, I could go back and visit my frozen self. But, if I'm still frozen in 1967, how could I have been unthawed in the '90s and traveled back to...... Oh, no, I've gone cross-eyed."
    -Austin Powers, AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME

    :D

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Here's a factoid I'm surprised nobody's making political hay out of -- one that's relevant to you, because you probably saw it from your porch (or maybe not, it may have happened in the middle of the night).

    Under Obama, $380m of US money went to SpaceX. Took them $1b to get to where they are. Not everything the US invests in is Solyndra.

    I'm just sayin'.

    [Aside: Beryl? Who's Beryl?]

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Under Obama, $380m of US money went to SpaceX. Took them $1b to get to where they are. Not everything the US invests in is Solyndra.

    There's a couple other things to remember here as well ...

    1) A general R&D guideline is that 9 out of 10 new ideas are going to fail.

    2) $500 million is less than .01% of the 2011 Federal budget.

    3) Solyndra failed in large part because they were competing w/ heavily subsidized Chinese solar panel production.

    4) The loan guarantee to Solyndra started in 2007 under ... ahem, a different President. "In late 2007, Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed eligible for $4 billion worth of loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy. Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley electric carmaker, and Oakland's BrightSource Energy, a builder of solar-thermal plants, also made that list."

    What does this mean? All of the conspiracy theory stories about Solyndra being "politically connected" to Obama are pure political propaganda.

    -David

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    1) A general R&D guideline is that 9 out of 10 new ideas are going to fail.

    and there's still doubt about charter schools being a bad idea?

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a factoid I'm surprised nobody's making political hay out of -- one that's relevant to you, because you probably saw it from your porch (or maybe not, it may have happened in the middle of the night).

    Under Obama, $380m of US money went to SpaceX. Took them $1b to get to where they are. Not everything the US invests in is Solyndra.

    I'm just sayin'.

    Point conceded.. Not EVERYTHING Obama does is crap, I will readily admit..

    http://nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

    That article (it's a long one) almost makes me admire Obama again...

    My beef with Obama and his stimulus is it, by and large, went out to companies based on political loyalty and not competence..

    Can you point to any companies that received a large chuck of stimulus as Solyndra et al that were hostile to Obama and his policies??

    I don't think there's a one...

    But, for the record, I DID miss the launch.. Which is a shame, as I bet it would have lit up the sky.. :D

    Speaking of launches, anyone catch the new MIB movie?? Saw it yesterday.. Enjoyed it immensely.. :D

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Aside: Beryl? Who's Beryl?]

    Thought it got more national air play..

    http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/depression-storm-beryl-20120526

    Beryl was one of the weirdest storms in history.

    She formed a week before the official Hurricane Season started.

    She's the strongest storm ever recorded in May, just shy of a Category One Hurricane..

    And the weirdest thing is that she actually had a southward trajectory. Storms that form above the 30th Parallel usually have a northward trajectory..

    All in all, an auspicious start to the 2012 Hurricane Season..

    For our parts, not much. A lot of rain, but mostly at night...

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    All of the conspiracy theory stories about Solyndra being "politically connected" to Obama are pure political propaganda.

    Are you saying that there is NO political connection between Solyndra and the Administration??

    "Mr McGee, don't make me {GOOGLE}. You wouldn't like me when I {GOOGLE}."

    :D

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Are you saying that there is NO political connection between Solyndra and the Administration?

    What I haven't seen is any evidence of political favoritism based on donations received. The company was selected by the Bush admin for crimany's sake.

    What I'm saying is that most of this "issue" seems like bloviated hype.

    -David

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I haven't seen is any evidence of political favoritism based on donations received. The company was selected by the Bush admin for crimany's sake.

    Yes, the company was selected by the Bush Administration.

    But further loans were approved by the Obama Administration after there were real and repeated indications that the company was sinking..

    Add to that the obvious and not-so-obvious connections between the Obama Administration and Solyndra and you can draw a pretty accurate inference, if not conclusion....

    Remember. Politics is 90% perception.

    "Power Perceived is Power Achieved"

    What I'm saying is that most of this "issue" seems like bloviated hype.

    Just like many of the issues the Left brought up against Bush were the "bloviated" type.

    Just like many of the issues the Left brings up against Romney are of the "bloviated" type.

    I mean... Bullied someone in high school??

    REALLY!!???

    :^/

    Where would politics be without bloviation?? :D

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note.. June is fast approaching...

    Does anyone have any ideas when the SCOTUS might hand down it's rulings??

    Michale....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tjfQA4lkbo

    Still think that Obama's Bain Strategy is the right way to go??

    The problem with political attacks is that one must make sure they are not guilty of the same actions that the target of the attack is guilty of..

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Where would politics be without bloviation?

    In a much better place? ... :)

    This is all well and understood that politicians will bloviate, but it should be the media's job to distinguish between what is real and what is bloviation.

    Not to bloviate more.

    For example, in this Solyndra bloviation, how come you don't hear the "liberal media" talking about the other 38 billion in loans? How come you don't hear them talking about how only 1 has really gone bad? How come you rarely hear it mentioned that the program began under a completely different President?

    How come so many facts are missing? How come so many others are twisted?

    Power Perceived is Power Achieved

    Is this all conservatives care about then? Power?

    Is this why they tell so many stories?

    I guess I believe that power corrupts. This is also why I'd rather hear the facts. Not just the convenient facts from one side or the other.

    -David

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, Michale. Where's the so-called liberal media's liberal-based coverage which exists everywhere but on Fox?

    I haven't seen any liberal media on this one. Could this be because there really isn't any "liberal media"?

    -David

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a much better place? ... :)

    No doubt... But, if there wasn't bloviation, would it be politics?? :D

    For example, in this Solyndra bloviation, how come you don't hear the "liberal media" talking about the other 38 billion in loans? How come you don't hear them talking about how only 1 has really gone bad? How come you rarely hear it mentioned that the program began under a completely different President?

    The media talks about a LOT of loans..

    The Liberal Media talks constantly about the auto bailout.. The Conservative Media (such as it is) talks about the other loans that went bad..

    So, it's not as if it's not talked about...

    The problem is, Obama is staking his campaign attacks against Romney on things that Obama himself has done...

    "Hiya Pot."
    -Kettle

    How come so many facts are missing? How come so many others are twisted?

    You tell me.. There as much missing and twisted facts coming from the Left as there are from the Right...

    Is this all conservatives care about then? Power?

    And Liberals care not??

    Come on! I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night... :D

    Democrats and Republicans are ALL about power..

    They want it and they want to deny the other from having it...

    Where's the so-called liberal media's liberal-based coverage which exists everywhere but on Fox?

    I am not sure... No.. I am sure.

    I don't understand the question...

    Are we back to discussing the MSM being in the bag for Obama and Democrats?? Or is this a new Liberal Media discussion??

    Michale.....

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    You want a perfect example of Media Bias??

    Holder to brief black pastors on campaign 2012

    Nobody in the media says "boo"...

    Now, what would happen in the MSM if THIS was the headline??

    Romney Campaign to brief White pastors on campaign 2012

    The Left *AND* the MSM would go absolutely BATSHIT over something like that..

    You want another example??

    Black mob brutally beat white couple in Norfolk.

    Bet you haven't even READ about this story, eh? Even though the couple beat were actually reporters, it wasn't even reported IN THEIR OWN NEWSPAPER!!! Nothing from the MSM whatSOever...

    Now, imagine THIS was the headline:

    White mob brutally beat black couple in Norfolk.

    The Left AND the MSM would, once again, go absolutely apeshit over that and it would be the lead story for WEEKS...

    Now, the ONLY thing that explains these instances, plus hundreds of others, is media bias...

    NO other explanation fits the facts...

    Since the bias is to the LEFT, ergo, the vast majority of the MSM is Left-Biased..

    Again, no other explanation fits the facts...

    Michale.....

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The Liberal Media talks constantly about the auto bailout.. The Conservative Media (such as it is) talks about the other loans that went bad.

    So the Solyndra loan was part of a loan guarantee program which originated in 2005. Since origination, the program has guaranteed over $38 billion in loans. Solyndra being the rotten apple.

    For ~$500 million. Only a small percentage of which was given out once the company was going south. Try to find that number though.

    I don't understand the question.

    Again, specifically talking about Solyndra. Where's the "liberal media" coverage?

    If there was a "liberal media," wouldn't you know about all of these things I'm mentioning?

    The answer is that there is no liberal media. Only corporate entertainment media which is interested in scandal because it sells.

    Imagine this headline in the media "98.7% of Government Energy Loan Guarantees Work". Think of all the papers this headline would sell ... :)

    But this ... "Obama and Romney Duel Over Birther Scandal, Solyndra" would sell. Conflict. Scandal. It explains your examples as well.

    -David

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    So the Solyndra loan was part of a loan guarantee program which originated in 2005. Since origination, the program has guaranteed over $38 billion in loans. Solyndra being the rotten apple.

    It wasn't just Solyndra. There were at least three more. All 4 were run by people who contributed a LOT of money to the Obama campaign. And Solyndra was given BILLIONS by the Obama Administration, even after it was known that they were going down..

    These are the facts that no one wants to talk about..

    But this ... "Obama and Romney Duel Over Birther Scandal, Solyndra" would sell. Conflict. Scandal. It explains your examples as well.

    Except for one minor point... The majority of the headlines generated by the vast majority of the MSM are Pro Obama and Anti-Romney..

    The "ratings" game doesn't explain it all because, in MANY instances, the media can generate MORE ratings and MORE drama by reporting the actual facts..

    This has been amply proven beyond any doubt..

    So, ratings and drama is not the goal. It's a means, but it's not the goal...

    Keeping the Democrats in power is the goal of the vast majority of the MSM..

    The evidence is as overwhelming as it is unequivocal...

    Oh sure. You might find an outlier here or there. ABC files a report critical of Obama and his administration and stuff like that..

    But by and large, the majority of the MSM is lead by the thrill down Matthews' leg....

    The examples are endless..

    Compare the coverage of Abu Ghariab to the coverage of the Afghanistan Kill Teams..

    Compare the coverage of torture and rendition under the Bush and Obama administrations..

    Obama starts a program "African Americans For Obama" and the MSM yawns..

    If Romney started a program "White People For Romney", the Left and the MSM (I know.. redundant) would go apeshit..

    How can you look at all these facts and not come to the ONLY logical conclusion???

    Michale....

  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The answer is that there is no liberal media.

    P.s. I should state for the record that there is liberal media. But it's certainly not the mainstream media. A more correct statement would have read, there is no "liberal media". (referring to the conservative conspiracy theory that any media with which they disagree is part of some vast liberal conspiracy)

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chris Hayes over at MSNBC, struggling with the idea of calling or service men and women "heroes"...

    ANOTHER recent example of the Left media bias..

    The examples are far and wide....

    Michale....

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any Media that pushes the Left Wing Agenda is Left Wing Media..

    MSNBC
    NBC
    CBS
    ABC

    All push a Left Wing agenda. Granted, there are outliers within those organizations...

    But, it's undeniable that those media outlets push a Left Wing agenda. Their reporters and their personnel all push a Left Wing agenda...

    Undeniable, I tell you! :D

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of the Left Wing/MSM debate, one question is upper most in my mind..

    How is Obama's actions with Solyndra et al any different than Romney's actions in Bain??

    The ONLY difference I can see is that Romney had nothing to do with the actions and Obama had a hand in everything...

    So, beyond that...

    What's the diff??

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The majority of the headlines generated by the vast majority of the MSM are Pro Obama and Anti-Romney.

    Now I know you've lost it ... :)

    Conservatives have not just one, but several media empires completely devoted to advancing conservative "news". Liberals have the equivalent of a couple blogs. And everything else in between is corporate media.

    If there really was liberal media, Michale, trust me, Romney would be at about 20% popularity. No one likes him. The only thing keeping him in this right now is the "anybody but Obama" anti-Obama narrative being broadcast by conservative media and rarely disputed in the corporate media.

    How is Obama's actions with Solyndra et al any different than Romney's actions in Bain?

    Well, first of all, they're completely different.

    Bain - Romney CEO. Private equity firm. Started as venture capital firm until realized it was easier to make money by taking over companies with loans that they made the company take out. Sometimes these loans would bankrupt the company. No matter. Bain takes their cut regardless. Kind of despicable, but not illegal. Romney claims this experience gives him business knowledge needed to run the country. Romney also claimed he created 100,000 jobs and later backtracked on this statement.

    Solyndra Solar firm. Used government-backed energy program started under Bush to help fund new technology. Solyndra employees have donated $20,800 to federal candidates and committees since 2006. Of this amount 72% went to Democrats, 27% to Republicans and 1% to Libertarians. The top recipient was Barack Obama who received $2,800. One of the investors in Solyndra was also a bundler for the Obama campaign. The company's lobbying expenditures peaked at $550,000 in 2010. Investigations since 2010 have revealed no Obama involvement or favoritism yet the accusations continue.

    They're actually two completely different situations.

    All push a Left Wing agenda.

    According to you and the conservative media ... :)

    And I'd know. I'm Left Wing. They're not printing much I'd want to read. Where are all the facts about Solyndra in the MSM? Not just the selective conservative ones.

    -David

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The ONLY difference I can see is that Romney had nothing to do with the actions and Obama had a hand in everything.

    Really? Romney was CEO. That means he was in charge. The only connection between Solyndra and Obama is that some investor also helped bundle money for his 2008 campaign. This is surprising? A solar firm investor also wanting to elect a progressive President?

    This would be like me saying "Oh look. I found one oil investor who also bundled money for President Bush. Look everyone!!! It's a SCANDAL!!!! One investor!!! They're connected. You see. It's crony capitalism!!! Bush is crooked and the media is in the bag for him."

    It's absolutely absurd.

    -David

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Conservatives have not just one, but several media empires completely devoted to advancing conservative "news".

    Remember, we're just talking MSM.. Not Talk Radio...

    Because, if you want to include ancillary sources of "news", then we would have to go with HuffPo, DK, etc etc etc..

    They're actually two completely different situations.

    Yea, and Bain starts with a "B" and Solyndra starts with a "S"..

    "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."

    Maybe I am just not understanding what exactly is being discussed, so let me lay out how I view things.

    As I understand it, Bain is a company that becomes involved with other companies (be it by taking them over, bailing them out, whatever) and if those companies start going bad, Bain sells off their assets to make a profit. And, Obama's attack says that when Bain did what it did, people lost their jobs...

    Now, if that's an accurate assessment, then Obama is being a hypocrite..

    Because that is EXACTLY what happened when Obama did the Auto Bailout and it's EXACTLY what happened with Solyndra et al..

    The Obama administration got involved with companies (be it by taking them over, bailing them out, whatever) and, when that happened, hundreds of thousands of workers lost their jobs..

    I fail to see the difference between Obama and Bain vis a vis that their actions caused people to lose their jobs...

    Further, if the Bain attacks are so dead on ballz accurate, why are Democrats against them??

    According to you and the conservative media ... :)

    No, according to anyone who can view the issue objectively. I have given you dozens of examples of Left Wing media bias.. I can give you HUNDREDS more...

    Let's look at just one of those examples..

    Explain to me exactly why the media coverage of Abu Ghraib was so disproportionate to the media coverage of the Afghanistan Kill Teams. Hell, Abu Ghraib amounted to nothing more than hazing.. The Kill Teams were going out there and brutally murdering innocent men, women and children and taking trophies!!

    What else could explain the disproportionate media coverage except Media Bias??

    Really? Romney was CEO. That means he was in charge.

    But he WASN'T in charge at the time that Obama says those companies were "raped"...

    THAT'S my whole point..

    Blaming Romney for Bain's actions is like blaming Obama for Vietnam. Obama wasn't POTUS at the time of Vietnam, so he has no responsibility for it whatsoever.

    Romney wasn't CEO of Bain at the time of those companies, so Romney has no responsibility for it, whatsoever..

    But do you know who WAS at Bain at the time of those company's "rape"??? A large Obama Bundler..

    And several officials in the Obama Administration were also at Bain at the time of the alleged "rape" of those companies..

    So, explain to me how Romeny is the "bad guy" because he was at Bain 10 years prior, but Obama will take money from a guy and will hire people who were with Bain AT THE TIME...

    The Bain issue is NOT a winning issue for Obama.

    But don't take my word for it.

    Just read what Democrats are saying about it...

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    More example's of Left Media Bias...

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Obama+%22Kill+List%22&oq=Obama+%22Kill+List%22&aq=f&aqi=g-z1g-mK1g-bK2&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i3j0i5i30j0i8i30l2.1638.5649.0.5968.17.17.0.0.0.2.814.4250.3j8j0j1j1j1j2.16.0...0.0.nhEjVidWjUo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=5011af4e75396751&biw=1920&bih=930

    Look at all the MSM reports on this. They speak of this "kill list" in glowing terms, how gutsy Obama is, etc etc etc..

    The fact that they are right is not relevant..

    Now, imagine what those SAME media outlets would be saying if it was BUSH'S "kill list"...

    You see the point??

    How can this be explained by anything BUT Left wing bias in the media??

    Ratings and Readers doesn't explain it..

    Michale....

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I have given you dozens of examples of Left Wing media bias.

    Yes, you've listed lots of examples. And you also continue to ignore any examples which don't fit your thesis.

    All of the conservative "outrage" stories which have played out in the MSM. Here's just a few examples:
    1. The birther story
    2. Solyndra
    3. The Reverend Wright
    4. The "Occupy = Terrorists" stories
    5. ACORN
    6. Iraq War propaganda ("They've got weapons of mass destruction!")
    7. Pro-bank bailout propaganda ("Too big to fail!")
    8. ClimateGate
    9. Pro Iran War propaganda ("They're going to get nuclear weapons!")

    The conservative approach to these stories is to air them in their media networks (Fox, ClearChannel, Gannett, Wall Street Journal, etc) to the point where the mainstream media picks up the story as "Here is what the right is saying ..."

    Here's a few things you'd know more about if there were a "liberal" media:
    1. ALEC
    2. Outsourcing
    3. Corporate lobbying
    4. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    5. Monsanto

    Note the connection here. All of these groups represent large corporate interests and either a) have a lot of money to sue your media organization, or b) represent significant advertising dollars that media are afraid to lose.

    In the MSM, it's ok to talk about liberal and conservative "culture wars". But you rarely see any investigative journalism regarding the corporations who run this country. A rare example is the unearthing of the illegal wiretapping program by the NY Times.

    Instead, we get the endless Left / Right faux controversy. Over. And over. And over. And over.

    -David

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Now, imagine what those SAME media outlets would be saying if it was BUSH'S "kill list".

    As for your kill list example. Let me explain how I think this likely works. Put yourself in the shoes of a newspaper editor.

    If Bush were President, the story wouldn't air unless there was enough push from blogs, etc, where the MSM finally had to acknowledge that such a kill list exists. Why? Because you risk offending Bush and losing any access he might grant to your paper.

    Under an Obama presidency, you can air the story, but again, you don't want to risk too much backlash and jeopardize any press access. So you paint Obama in a better light.

    The MSM caters to those in power unless somehow forced to acknowledge other stories. Basically, it's very rare that you'll see an article in the MSM challenging the powerful (unless their hand is forced).

    It's also why they tippy-toe around and say "Democrats said this, Republicans said this". Because they fear the blowback of advertisers and money.

    So there's certain controversies which it's ok to talk about (culture wars, left/right) and certain ones which are backpaged (you'll see the occasional article on, but they aren't front and center).

    -David

  50. [50] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- Kudos on the "kill list" example. If we truly had a liberal press I believe we'd here more about this. I believe we'd also hear more against the Afghanistan war.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of the conservative "outrage" stories which have played out in the MSM. Here's just a few examples:
    1. The birther story
    2. Solyndra
    3. The Reverend Wright
    4. The "Occupy = Terrorists" stories
    5. ACORN
    6. Iraq War propaganda ("They've got weapons of mass destruction!")
    7. Pro-bank bailout propaganda ("Too big to fail!")
    8. ClimateGate
    9. Pro Iran War propaganda ("They're going to get nuclear weapons!")

    OK.. NOW we're getting somewhere..

    1. The Birther story was ONLY reported in the MSM to ridicule those who put forth the idea that there are discrepancies with Obama's documents.. Now I don't consider ridiculing as "covering" the story..

    2. Solyndra. Again, the only "reporting" you see from the MSM on Solyndra is in defense of the Obama administration...

    Most of your examples you give, the "reporting" from the MSM is in the form of support for the Obama Administration..

    In other words, news outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC (except Jake Tapper) MSNBC have all become advocates for the Administration...

    That's not "reporting"...

    As far as the Iraq issue?? The MSM was simply following the lead of Democrats in Congress..

    How do you explain to disproportionate reporting of the Abu Ghraib/Afghanistan Kill Teams, if not by Leftist Media bias??

    Here's a few things you'd know more about if there were a "liberal" media:
    1. ALEC
    2. Outsourcing
    3. Corporate lobbying
    4. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    5. Monsanto

    I would have to disagree...

    I read up on those.. They seem to be the Birther/Agenda21/Davos Group conspiracies of the Left...

    We don't know more about those because they are the FAR Left fringe... Or because Democrats (in the case of corporate lobbying) have as much reason to hide them as anyone else..

    So, you are partially correct.

    The MSM may not be pushing a purely Left Wing ideology...

    But the MSM is definitely pushing the DEMOCRATIC PARTY's idea of "pure" Left Wing ideology...

    That's an important distinction that I will have to remember...

    What is clear is that the majority of MSM are in the bag for the Obama Administration and Democrats which is what I have been meaning (if not outright SAYING) all along.....

    Nothing else explains the kind of coverage we see.

    Nothing else explains why Abu Ghraib was all over the news for MONTHS and the Afghanistan Kill Teams briefly got mentioned a couple of days..

    Nothing else explains why Obama can get away with forming "African Americans For Obama" while we KNOW that Romney would be crucified if he formed "White People for Romney".

    There is no other explanation for these, plus THOUSANDS more examples, other than MainStream Media bias in favor of Democrats and the Obama Administration..

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW- Kudos on the "kill list" example. If we truly had a liberal press I believe we'd here more about this. I believe we'd also hear more against the Afghanistan war.

    I would agree with that completely..

    We are in agreement on THAT, now.

    The MSM is not pushing a pure Left Wing Liberal ideology.

    But the MSM *IS* pushing the Obama/Democrats idea of Left Wing Liberal ideology...

    That WOULD explain perfectly each and every example of MSM bias that I have posted..

    I sometimes conflate the Obama/Democrat Administration idea of Left Wing ideology with pure Left Wing ideology..

    I believe you would be the FIRST to tell me that THAT just ain't so... :D

    I understand that now..

    Michale.....

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now we have a new Obama Foot In Mouth issue..

    Obama Nazi death camp gaffe 'hurt all Poles': PM
    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-nazi-death-camp-gaffe-hurt-poles-pm-110505006.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CZgB8ZP_i0AndzQtDMD

    Let's watch how the MSM handles reporting of this issue and compare it with an extrapolation of how the MSM would have reported it during the Bush Administration...

    I bet the results will be fascinating... :D

    Michale.....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    You make a good case in {49}...

    In essence, you are saying that the MSM takes their cues from blogs and other alternate media..

    It DOES fit the facts of the Abu Ghraib/Kill Team issue.

    But I would have to see more examples to accept it as conclusive..

    There are simply too many examples of the MSM carrying water for Obama and Democrats to accept that it's ALL alternate media driven...

    Michale....

  55. [55] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But the MSM is definitely pushing the DEMOCRATIC PARTY's idea of "pure" Left Wing ideology.

    What makes it into the MSM is primarily the "culture wars". So yes, you'll see the Democratic culture attacks and the corresponding Republican culture attacks.

    Afghanistan Kill Teams briefly got mentioned a couple of days.

    It's hard to explain why this wasn't more popular. Perhaps because it's no longer as shocking? Perhaps because people think with Obama in charge that the war is being better managed?

    The media tried to push it though. It just apparently didn't catch on. Sometimes the public is fickle.

    Nothing else explains why Obama can get away with forming "African Americans For Obama" while we KNOW that Romney would be crucified if he formed "White People for Romney".

    Ask yourself the question: Why is one shocking and the other not?

    The answer is the reason that one is culturally ok and one is not.

    There is no other explanation for these, plus THOUSANDS more examples, other than MainStream Media bias in favor of Democrats and the Obama Administration.

    What about the THOUSANDS of examples in favor of Romney and conservatism? All the sunny "we need someone who understands business" stories?

    What about all of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky sex scandal coverage? What about all of the John Edwards sex scandal coverage?

    Admit it, Michale. There's just as many examples in the MSM to outrage liberals as there are conservatives. How do you explain them?

    -David

  56. [56] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I sometimes conflate the Obama/Democrat Administration idea of Left Wing ideology with pure Left Wing ideology.

    I would argue that Left/Right is the wrong way to look at it, but that's a different argument :)

    -David

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nothing else explains why Obama can get away with forming "African Americans For Obama" while we KNOW that Romney would be crucified if he formed "White People for Romney".

    Ask yourself the question: Why is one shocking and the other not?

    The answer is the reason that one is culturally ok and one is not.

    But WHY is one (culturally) OK and one is not??

    Because the MSM (and the black {sick} "leaders" (but that ALSO is another argument :D) have made it that way..

    What about the THOUSANDS of examples in favor of Romney and conservatism? All the sunny "we need someone who understands business" stories?

    When we start seeing those types of "sunny" articles on CBS and MSNBC and NBC, then I'll agree that the MSM is unbiased..

    But not before. :D

    What about all of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky sex scandal coverage?

    That was before the REAL black president was elected. :D

    What about all of the John Edwards sex scandal coverage?

    Exactly!! What coverage?? Sure, there was the coverage after the fact.. But, by then it was a sex scandal and even a bias'ed MSM would wanna reap the benefits of THAT...

    But the frak'in ENQUIRER broke the story!!

    Where was NBC, MSNBC, CBS back then???

    Trying their best NOT to cover the story because Edwards was a Dem Golden Boy...

    Admit it, Michale. There's just as many examples in the MSM to outrage liberals as there are conservatives. How do you explain them?

    For example?? Can you point to one story that was carried by CBS, NBC or MSNBC that "outraged" Democrats/Obama that wasn't foisted onto those outlets by other factors??

    Can you point to ONE story that "outraged" Obama/Democrats that originated and was pursued by CBS, NBC, MSNBC etc etc...??

    The Obama Administration has much more pull with the MSM than all previous GOP administrations could even HOPE to dream about...

    Now, you are correct on one point.. ACCESS to POTUS is a big factor.. Nobody in the press has the testicular fortitude to pursue a story if it's gonna piss off the President...

    But where was that fear during the Bush administration?? None of the press worried about pissing off POTUS back then..

    What makes Obama so special??

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a completely unrelated point..

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/95212493/Flame-Wars#fullscreen

    How kewl is THAT, eh!!! :D

    IT people out there just HAVE to marvel at this..

    Michale...

  59. [59] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But WHY is one (culturally) OK and one is not?

    Uh ... one word: slavery

    Can you point to one story that was carried by CBS, NBC or MSNBC that "outraged" Democrats/Obama that wasn't foisted onto those outlets by other factors?

    That's easy. Look at the coverage of Iran. Here's a great example. They might as well have just called this conservative talking points:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387491n&tag=mncol;lst;6

    -David

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But where was that fear during the Bush administration?

    If you look at the MSM, they were actually pretty kid gloves w/ Bush too.

    They supported his wars. They supported his economics. They supported his stimulus.

    Like it or not, my friend, this "liberal media" stuff is largely brought to you by conservatives.

    -David

  61. [61] 
    akadjian wrote:

    When we start seeing those types of "sunny" articles on CBS and MSNBC and NBC, then I'll agree that the MSM is unbiased.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57440932-503544/romney-obama-doesnt-get-the-economy/

    BTW- I wouldn't claim that the MSM is unbiased. There's lots of bias in the MSM. But it's not "liberal" or "conservative".

    You pointed out one of the well known biases- towards press access. Another is towards "what bleeds leads".

    -David

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uh ... one word: slavery

    That's a crock.. I never kept slaves. My dad never kept slaves.. HIS dad never kept slaves.

    Further, no black person alive today was ever a slave...

    So why are we mired in this mess of racism because of something that happened a hundred years ago that NO ONE ALIVE TODAY had ANY hand in??

    Further why is it that the response to slavery is racism against anyone but black people??

    Why is this acceptable, even encouraged, by the Left??

    That's easy. Look at the coverage of Iran. Here's a great example. They might as well have just called this conservative talking points:

    They ALSO are called the facts of the issue..

    Iran *IS* a threat..

    That's not ideology. That's the MSM (for once) actually relaying the facts of the issue. And Accurately too!!

    Who woulda thunked it..

    If you look at the MSM, they were actually pretty kid gloves w/ Bush too.

    National Guard Papers?? "Village Idiot"?? Abu Ghraib?? Surveillance?? Gitmo??

    If those are "kid gloves" I would hate to see what you would call bringing out the heavy artillery!! :D

    They supported his wars. They supported his economics. They supported his stimulus.

    No.. They supported the DEMOCRATS supporting his wars and his economics and his stimulus..

    Once Democrats broke with Bush over these issues, the MSM broke right along with them...

    Like it or not, my friend, this "liberal media" stuff is largely brought to you by conservatives.

    Yes, that's what they WANT you to believe.. :D Now pardon me while I buff my tin hat.. :D

    Stuart: "Oh, so when you said you were 'polishing Little James', you actually meant it."
    James: "Of course, why?"
    Stuart: "Oh nothing. Just forget what I said about buffing Little Stuart."

    -Spin City

    :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Until you can show me a NATIONAL News Organization that reported on forged papers in order to attack Obama or other Democrat, you'll be hard pressed to show that the MSM in this country doesn't have a Democrat/Leftist bias..

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Until you can show me a NATIONAL News Organization that reported on forged papers in order to attack Obama or other Democrat,

    Besides Fox News... :D

    Michale.....

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously David..

    Consider this..

    Consider how many news stories there were during the Bush years about Gitmo and torture and rendition and surveillance and wire tapping and all those other things that the Left screamed to high heaven about..

    Now, Flash Forward (a COMPLETELY under-rated show, I might add :D) to today..

    We still have ALL of those things and even MORE of them...

    Yet, the MSM is nearly silent about this activities...

    Comparatively speaking, it's night and day...

    What else can explain this discrepancy, but media bias???

    What?? All of the sudden, the media got a conscience and realized that reporting on those things DOES threaten National Security???

    Yea.. And monkees fly outta my butt...

    Or is it more likely that the Media is in the bag for Obama and doesn't want to further the narrative that Bush was right??

    Employing Occam's Razor, the answer is clear..

    Michale....

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I read up on those.. They seem to be the Birther/Agenda21/Davos Group conspiracies of the Left...

    That would be BILDERBERG Group.. Dunno what I was thinking.. :D

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yes, that's what they WANT you to believe.. :D Now pardon me while I buff my tin hat.. :D

    Heheh. I had to scour mine off earlier :)

    Until you can show me a NATIONAL News Organization that reported on forged papers in order to attack Obama or other Democrat, you'll be hard pressed to show that the MSM in this country doesn't have a Democrat/Leftist bias.

    Ah ... RatherGate. Mr. Rather lost his job over not verifying his sources. That's what responsible news organizations do when they find they've been duped. Fox would just keep repeating the bogus claims ...

    Besides Fox News... :D

    Awww ... c'mon :)

    Ok. Actually one of the more famous cases of a liberal story being killed was oddly enough, against Fox News.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/monsanto-forced-fox-tv-to_b_186428.html

    I give their reporters credit for digging into the story to begin with. This example is a great illustration of what the networks are afraid of and how news works. Even Fox.

    At the end of the day you're a business. You get money from ads. So you don't want to offend any potential advertisers. While at the same time, drawing as much attention to your stories as possible.

    Ok, we've about beat this to death. But if you want to read a good book about media bias from a media insider, check out Brook Gladstone's The Influencing Machine. It's an excellent analysis by someone who knows how the media works. It's also a fun read.

    -David

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll check it out.. :D

    Michale.....

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ok, we've about beat this to death.

    True, we have...

    But I'll make you a little wager..

    I'll bet that, once President Romney is sworn in, we will see MANY MSM articles and reports about torture, rendition, Gitmo, surveillance, wire-tapping etc etc etc...

    The stakes??

    If I am right, you acknowledge the Democrat/Left Wing bias of the MSM..

    If I am wrong, I will acknowledge that I am, in this case, full of shit.. :D

    Wager?? :D

    Aside to CW.. Feel free to jump in and add the "CW TOUCH" to the wager.. :D

    Michale....

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the by, don't think I have forgotten our CrapCare/SCOTUS wager.. Looks like it will come to a head within the next couple weeks.. :D

    Looking forward to it, regardless of which way it goes..

    Michale.....

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    For the record, I have already ordered my shirt..

    If things go as I think it will, I'll be happy to send it to you unworn...

    Unfortunately, it's a 2X..

    So, unless yer into wearing tents, maybe a gift for a Significant Other as a night gown?? :D

    Michale....

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Since we are getting close to the "End Of Days"..... :D

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/03/28/the-individual-mandates-conservative-origins/

    What about {#18}??? :D

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    akadjian wrote:

    By the by, don't think I have forgotten our CrapCare/SCOTUS wager. Looks like it will come to a head within the next couple weeks.

    Heheheh. I haven't forgotten either. Me too!

    I'll bet that, once President Romney is sworn in, we will see MANY MSM articles and reports about torture, rendition, Gitmo, surveillance, wire-tapping etc

    The trouble with this bet is that it doesn't prove there's a "liberal media". What instead I believe it would prove is that people like to "armchair quarterback" the incumbent.

    Think of all the deficit articles you never saw under Bush. The spending articles you never saw under Bush. Think of all of them under Obama.

    I believe it's highly likely that the party out of power would see a rise in "outrage" articles against the incumbent. Though I don't think we'd be liable to see Gitmo articles again. But more outrage about the war, sure.

    And you're right, I wish it were there now. But I think people trust that Obama is working to try to bring it to a close. And it doesn't appear he's trying to start another one with Iran.

    -David

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    The trouble with this bet is that it doesn't prove there's a "liberal media". What instead I believe it would prove is that people like to "armchair quarterback" the incumbent.

    But we're NOT seeing that "armchair quaterback"ing in the here and now..

    THAT's why I believe it's a Democrat/Republican thing...

    The MSM has laid REALLY low regarding Gitmo/Torture/Rendition/Surveillance under Obama...

    If, all of the sudden, the MSM explodes with these reports when Romney is sworn in, it's a pretty stark indication as to where the MSM's sympathies lie...

    And you're right, I wish it were there now. But I think people trust that Obama is working to try to bring it to a close. And it doesn't appear he's trying to start another one with Iran.

    And THAT is the problem. If there ever was a reason to go to war, Iran would be it...

    On the other hand, the COVERT war against Iran (Assassinations and Cyber Attacks) seems to be paying great dividends.

    The question is, will it be enough to A-stop Iran and B-forestall an Israeli attack..

    I don't think so...

    MY biggest beef is WHY the Obama Administration is wanting to forestall an Israeli attack..

    Is it for the greater good??

    No.. From all indications, it's because he doesn't want it to upset his re-election plans..

    And THAT, frankly, sucks purple panther piss...

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But we're NOT seeing that "armchair quaterback"ing in the here and now.

    Really? Not on the military maybe. But on the economy certainly.

    It may also have something to do with the types of attacks pursued by the party out of power.

    I do know that deficits and spending have been a common theme of attack by conservatives and much of this has been picked up by the MSM. And this has pretty much been going on since Day 1.

    And THAT is the problem. If there ever was a reason to go to war, Iran would be it.

    This is a different argument entirely. All I know is that the mainstream media has pushed the conservative agenda (we need to go to war!) on this subject. They're certainly not pushing a liberal agenda here.

    -David

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]