• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House attacks worry moderate Democrats

Is this the kind of journalistic integrity you were speaking of? I shouldn't think so if only because he hasn't "pummeled" obama for retreating from this campaign promise.



That was then. Apparently he's now changed his mind.......to agree with "the one."

Obama opposed telecom immunity. Bush and the Republicans insisted on putting the retroactive immunity into the bill. So it would be hard for Olberman to pin that blame on Obama who spoke against telecom immunity on the Senate floor. But Obama felt that the overall FISA bill was too important to reject solely on the grounds of the immunity amendment. Bush was willing to stop the entire bill and put the nation at risk if the Senate didn't give the telecoms their precious immunity.

But Olberman has blasted Obama on Guantanomo. Maddow slams him on don't ask/don't tell almost once a week. And Ed Schultz has practically called Obama, Olympia Snowe's b!%ch. These commentators are liberal but they have not held their fire when a liberal administration has disappointed their expectations.
 
When Obama speaks, the entire country and indeed the world listens. Fox only captures a very small portion of the tiny radical-right of the Republican party. At best their viewership is about 2 million people. More people live in Brooklyn, NY than watch Fox News. So, trust me when I tell you "the news of Obama's demise at the hands of Fox has been greatly exaggerated".

Well, this just brings me straight back to 2001 or so ... :lol:
 
Last edited:
No one wants to listen to Obama worship and "thrills" running up men's legs when they hear Obama speak. But Keith Oberman and Rachael Maddow, however, are examples of what Fox News anchors should aspire to. Oberman and Maddow are obviously Democrats but they will pummel Obama when he retreats on his campaign promises i.e. closing Gitmo, putting tax cuts into stimulus bill without securing any Republican votes in the House, ending don't ask/don't tell, backing away from public option etc. etc.

By presenting the pros and cons of the administration these 2 left-wing pundits have a legitimate claim to journalistic objectivity
.

I found tons of stuff on rachel maddow. Apparently I'm not the only one who has a visceral reaction to her. Instead, I thought I'd go with this:

source

“I’m a liberal — and I’m not running from that word!” exclaims Ed Schultz, the latest lefty star in the cable television news-and-opinion firmament. Schultz, America’s top-rated progressive radio talk show host, has just finished his first month as host of the eponymous “Ed Show” on MSNBC, which is attempting to duplicate its earlier success in crossing over progressive radio talk show host Rachel Maddow.

Despite the startling success of Maddow and the recent addition of Schultz to an increasingly liberal lineup that also includes MSNBC’s first breakout star Keith Olbermann, getting anyone other than on-air talent like Schultz and Maddow to admit the obvious — that the rising cable net is in the process of re-branding itself as the left-winged equivalent of right-leaning industry leader Fox News – can be difficult. For example, when asked if the decision to hire Schultz was part of a conscious strategy to “move left, MSNBC President Phil Griffin chooses his words carefully.

“The answer is complicated…but simple at same time,” Griffin responds. “The network has evolved a lot in the past few years. We went from doing a little bit of everything to doing lots of politics under Keith from 2003-05. We first began to get traction after the Iraq war started, after ‘Mission Accomplished.’ Then, more and more, politics led the way. When we did well with it in the 2006 elections, we made a decision to become ‘the place for politics,’ as the late Tim Russert dubbed us – and all of a sudden began to take off a little.”

Griffin says that both Olbermann and fellow MSNBC stalwart Chris Mathews “both had a strong point of view about the war — but our strategy then was simply to hire smart people, allow them to have a point of view, and to be authentic. At the same time, we moved even further toward politics and away from trying to be ‘all things to all people.’”

Yes but … Fox News covers politics as well, albeit with a clearly conservative slant. Doesn’t the hiring of Schultz – and Maddow before him — signal that MSNBC is positioning itself as the progressive alternative?

“Well, Rachel did so well as a guest analyst — and was so smart, like Keith – that we asked her to fill in when he went on vacation,” Griffin recalls. “And she held his numbers, which is something that other talent we had on-air at the time, like Dan Abrams, didn’t do. So that made the decision to give Rachel her own show after the conventions really easy … September 8, 2008, was her first day, and almost immediately it was obvious to us that Keith’s audience loved Rachel … so we had flow. But it was more organic than a conscious strategy to go left,” Griffin concludes. “A vision of smart progressives just began to emerge … “
Whether it’s the result of an organic vision or a conscious strategy, however, adding a proudly progressive “populist figure” like Schultz to its lineup means that MSNBC is now providing the largest toehold progressives have ever had on television. Even Griffin admits the cable net now has a “progressive flow,” although he quickly adds, “That’s a little different than saying we consciously chose such a strategy.”.........

Msnbc and it's hiring of liberal commentators was not for "objectivity" but to create a "leftist" version of fox news. That's right, they were trying to mimic fox news....all for money. Apparently they aren't "objective" at all, just a leftist version of fox. The really bad part of all of this is, they are failing.
 
Obama opposed telecom immunity. Bush and the Republicans insisted on putting the retroactive immunity into the bill. So it would be hard for Olberman to pin that blame on Obama who spoke against telecom immunity on the Senate floor. But Obama felt that the overall FISA bill was too important to reject solely on the grounds of the immunity amendment. Bush was willing to stop the entire bill and put the nation at risk if the Senate didn't give the telecoms their precious immunity.

But Olberman has blasted Obama on Guantanomo. Maddow slams him on don't ask/don't tell almost once a week. And Ed Schultz has practically called Obama, Olympia Snowe's b!%ch. These commentators are liberal but they have not held their fire when a liberal administration has disappointed their expectations.

Except in those cases where they have. ;)
 
But Olberman has blasted Obama on Guantanomo. Maddow slams him on don't ask/don't tell almost once a week. And Ed Schultz has practically called Obama, Olympia Snowe's b!%ch. These commentators are liberal but they have not held their fire when a liberal administration has disappointed their expectations.

Link us to the positive stuff they had to say about the last Administration.
 
the independent vote is much ado about nothing---LOL!

Maybe I'm misstating my case. Independents turned out to be disaffected Democrats who show their true "blue" colors as long as the Democratic Party can produce outstanding candidates that can clearly articulate a message that resonates with the public.
 
Link us to the positive stuff they had to say about the last Administration.

But no one, not even Republicans, liked the prior administration. Bush spoke from a video at the Republican Presidential Convention and McCain ran as far away as he could from Bush. Iraqis who were going to greet us as liberators were throwing shoes at Bush. His presence generated violent demonstrations in every country and some of our allies were drafting war crimes prosecutions against his administration. So it is hard to say anything complimentary of the last president who was an absolute failure at everything he touched. But I do remember Olberman saying recently that Bush pulled this nation together in the aftermath of 9/11 and he showed great leadership. He just led us down the wrong path; but it was leadership nonetheless.
 
After witnessing the Democratic deluge on Election Day in a so-called battleground state, I have withdrawn my belief in that mythical political unicorn called the Independent. On Election Day, masses of the so-called Independents were solidly Democratic. We wasted so much time going to PA to protect the vote from Republican challengers that when voters were told why we were there they busted out in uncontrollable laughter. What this told me was: if Democrats put forth the right candidate we can out-vote Republicans and Independents. Its all about the candidate not the party designation on the registration form.

What applies in PA doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the country.

PA was never really a battleground state, McCain just really wanted it to be one.

Although, Specter isn't doing well in the polls right now, so it may well be starting to go Republican again....
 
But no one, not even Republicans, liked the prior administration. Bush spoke from a video at the Republican Presidential Convention and McCain ran as far away as he could from Bush. Iraqis who were going to greet us as liberators were throwing shoes at Bush. His presence generated violent demonstrations in every country and some of our allies were drafting war crimes prosecutions against his administration. So it is hard to say anything complimentary of the last president who was an absolute failure at everything he touched.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rofl

So, what you're saying is that it was OK to have nothing but nightly tirades against Bush, but when it's Obama, well, that's darn near treasonous.
 
How so?????

Back then, I used to be a jingoistic zombified conservative. I felt like the United States was the best nation in the history of mankind, that we could do practically no wrong as a country, and that (for the most part) if you had done nothing wrong you had nothing to fear from the justice system.

When Bush first ran for office, I was taken in by his rhetoric, hook line and sinker. When he was elected I was overjoyed. When he first responded to 9/11 I was proud.

I was, in short, a water-carrier for Rush Limbaugh, the Republican party and for the United States in general. I had drunk the Kool-Aid, dropped the acid, and so on.

In short, you remind me of a liberal version of me. :lol:

It took me a few years and a little help from my friends, but figured out a number of things. Yeah, the US is a pretty cool place to live, but we're a long way from our founding ideals, much less from being faultless. The two parties are functionally sock puppets, manipulated masterfully by the interests which bribe them with money, influence and baubles. Conservative ideas are great in theory, but we are a very long way past the time when we didn't need a little help from our friends to get by.

Maybe you'll get there too. Time will tell.
 
Back then, I used to be a jingoistic zombified conservative. I felt like the United States was the best nation in the history of mankind, that we could do practically no wrong as a country, and that (for the most part) if you had done nothing wrong you had nothing to fear from the justice system.

When Bush first ran for office, I was taken in by his rhetoric, hook line and sinker. When he was elected I was overjoyed. When he first responded to 9/11 I was proud.

I was, in short, a water-carrier for Rush Limbaugh, the Republican party and for the United States in general. I had drunk the Kool-Aid, dropped the acid, and so on.

In short, you remind me of a liberal version of me. :lol:

It took me a few years and a little help from my friends, but figured out a number of things. Yeah, the US is a pretty cool place to live, but we're a long way from our founding ideals, much less from being faultless. The two parties are functionally sock puppets, manipulated masterfully by the interests which bribe them with money, influence and baubles. Conservative ideas are great in theory, but we are a very long way past the time when we didn't need a little help from our friends to get by.

Maybe you'll get there too. Time will tell.

America is the greatest country in the history of Mankind. Perfect? No. Great? Was, is and always will be.
 
I found tons of stuff on rachel maddow. Apparently I'm not the only one who has a visceral reaction to her. Instead, I thought I'd go with this:

source



Msnbc and it's hiring of liberal commentators was not for "objectivity" but to create a "leftist" version of fox news. That's right, they were trying to mimic fox news....all for money. Apparently they aren't "objective" at all, just a leftist version of fox. The really bad part of all of this is, they are failing.

The MSNBC guy said he hired "smart" people and you immediately turned that into "liberal" people. It seems that as people become more educated they become more liberal. The less educated tend to gravitate toward conservatism.

For instance: Sean Hannity is conservative and he dropped out of college; Rachel Maddow is liberal and she has a doctorate from Oxford. Dick Cheney is conservative and he dropped out of Yale; Obama is liberal and has a Harvard Law Degree. George Bush Sr. is conservative and has a Bachelor's degree; Bill Clinton, a liberal was a Rhodes Scholar. Keith Olberman, started as a sports announcer, graduated from an Ivy League college. Sarah Palin, started as a sports announcer, and she was bounced from 4 different colleges before she barely managed to graduate from a tiny midwestern college. So when you seek out a smart person you are more likely to end up with a liberal.

Don't get me wrong: a mere college degree doesn't mean that you are smart and some brilliant people do not have one. But if having a college degree is a job requirement at MSNBC, the channel is more likely to end up with liberals than conservatives. Hannity would not qualify for a job at MSNBC had his resume popped up from the fax machine. But MSNBC was not intentionally trying to "create a leftist version" of the news.
 
and laughter is funny
 
The MSNBC guy said he hired "smart" people and you immediately turned that into "liberal" people. It seems that as people become more educated they become more liberal. The less educated tend to gravitate toward conservatism.

Yes, that IS the standard conceit of smug liberals everywhere, especially ones with no sense of history whatsoever.
 
The MSNBC guy said he hired "smart" people and you immediately turned that into "liberal" people. It seems that as people become more educated they become more liberal. The less educated tend to gravitate toward conservatism.

That is silly. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Or is it more hyper partisan bluster?

For instance: Sean Hannity is conservative and he dropped out of college; Rachel Maddow is liberal and she has a doctorate from Oxford. Dick Cheney is conservative and he dropped out of Yale; Obama is liberal and has a Harvard Law Degree. George Bush Sr. is conservative and has a Bachelor's degree; Bill Clinton, a liberal was a Rhodes Scholar. Keith Olberman, started as a sports announcer, graduated from an Ivy League college. Sarah Palin, started as a sports announcer, and she was bounced from 4 different colleges before she barely managed to graduate from a tiny midwestern college. So when you seek out a smart person you are more likely to end up with a liberal.

George W Bush graduated from Harvard Business School, where he earned an MBA.

Anyone can nit pick intellectually dishonest hackery like you just posted.

Now instead of posting easy to disprove opinion, why don't you back it up with some hard evidence and not speculation.

Don't get me wrong: a mere college degree doesn't mean that you are smart and some brilliant people do not have one. But if having a college degree is a job requirement at MSNBC, the channel is more likely to end up with liberals than conservatives

Again speculation based on bull****. :doh

Hannity would not qualify for a job at MSNBC had his resume popped up from the fax machine. But MSNBC was not intentionally trying to "create a leftist version" of the news.

And yet Hannity has huge ratings compared to anyone on PMSNBC, so who is the smart one here?

I think the stock holders would laugh at your assumption.
 
Back
Top Bottom