Obama freezes unfriendly coverage

[Oldandtired]

That's actually more reflective of talking points than accuracy.

The National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator in 2007 - a rating based on 99 votes in the Senate during that year only. In the two previous two yearsthey rated Obama 10th and 16th most liberal.

If you are looking at his entire senate career his recod is far from "most liberal."

So then based on that logic, OJ Simpson should be viewed based on his previous years as a hall of famer and not his most recent actions.
Bernie Madoff was President of the NASDAQ and so let us evaluate him based on THAT tenure and not his most recent actions.
Me? 30 years ago as a college senior I was as liberal as they come....now I am a true conservative......but lets evaluate me on my past on not the present...so I must be a liberal.

Sorry...I see flaws in your logic

No, the logic lapse is on your end. Madoff and Simpson should be evaluated on their entire career overall not just one part of it. But the criminal parts will largely define that evaluation because they are so overwelmingly negative.

What you have with Obama is 3 years in a Senate with 3 different rankings of "liberal" that should be averaged if you are going to make the claim of "most liberal senator" for his entire career not just 2007.

I am not arguing that he isn't "liberal" - I'm saying he is much closer to the center than rightwing pundits claim and this is evident in some of his policy decisions.

People change over time. In washington, people change based on the pressures of their colleagues....so I disagree with your assessment. I look at the most recent voting record as the most indicative of his likely future voting...especially with a junior senator.

His trend,as you pointed out, has been in the direction of the left...with his lates record being that as the most liberal.

As for governing....I do not conssider any of his decisions and policies he is campaigning for as anything short of far left....but as a conservative, I recognize my evaluation is skewed.....but I do not see retaining Gates as a moderate move....I see it as a smart move with several wars in progress.

But I am sorry...I disagree with you about Obama....He is, in my eyes, far left of center..

Ironically, the far left see him as right of center.

Lets revisit this in a year...and see where things are at.

 

[Coyote]

No you can't judge Sotomayor on her past record. Only what she actually does as a Supreme Court justice. You are simply assuming. I see you completely ignored the czar group. I'll claim that as a concession.

I'll agree that Supreme Court justices can rule differently then their past records would indicate but usually it is to the ideological disappointment of their nominators who had hoped for a conservative or liberal judge and got instead, a judge who ruled on law, not ideology - Sanda Day O'Conner for example.

The Czar group? As a group they are poorly defined (in fact, it seems the media defines the term) and diverse. They also hold no real authority beyond advising, control and dispense no funds, and a number of them answer directly to congressionally approved appointees. What's your point?

My point is, you are not looking for liberals very hard.

POLITICO has compiled a wide-ranging list of President Barack Obama's various "czars." The bolded names were confirmed by Congress, and the italicized names are statutorily created positions created by Congress in legislation.
POLITICO.com[/url]

Actually - if they are in positions that require a Senate confirmation, are they really "Czars". Czars are considered non-permanent positions. Although it's such a poorly defined term.


How liberal are these Czars?

According to Santorum: “But there are some pretty fringe actors out there. And if a Republican would put a fringe conservative in positions like that, where Obama has put fringe liberals, I can’t even imagine the hell that would be being paid right now by that president. “Bottom line: This is the most liberal president we’ve ever had in the office.”

(note: the prior administration had such "fringe actors" as Bolton, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc...which makes Santorum's criticism laughably hypocritical)

He also specifically points out:
Among the several dozen czars appointed by Obama are John Holdren, the White House “science czar,” who has espoused controversial theories on climate change and overpopulation; Cass Sunstein, “regulatory czar,” who has sought to ban hunting; and Mark Lloyd, “diversity czar,” who has sought to stymie conservative voices in the media by strictly regulating the public airwaves.


I won't argue with those three being pretty liberal.

But are these the "liberal fringe"?

But Holbrooke? - this is a man with substantial qualifications and service over ideology.

John Brennon? (who served in the Bush Administration)


Ed Montgomery?

Paul Volcker? (who served under both Carter and Reagan)

Those are just a few but I'm seeing a mix of people, hardly a bastion of "leftwing fringe".

 

[Coyote]

So then based on that logic, OJ Simpson should be viewed based on his previous years as a hall of famer and not his most recent actions.
Bernie Madoff was President of the NASDAQ and so let us evaluate him based on THAT tenure and not his most recent actions.
Me? 30 years ago as a college senior I was as liberal as they come....now I am a true conservative......but lets evaluate me on my past on not the present...so I must be a liberal.

Sorry...I see flaws in your logic

No, the logic lapse is on your end. Madoff and Simpson should be evaluated on their entire career overall not just one part of it. But the criminal parts will largely define that evaluation because they are so overwelmingly negative.

What you have with Obama is 3 years in a Senate with 3 different rankings of "liberal" that should be averaged if you are going to make the claim of "most liberal senator" for his entire career not just 2007.

I am not arguing that he isn't "liberal" - I'm saying he is much closer to the center than rightwing pundits claim and this is evident in some of his policy decisions.

People change over time. In washington, people change based on the pressures of their colleagues....so I disagree with your assessment. I look at the most recent voting record as the most indicative of his likely future voting...especially with a junior senator.

His trend,as you pointed out, has been in the direction of the left...with his lates record being that as the most liberal.

I don't disagree with that, but I think you need more than 3 points of reference to establish a trend of "most liberal" particularly since the increasing rating of "liberal" occurred in opposition to one of the most conservative administrations (or neo-con perhaps is more accurate). I would like to see what his record looks like towards the end of the administration before making that kind of judgement.

As for governing....I do not conssider any of his decisions and policies he is campaigning for as anything short of far left....but as a conservative, I recognize my evaluation is skewed.....but I do not see retaining Gates as a moderate move....I see it as a smart move with several wars in progress.

But I am sorry...I disagree with you about Obama....He is, in my eyes, far left of center..

I can agree to disagree - sometimes "center" is defined by one's personal ideology, and I'm a liberal in many things, so I'm sure it's a bit different than your perspective.

Ironically, the far left see him as right of center.

Yes....and they aren't happy campers!

Lets revisit this in a year...and see where things are at.

Agree - I think that will give us more to go on.

 

[Coyote]

If you mean by "fawning all over him" that the rest of the media doesn't immediately attack every single thing the man says or does, then yeah I guess they do.

Of course I wouldn't call objective reporting "fawning".

What FoxNews produces is a constant criticism of every breath the President takes.

When the President takes his wife out for a nice night on the town, Fox tells us how much money is being "wasted".

When the President picks a dog, Fox is there to tell us that a "Real American" would have picked another breed.

When the President has a beer, Fox is there to tell us how the beer isn't "American enough".

When the President uses a restroom, Fox tells us how the smell is much, much worse than that of a "Real American".

According to Fox, whatever the President is doing at the moment must, by definition, be wrong.

Objective reporting? I wouldn't say either Fox or Obama's fan club (all the others) could be accused of objective reporting.

Immie

As I pointed out on another thread, besides MSNBC, which is as bad as FoxNews, none of the other networks can honestly be accused of favoritism.

And none of the other networks allow people to lie on the air like Fox and MSNBC do.

Dan Rather, for instance, was fired immediately when it was discovered he had based a claim on faulty evidence.

Exactly!!! And that is why I put those networks in the category of "Tabloid". Look at how they photoshopped those photos of the NYT reporters to make them look sinister for example. It is totally unprofessional and there is no attempt to put a stop to it - it destroys their credibility as a news source.

 

[Coyote]

No, he has not decided - but an ideologue would already have a decision - in fact, would be incapable of anything but one decision.

Uhm... correction.

Obama approves 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Thanks for the update

 

[Coyote]

He has not yet signed a healthcare bill./...but if you listen to his previous speeches (before November) he supports a single payer system and he went as far as saying that a public option will lead us to the single payer system.....and if you noticed in today's presser....Gibbs dodged the question about whether or not he wnats the public option in there.

That is actually misleading - or at best incomplete. Those statements were made six years ago, before he was even elected Senator. Once in office, and confronted with the realities of governance he has changed his opinion on single payer systems.

Ideology did not change, it's the same as it was when he said it. His goal is the same.

That is your subjective interpretation - not backed up by evidence.

 

[Oldandtired]

Coyote...

A good example is my frshman senator...Gillibrand.

She ran for state office as a gun advocate...pro second ammendment and pro hunting.

One week as a US senator and she reversed her sentiments.

Ya think Chuck Schumer and his pressures of "do as I do and you will have a very long career" had anything to do with it?

Yes...pure speculation on my part....but what could have happened in one week to change her mind...other than career promises and/or threats?

 

[Coyote]

It may be taken out of context few times, I agree.

But he was talking about redistribution of wealth since his Illinois senate days and he stayed at the same course ever since. I called that ideology... Maybe I am wrong?

Here is the interview with local radio station from 2001 where he's talking about redistribution of wealth thruout the judical branch...

YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

That's a pretty deceptive video - check out: Obama's Redistribution 'Bombshell' - Fact Checker

From the link:

"Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."

I don't need Dobbs to tell me what it means. When istitution is not equipped to bring the change, you simply change the institution.

His SCOTUS pick shows pretty much what it means and how you do it.

Look at her judicial record. And cherry-picked out of context quotes are hardly evidence - quotes are meaningless without context.

 

[Oldandtired]

I agree that Fox news has a tendancy to OVER report on Obama gaffes and snafus....they enjoy driving it home just as the rest of the media drove home the Palin wardrobe "scandal.

But Fox news does not OMIT positive Obama news.

MSNBC, and NBC seem to leave out the less flattering news about Obama AND liberal organizations no matter how important it is. For exaqmple...it took them a week to report on the Acorn scandal.

But will someone please offer me examples as to where Fox News has outright lied?

 

[Coyote]

Back to the topic...

When "fairness doctrine", extention of the Patriot Act, Hate Crime bill etc., all come in place, you can kiss the freedom good bye. Freedom of speech and press will be suppressed and we become drones. The next step is our own thoughts will be silenced as well as our voices. We gonna read "American Pravda" (fairness) and we'll all agree to everything that government says.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is not likely to come back as it lacks the political support in congress even on the left. Even when it was in place - it was very narrowly structured and would not have included talk radio for example. It's yet another rightwing pundit bogeyman.

What does the Patriot Act (which I never liked anyway) and Hate Crime Bill have to do with freedom of speech and press?

 

[Coyote]

I agree that Fox news has a tendancy to OVER report on Obama gaffes and snafus....they enjoy driving it home just as the rest of the media drove home the Palin wardrobe "scandal.

But Fox news does not OMIT positive Obama news.

MSNBC, and NBC seem to leave out the less flattering news about Obama AND liberal organizations no matter how important it is. For exaqmple...it took them a week to report on the Acorn scandal.

But will someone please offer me examples as to where Fox News has outright lied?

Fox presents very little positive Obama news. I don't watch MSNBC much but I think of them as simply the Leftwing Fox. Fox also reports on very little conservative dirt - nothing like it does with liberals. Interesting read: The Most Biased Name in News

I did that earlier in this thread - in their reporting of Jennings (covering up the "rape" of a "minor" and implying he supports NAMBLA for one example, reporting that Obama was a muslim or claiming that Van Jones was involved in the Rodney King riots and arrested for it....or that he is (not was) a communist). Even with the Acorn scandal they lied - they claimed for example that their reporters had never been turned away, and then they carried the claim that one of the Acorn women had murdered her husband as news without ever checking to verify it. As has been pointed out - Dan Rather was promptly fired for this, his long and distinquished career forever blackened in his eagerness for political dirt over veracity and journalistic integrity.

 

[Oldandtired]

I agree that Fox news has a tendancy to OVER report on Obama gaffes and snafus....they enjoy driving it home just as the rest of the media drove home the Palin wardrobe "scandal.

But Fox news does not OMIT positive Obama news.

MSNBC, and NBC seem to leave out the less flattering news about Obama AND liberal organizations no matter how important it is. For exaqmple...it took them a week to report on the Acorn scandal.

But will someone please offer me examples as to where Fox News has outright lied?

Fox presents very little positive Obama news. I don't watch MSNBC much but I think of them as simply the Leftwing Fox. Fox also reports on very little conservative dirt - nothing like it does with liberals. Interesting read: The Most Biased Name in News

I did that earlier in this thread - in their reporting of Jennings (covering up the "rape" of a "minor" and implying he supports NAMBLA for one example, reporting that Obama was a muslim or claiming that Van Jones was involved in the Rodney King riots and arrested for it....or that he is (not was) a communist). Even with the Acorn scandal they lied - they claimed for example that their reporters had never been turned away, and then they carried the claim that one of the Acorn women had murdered her husband as news without ever checking to verify it. As has been pointed out - Dan Rather was promptly fired for this, his long and distinquished career forever blackened in his eagerness for political dirt over veracity and journalistic integrity.

I watch Fox news (as if you are suprised).
They did not report on the woman murdering her husband...they simply reported on the woman claiming to have done so...the report was on the film clip...not the murder itself.
As for the "turning away" part...the filmers first IMPLIED they were never turned away...and the very next day FOX made it clear that they could not back up the claim.
He WAS arrested at the King riots...but charges were dropped....yes, fox did not mention charges were dropped...but that is not a lie...it is a ploy used by NBC as well for sensationalism.
Fox NEVER siad he supported NAMBLA...they reported that he suported a book written by a man who supports NAMBLA...and he did by writing the forward.
Rather was fired for reporting on a memo without checking the validity of the memo....FOx checked the validity of the Acorn film before reporting on it.
Not the same by any means.
But where has fox LIED is my question?

 

[California Girl]

I agree that Fox news has a tendancy to OVER report on Obama gaffes and snafus....they enjoy driving it home just as the rest of the media drove home the Palin wardrobe "scandal.

But Fox news does not OMIT positive Obama news.

MSNBC, and NBC seem to leave out the less flattering news about Obama AND liberal organizations no matter how important it is. For exaqmple...it took them a week to report on the Acorn scandal.

But will someone please offer me examples as to where Fox News has outright lied?

Fox presents very little positive Obama news. I don't watch MSNBC much but I think of them as simply the Leftwing Fox. Fox also reports on very little conservative dirt - nothing like it does with liberals. Interesting read: The Most Biased Name in News

I did that earlier in this thread - in their reporting of Jennings (covering up the "rape" of a "minor" and implying he supports NAMBLA for one example, reporting that Obama was a muslim or claiming that Van Jones was involved in the Rodney King riots and arrested for it....or that he is (not was) a communist). Even with the Acorn scandal they lied - they claimed for example that their reporters had never been turned away, and then they carried the claim that one of the Acorn women had murdered her husband as news without ever checking to verify it. As has been pointed out - Dan Rather was promptly fired for this, his long and distinquished career forever blackened in his eagerness for political dirt over veracity and journalistic integrity.

Who funds fair.org?

 

[Ame®icano]

Back to the topic...

When "fairness doctrine", extention of the Patriot Act, Hate Crime bill etc., all come in place, you can kiss the freedom good bye. Freedom of speech and press will be suppressed and we become drones. The next step is our own thoughts will be silenced as well as our voices. We gonna read "American Pravda" (fairness) and we'll all agree to everything that government says.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is not likely to come back as it lacks the political support in congress even on the left. Even when it was in place - it was very narrowly structured and would not have included talk radio for example. It's yet another rightwing pundit bogeyman.

What does the Patriot Act (which I never liked anyway) and Hate Crime Bill have to do with freedom of speech and press?

Have you read any of them? If not, go read it sometime...

We pretty much chewed Patrioct Act here, and thats just one of the things that is put in place to limit your freedom. There are other things that are coming into place, such as Hate crime bill that entirely violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Hate crime bill is open and blatant attempt to create special classifications for only certain groups within the populace. Beside that it attempts to make and end run around the intent and purpose of the equal protection clause as defined by the Constitution and later rulings by the SCOTUS. Look at the big picture...

Here is little homework for you... pay close attention to the section 249, then come back so we can debate on it.

Hate Crimes Prevention Act

 

[nodoginnafight]

I watch Fox news (as if you are suprised).
They did not report on the woman murdering her husband...they simply reported on the woman claiming to have done so...the report was on the film clip...not the murder itself.
As for the "turning away" part...the filmers first IMPLIED they were never turned away...and the very next day FOX made it clear that they could not back up the claim.
He WAS arrested at the King riots...but charges were dropped....yes, fox did not mention charges were dropped...but that is not a lie...it is a ploy used by NBC as well for sensationalism.
Fox NEVER siad he supported NAMBLA...they reported that he suported a book written by a man who supports NAMBLA...and he did by writing the forward.
Rather was fired for reporting on a memo without checking the validity of the memo....FOx checked the validity of the Acorn film before reporting on it.
Not the same by any means.
But where has fox LIED is my question?

Oldand tired - didn't we engage in a conversation yesterday in which you claimed that Obama should be held accountable for things he DID NOT SAY - because you claimed - people being people, they are going to HEAR a different message and Obama is at fault for NOT accounting for that?

And today you are trying to defend "ploys," omissions, and delayed "fessing up" by FOX news and implying that they should NOT be held accountable?????????

The last FOX news poll shows Obama's approval rating at 50% for and 42% against. Count up the people they quote - are 50% expressing favorable views of Obama and 42% expressing negative views of Obama?

Count up the opinions reflected in their ticker below the screen - again, are 50% expressing approval and 42% disapproval?

Watch who you want to watch, agree with who you want to agree with, and encourage others to agree with you to your heart's content. But don't ever try to sell that "balanced and fair" fantasy to me unless you are ready to get the door slammed in your face.

 

[Oldandtired]

I watch Fox news (as if you are suprised).
They did not report on the woman murdering her husband...they simply reported on the woman claiming to have done so...the report was on the film clip...not the murder itself.
As for the "turning away" part...the filmers first IMPLIED they were never turned away...and the very next day FOX made it clear that they could not back up the claim.
He WAS arrested at the King riots...but charges were dropped....yes, fox did not mention charges were dropped...but that is not a lie...it is a ploy used by NBC as well for sensationalism.
Fox NEVER siad he supported NAMBLA...they reported that he suported a book written by a man who supports NAMBLA...and he did by writing the forward.
Rather was fired for reporting on a memo without checking the validity of the memo....FOx checked the validity of the Acorn film before reporting on it.
Not the same by any means.
But where has fox LIED is my question?

Oldand tired - didn't we engage in a conversation yesterday in which you claimed that Obama should be held accountable for things he DID NOT SAY - because you claimed - people being people, they are going to HEAR a different message and Obama is at fault for NOT accounting for that?

And today you are trying to defend "ploys," omissions, and delayed "fessing up" by FOX news and implying that they should NOT be held accountable?????????

The last FOX news poll shows Obama's approval rating at 50% for and 42% against. Count up the people they quote - are 50% expressing favorable views of Obama and 42% expressing negative views of Obama?

Count up the opinions reflected in their ticker below the screen - again, are 50% expressing approval and 42% disapproval?

Watch who you want to watch, agree with who you want to agree with, and encourage others to agree with you to your heart's content. But don't ever try to sell that "balanced and fair" fantasy to me unless you are ready to get the door slammed in your face.

I do not support misleading in anyway whatsoever...

I was disturbed by their leaving out the "dropping of charges"...but it was done on Beck and I give little credence to his show anyway....

We can change the channel if the news is not accurate.

Decisions are made based on the accuracy of what a President says.

You can not compare the two.

but again....WHEN DID THEIR NEWS REPORTING LIE?


You will get a better debate from me...and an honest one...if you did not come across so adversarial. Just a little advice.

 

[pal_of_poor]

I don't think you can blame the Obama administration for just speaking the truth, though it seems you try.

It is, as it is. We've known for years, since Outfoxed, that the network takes its talking points directly from the republican party, at least, as they say on FAUX "Some people say," that is true.

Hell, never a good word about Clinton, never a bad word about Bush. What conclusion could anyone come up with. Even MSNBC doesn't have that bias, since it has Scarborough, and other right-wingers on, and they use the truth, while FAUX uses rhetoric.

No wonder so many rail against their own economic security, considering they watch a network that has no compunction to tell the truth.

 

[Oldandtired]

I don't think you can blame the Obama administration for just speaking the truth, though it seems you try.

It is, as it is. We've known for years, since Outfoxed, that the network takes its talking points directly from the republican party, at least, as they say on FAUX "Some people say," that is true.

Hell, never a good word about Clinton, never a bad word about Bush. What conclusion could anyone come up with. Even MSNBC doesn't have that bias, since it has Scarborough, and other right-wingers on, and they use the truth, while FAUX uses rhetoric.

No wonder so many rail against their own economic security, considering they watch a network that has no compunction to tell the truth.

Never a bad word about Bush? I see you never watch Fox news.
Fox reported numbers dead in Iraq daily......Seems no one is dying in A-stan...at least according to NBC....
Fox reported on Sanford
Fox reported on Haliburton
Fox reported on Cheney's hunting accident
Fox reported on Palins wardrobe
Fox reported onBush's use of the "mission accomplished" banner too soon
Fox reported on Rumsfeld and his ineptness
Foix reported on Rove
Rove is a guest of FOx often buyt they still report on his subpeonae, etc..

I can go on...but it is quite clear you do not watch fox news......instead yoiu read blogs.

Go for it.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think you can blame the Obama administration for just speaking the truth, though it seems you try.

It is, as it is. We've known for years, since Outfoxed, that the network takes its talking points directly from the republican party, at least, as they say on FAUX "Some people say," that is true.

Hell, never a good word about Clinton, never a bad word about Bush. What conclusion could anyone come up with. Even MSNBC doesn't have that bias, since it has Scarborough, and other right-wingers on, and they use the truth, while FAUX uses rhetoric.

No wonder so many rail against their own economic security, considering they watch a network that has no compunction to tell the truth.

You are absolutely correct, it is what it is.

It is an attempt by the the most powerful man in this country to strongarm the press into playing the game his way or else.

After he forces Fox to capitulate, who is next? Pro-lifers?

Immie

 

[nodoginnafight]

I watch Fox news (as if you are suprised).
They did not report on the woman murdering her husband...they simply reported on the woman claiming to have done so...the report was on the film clip...not the murder itself.
As for the "turning away" part...the filmers first IMPLIED they were never turned away...and the very next day FOX made it clear that they could not back up the claim.
He WAS arrested at the King riots...but charges were dropped....yes, fox did not mention charges were dropped...but that is not a lie...it is a ploy used by NBC as well for sensationalism.
Fox NEVER siad he supported NAMBLA...they reported that he suported a book written by a man who supports NAMBLA...and he did by writing the forward.
Rather was fired for reporting on a memo without checking the validity of the memo....FOx checked the validity of the Acorn film before reporting on it.
Not the same by any means.
But where has fox LIED is my question?

Oldand tired - didn't we engage in a conversation yesterday in which you claimed that Obama should be held accountable for things he DID NOT SAY - because you claimed - people being people, they are going to HEAR a different message and Obama is at fault for NOT accounting for that?

And today you are trying to defend "ploys," omissions, and delayed "fessing up" by FOX news and implying that they should NOT be held accountable?????????

The last FOX news poll shows Obama's approval rating at 50% for and 42% against. Count up the people they quote - are 50% expressing favorable views of Obama and 42% expressing negative views of Obama?

Count up the opinions reflected in their ticker below the screen - again, are 50% expressing approval and 42% disapproval?

Watch who you want to watch, agree with who you want to agree with, and encourage others to agree with you to your heart's content. But don't ever try to sell that "balanced and fair" fantasy to me unless you are ready to get the door slammed in your face.

I do not support misleading in anyway whatsoever...

I was disturbed by their leaving out the "dropping of charges"...but it was done on Beck and I give little credence to his show anyway....

We can change the channel if the news is not accurate.

Decisions are made based on the accuracy of what a President says.

You can not compare the two.

but again....WHEN DID THEIR NEWS REPORTING LIE?


You will get a better debate from me...and an honest one...if you did not come across so adversarial. Just a little advice.

Is pointing out the inconsistencies of a double standard adversial?

I repeat:
The last FOX news poll shows Obama's approval rating at 50% for and 42% against. Count up the people they quote - are 50% expressing favorable views of Obama and 42% expressing negative views of Obama?

Count up the opinions reflected in their ticker below the screen - again, are 50% expressing approval and 42% disapproval?

The only people who have trouble admitting the bias are those who share the bias.