Posted by Bonn1997:

All right I'm getting a little more lenient toward Obama, although I still think it was a terribly stupid comment. There are plenty of frustrated, bitter atheists, non-gun-owners, etcs. who vote the way they do on single issues because of how they feel too. What was Obama thinking by singling out religious people and gun owners (or even just a subsample of them as bigsmooth points out)? Why not single out bitter atheists?

Posted by Bonn1997:

That still doesn't answer my question about why he singled out people on one end of the issue (e.g., pro-gun bitter people). He could have just as easily focused on bitter people who are anti-gun (or want tougher gun laws).

Posted by JohnWallace44:

If we vote McCain into office because of what Obama said in his response then we are being pretty damn ignorant. If we vote McCain into office, we deserve the high gas prices. We deserve the money pit in Iraq. We deserve the ****ed up economy. We deserve being spied on and we deserve having our rights taken away. If we vote McCain into office because of what Wright said, we deserve another 4 years of Republicans and everything they bring with them. We are reaping what we sowed with Bush and we better wake up and start making smart decisions. If we still rely on sound bites, then we deserve to get ****ed.

If others are going to distort his quotes then we can clarify it by challenging those that buy into that distorted view. I suggest we do our part by educating those around us of what he said. Its people like us that talk about politics that can bring this to other peoples attention. We can stop others from distorting his good intentions. Or we could just sit around not do nothing and say Obama is the right guy for the job but we are powerless because FOXNEWS is distorting his quotes.

Amen. People have to stop voting against their own interests. If we don't, then we deserve what we get.

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Bonn1997:

The Democrats have to make a more compelling case that voting Republican is voting against your interests. (I agree that it is for everyone except billionaires, but the Democrats have done a terrible case at making the case.)

I completely disagree. I think the Republicans have done a great job of turning everyone against them. They already lost the house and the senate and the record voter turnout (basically means people are sick of the way things are going and want a change) can only be good for the Democrats. The Republicans have made a compelling case against themselves. The Dems should just ride the wave.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Bonn1997:

The Democrats have to make a more compelling case that voting Republican is voting against your interests. (I agree that it is for everyone except billionaires, but the Democrats have done a terrible case at making the case.)

I completely disagree. I think the Republicans have done a great job of turning everyone against them. They already lost the house and the senate and the record voter turnout (basically means people are sick of the way things are going and want a change) can only be good for the Democrats. The Republicans have made a compelling case against themselves. The Dems should just ride the wave.

I'm talking about for the past 2 decades, not any one election year.

Posted by Cash:

Ideas like universal healthcare are easy to defend.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by Bonn1997:

I actually think it's much simpler: There is no liberal equivalent of Fox News simply because there is no demand for such an equivalent. If they can make millions or billions more with a liberal news channel, they would. Corporations aren't going to lose money just to satisfy political agendas. I know everyone loves to hate the media but they're really just a reflection of our society.

In general, conservatives want to hear news that confirms their viewpoints (conservatism is by definition the desire to maintain the status quo, including maintaining your current views). Fox News is perfect for this. Liberals tend to prefer balanced news rather than one-sided liberal only news. MSNBC and CNN are perfect for this.

BOnn this simply isn't the case, wildly popular liberals like Donahue have been forced off air, even recently. Politics come before money, because ultimately, if politics move too far to the left, its bad for rich people's money, and they certainly are very well aware of that. Here is another example, and please note I am giviing evidence to support my claims:

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/24/phil_donahue_we_have_an_emergency
Phil Donahue was on in the same time slot as Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, but the show didn’t last—Phil’s, that is. In fact, it didn’t even last a year, even though it was MSNBC’s top rated program. When Donahue was fired, the network moved to hire a string of right wing hosts. Phil Donahue joins us in the studio right now. It’s great to have you with us.

PHIL DONAHUE: Hi, Amy. Nice to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we all learned about this memo, just soon after you were fired that came out of NBC, that was—that said that as we led into the invasion of Iraq, they didn’t want to have their flagship show, no matter how successful it was, the most popular show on MSNBC, being one that provided a forum for anti-war voices. They didn’t want an anti-war face when the other networks were waving the American flag.

PHIL DONAHUE: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response?

PHIL DONAHUE: Well, that memo was a fact, and it was reported by The New York Times and other publications. Our program was doing reasonably well. We weren’t Elvis, but the program for its—the numbers of our program on the family of NBC—MSNBC at night, was very respectable, and I think had a prospect of growing even larger. So, the numbers did not warrant our departure, our dismissal. And along the way it became clear to us that they were terrified that we were going to become a place—an anti-war kind of platform, where all of these radicals would come and oppose the war.

AMY GOODMAN: Like Harry Belafonte.

PHIL DONAHUE: Yes, and others. We had some wonderful—for a peaceful tomorrow. I mean, I came back to television and ran right into a wall of widows. I mean, that shocked me. I just somehow wasn’t anticipating this. 9/11 widows. The New Jersey girls and these wonderful people, people who came on—mothers, wives said, “Not in my name. Don’t kill more innocent people to avenge the death of my loved one.” We just were very excited about what we were doing. Along the way, it became clear that they were really very nervous about us, and the rule was laid down, we had to have two conservatives for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals. I mean, this is the truth. So I was very, very naive, you know, for a veteran guy, I can’t get over—and there’s probably some vanity involved here, too. I thought I was going to be a place where dissent could be heard. I really believed that that was going to happen. And it was very naive of me to think that. It made them very, very nervous.

JUAN GONZALEZ: On the same—in the same vein, though, they knew your viewpoints and perspectives from the past.

PHIL DONAHUE: I can’t figure that, either. Yes

JUAN GONZALEZ: They knew that you are more open to having dissenting voices on, so what were they expecting, when they agree to—that you had mellowed?

PHIL DONAHUE: I think that they felt that—29 years on the air, I mean, pretty high name recognition for good old Phil, and they figured, ‘well, numbers,’ you know? And they forgot perhaps that I meet be capable of featuring dissent. That’s the only answer I can give. It bewildered me, as well.

They'll let you show dissent on some issues, but on others, like a war over trillions of dollars of oil, no they can't afford that. They need that war to happen.
Ratings are short term dollars, idealogical control are long term dollars, they wont sacrifice the short term for the long term. Gotta keep people dumb, and thats eseential what conservatives do, speak on behalf of corporate interests, lie about global warming, about fossil fuels, about whatever. 20 years ago they were lying about 2nd hand smoke. Guys like Rush, O'Reilly and Savage, are essentially professional liars, their job is to promote lies and views that are beneficial to the ruling class. Its really very simple. And those guys get paid very well for what they do.

Posted by Cash:

I disagree. In a situation with zero context, universal healthcare(in the sense of giving money to people that can't afford healthcare) is very reasonable, especially if you change that context to include us as a wealthy nation that can afford it. But, the reality is, is that we are 9 trillion dollars in debt with a failing economy. I wouldn't care, if these plans were accompanied with a plan to reduce costs in other areas. However, they are accompanied by plans to just increase taxes, not on the rich(inherited wealth), but on the people who make the most money. I can understand taking money from people who start off with a ton of it and have no idea what to do with it. But, when you take money from people who have earned it and know what to do with it, you are hurting everyone.

Michael Moore is a left wing sicko. The idea doesn't get much positive media attention because the vast majority agree that it is pretty stupid. What Michael Moore is talking about is not what most people refer to as universal healthcare so much as nationalized healthcare. That is a complete disaster, and if you really want to think it, I am not interested in debating it. Go live in Canada and wait in lines for months for someone to take care of your medical problem. I can't help you.

The reality is, is that healthcare is an important issue, and generally speaking it is a good thing for people to have. There are ways to reduce the costs of healthcare, to make it more affordable for more people(or just have to subsidize less). We just have to make hard choices, and these choices aren't things that get carried by the major networks. We can do things like reducing punitive damages and pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. No one wants to say, lets just give poor johnny 250,000 cause he lost his leg. No, it is much more easy to not talk about it and give johnny 9 million through a jury(and then complain about rising healthcare costs). The thing is, this is the type of thing that is driving up healtcare costs(because the costs get passed on to us), which makes it unaffordable for people. Doctors have tons of incentives not to commit medical malpractice(it is obviously very embarrassing). And people need to understand that medicine is highly technical(and mistakes happen-nothing is guaranteed) and doctors are people(and make mistakes.)

And, the media probably doesn't talk to much about the bailout of Bears Sterns because it is not something anyone likes. This is the type of thing you do to avoid the collapse of the economy on a greater scale(which would hurt everyone).

There isn't much of a story there.

Where was the so called bias in the liberal media when the government crippled stem cell research? Nothing happened with Valerie Plume being outed, or with the Scooter Libby perjury. Where was the liberal bias when we found out about the warrant less surveillance? There was little coverage of the torture and waterboarding.

The only thing the media got right was Katrina and that had NOTHING to do with partisan politics. How come the media does not hold the Bush government responsible for never finding Osama Bin Laden? They helped the republican senate go after Bill Clinton for getting head in the oval office but how come they aren't asked to answer for the manufactured evidence of WMDs in Iraq?