(05-11-2013 01:11 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote: Quote:What republicans need to do is develop some ideas with broad appeal and get everybody reading off one sheet of music like Newt did.
Owl, that doesn't work... and I use Obamacare as the example. You know that document they're still adding to? Republicans had two counter proposals for Obamacare, one was _one page_ long. (remove the interstate restrictions and I think the "to age 26" coverage), and one that was about 15 pages wrong.
Quote:I don't think abortion and gay rights are the battles for republicans to fight now
Republicans will fight the abortion battles forever, however, Republicans have to my knowledge (other than DOMA) ever started a Gay-Rights "fight", it's always been Democrats who "start" the fight, and when Republicans don't punch back. they're accused of starting the fight for not just saying "we agree with Democrats".
Again, Democrats fight dirty (see your comment about Wasserman-Schultz) and the Alphabet Soup media allows them to do it, but when Republicans "fight dirty" (see Paul, Rand; Cruz, Ted), all you see is the media 'requoting' DWS, Harry Reid, Bill Richardson saying "See, the Republicans are mean and nasty!". (btw.. BBC is probably slightly more left leaning then CNN, not as bad as the alphabet soup, and NOWHERE near as bad as MSNBC.).
The Republicans have to be willing to go blow-for-blow in terms of "media clips" - "the squeaky wheel gets the grease
Hell, it's the one thing I do like about Coulter and Hannity.. they fight dirty when the Democrats fight dirty. It's one of hte few things I do still like both. But I think you're defintely letting your "FOX is right wing" bias getting to you.
Again, if you go through their regular contributors (outside of Hannity and The Five, where it's typically 4 conservative/Libertarians and one rotating Liberal reporter), you'll find they almost ALWAYS go 1-for-1 (liberal to conservative) on any argument.
One thing that Fox does do better than the others is that when they have a liberal on, in any of their formats, the liberal is given a much more reasonable opportunity to express his/her opinions than the other networks typically give conservatives. I never cease to be amazed at how much they let Wasserman-Schultz get away with. Maybe that's what they have to agree to in order to get her. I find it interesting that Wolf Blitzer is the one who finally called her out on some of her lying.
I would agree on your placement of BBC slightly to the left of CNN. But BBC is lefties making an effort to present the facts. CNN and everybody to the left of CNN in the US is lefties trying to make you hate righties.
And as far as the bias of all, forget about the commentary shows. The real bias is in the people who are supposed to be the straight news reporters. Number one, they control the selection of what gets covered and what doesn't. And don't give me the lie that it's governed by corporate guys seeking profits. They don't call a board of directors meeting every day at 4 o'clock to decide what gets on the evening news. They pick the stories they want to cover, and whoever delivers them best or has the most charming personality (or the best haircut) gets the ratings. That's why there's a competitive market for news personalities, and it's big news when someone like Katie Couric moves. It's a running joke in every production booth or truck I've ever been in--and I've been in more than a few--that if the on-the-air personalities paid as much attention to what goes into their head as they do to the hair that goes on top of it, we'd all be better off. I have never ceased to be amazed, when you get up close and personal, at how truly stupid some of the best-known names in the media are--particularly some of the most highly regarded. They're airheads with a pleasant demeanor, and they're programmed to think a certain way. Benghazi isn't "newsworthy" because they don't want it to be newsworthy, so they don't cover it. I remember when Van Jones was being covered on Fox and nowhere else and we were told because it wasn't newsworthy, right up until he resigned and people who got their news exclusively elsewhere did not even know why he quit. Number two, the body language they use. Remember Dan Rather during the Florida recounts? Whenever a news story favored Gore, he was all smiles and happiness when he delivered it. When the news favored Bush, he was all frowns and scowls. When the Supreme Court finally ruled in Bush's favor, he looked like a guy who had just watched his wife and three kids die in a car accident.
I agree that republicans need to get down and dirty more. I still think a lot of it is that they don't have some sort of unified theme to pursue. They get baited into giving up silly sound bytes on social issues because they aren't adept at dealing with the situations. If you're a republican, every time you appear on the media, they're trying to find a way to put a knife in your heart. So know that going in and be prepared for it. I find Wasserman-Schultz to be a disgusting human being, ironically as a Jew who is the chief practitioner of the Goebbels Big Lie theory, but she knows how to take any question and turn it into a platform for her talking points of the day. Republicans could learn a lot from her tactics. That is how hardball politics is played.
As for the idea approach not working, it did in 1994. That was the beauty of Newt's Contract. Republicans had a platform to stand on. Get asked a question you don't want to answer, deflect to something in the Contract.
I don't agree with the most hard-line right positions on abortion or gay rights, but I would support someone who advocated them if he or she was aligned with my positions on issues of more importance to me. So if the republicans want never to abandon abortion, that's fine. But treat it like a war, not a battle. It's not a battle you can win right now, so go fight the battles you can win now and develop strength to fight the big one later.