1. I understand the feeling you guys get from the Teflonishness of the Obama Administration. No matter how hard you try to pin something on him it doesn't stick. He doesn't do press briefings. He's never called on the carpet with the media. FoxNews is easily brushed aside as partisan hacks. I do understand this. How can you effectively combat this going forward? You can't scream to you are blue in the face in a corner. Who is the best counterbalance right now to Obama? Anyone in the future you can see. I think the easiest one is Marco Rubio. I think the press has taking a shine to Christie. Anyone else?

1a. BTW I think the press will take a shine to Christie until he is the King then go after him like they did McCain.


2. I just have to keep telling myself that the right hates Obama like I used to hate W's administration. Just the way that guy carried himself use to piss me off something fierce. We all have biases and I think the days of approval ratings over 65% are over. I think we have to add 10% to approval ratings anymore. You know how you hear the 50 is the new 40. I think it's that way with approval ratings. That dynamic has changed with the advent of news on demand and the lack of a unifying voice. We don't have a Walter Kronkite.

3. Speaking of news. It's just a damn shame we don't have an independent news source. It's all filtered with a corporate agenda.

Take any of these and let's have a cup of coffee.

The dems have gone so far left without being taken to task that they successfully painted Mitt Romney and his reasonable, moderate ideas as a right-winged loon. The 1990's version of Bill Clinton would be a right-winged loon. Things are going to have to get worse before they get better I'm afraid. As long as they get away with not raising taxes on the under $100k crowd, they'll keep voting for what appears to be free. At some point it will come to a head, but I don't think there is any particular human being in either party that will be a savior. It will have to come from the will of the people.

(05-10-2013 10:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  1. I understand the feeling you guys get from the Teflonishness of the Obama Administration. No matter how hard you try to pin something on him it doesn't stick. He doesn't do press briefings. He's never called on the carpet with the media. FoxNews is easily brushed aside as partisan hacks. I do understand this. How can you effectively combat this going forward? You can't scream to you are blue in the face in a corner. Who is the best counterbalance right now to Obama? Anyone in the future you can see. I think the easiest one is Marco Rubio. I think the press has taking a shine to Christie. Anyone else?
1a. BTW I think the press will take a shine to Christie until he is the King then go after him like they did McCain.
2. I just have to keep telling myself that the right hates Obama like I used to hate W's administration. Just the way that guy carried himself use to piss me off something fierce. We all have biases and I think the days of approval ratings over 65% are over. I think we have to add 10% to approval ratings anymore. You know how you hear the 50 is the new 40. I think it's that way with approval ratings. That dynamic has changed with the advent of news on demand and the lack of a unifying voice. We don't have a Walter Kronkite.
3. Speaking of news. It's just a damn shame we don't have an independent news source. It's all filtered with a corporate agenda.
Take any of these and let's have a cup of coffee.

Good questions. My thoughts, most of which you've probably heard before.

1. Going forward, republicans need to make it about what (issues/ideas) instead of who (personalities). Newt Gingrich is as sleazy as they come, and he surrounded himself with equal sleazebags like Tom DeLay. But he made himself almost the equivalent of a prime minister by getting the focus off personalities and onto ideas with the Contract. What republicans need to do is develop some ideas with broad appeal and get everybody reading off one sheet of music like Newt did. I think the democrats have gone off the left end of the world, so there is a pretty big idea space available. Pick some battles you can win, and fight them. I think those ideas are there, I've laid out what I think they are, maybe they end up somewhat different, but I think that's where they need to go. I will say this--I don't think abortion and gay rights are the battles for republicans to fight now. Take a page from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz--you get asked a question about abortion, answer it with talking points about the economy. I'm not saying totally give up on social issues. You can take positions that are clearly more conservative than democrats and build a consensus now, and try to move the needle your direction over time; do the legwork to make it a winnable battle first, then fight it.

2. I think Bush's problems go back to Newt in a way. Newt promised the Contract, then got lost in Monicagate. The republicans let their visceral hatred of the Clintons totally destroy their common sense. Bush still said the things people wanted to hear in 2000--cut the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business--then proceeded to do exactly the opposite. The left him with nothing for either side to like. He made people hate conservatives without actually being conservative. He gave in to the democrats on senseless spending proposals that bankrupted the budget, in order to get them to back off criticism of his precious war. Democrats played him like a fiddle. If republicans are going to run on ideas, then they have to enact those ideas once they get into power. I think the republican leadership is more concerned about hanging on to power than about doing the right thing. And that will ultimately mean that they do neither.

3. The best thing to do for news is get as many sources as possible, and then do the hard work of figuring out what makes sense and what doesn't. I used to like Fox as an alternative voice to the fairly tightly knit liberal circle that encompasses the rest, but they have just become so shrill in their republican partisanship that I can't take them very long any more. The roundtable segment from about 5:40 to 6 pm offers some varying viewpoints and is good--you get a cast that varies among Juan Williams, Charles Krauthammer, Mara Liason, and Bill Kristol sitting around one table discussing issues and you get a bunch of viewpoints expressed. Even better is that they all seem pretty respectful of each other, so you get discussion instead of yelling. But that's about the only time I can take Fox--Hannity is an idiot, Greta bores me to tears (except I keep wondering when her face is going to explode), and I actually enjoy O'Reilly, but only in very small doses. I probably get more news from the BBC and the Economist that anywhere else. They are biased, but their biases are different from what you get here, so they are useful.

I think the point about liberal media is important. But you know what I did? I so surrounded myself in more conservative echo chambers that was pretty well damn convinced Romney would pull a close W out of the hat last November.

Dope.

"All democracies will eventually fail when the public realizes they can vote themselves a raise"(paraphrase) My greatest fear is we are at this point. Our electorate is teetering on the edge of this and once over the cliff - nothing will stop it until an ecomomic collapse that will make the great depression look like a picnic. Think of the reaction when the cradle to grave freebies suddenly stop...........

(05-10-2013 11:55 AM)Crebman Wrote:  "All democracies will eventually fail when the public realizes they can vote themselves a raise"(paraphrase) My greatest fear is we are at this point. Our electorate is teetering on the edge of this and once over the cliff - nothing will stop it until an ecomomic collapse that will make the great depression look like a picnic. Think of the reaction when the cradle to grave freebies suddenly stop...........

teetering? Where have you been since 2007? Not Realville. That ship has already sailed, most admit it, and at least 1/3 of Americans are ready to do something about it.

I think there are too many people who don't involve themselves in the voting process and make uneducated votes. They see the 5 second sound bytes on tv and the headline above the fold and that's all the info they get. In the process, if they can vote something for themselves then that's the icing on the cake. Sadly, it is unconstitutional to test voters before they decide the course of the nation. People who don't or havent contributed to the country should not have a say in the lives of those that do or have contributed.

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.

(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.

During the Bush years they most certainly picked the fight on gay marriage. It's amazing to me how quick the calculus has changed on that. My feeling is it will be the same way on abortion. Now before BIE throws up aborted baby pictures. I'm not arguing abortion. I'm just saying the calculus is hurting the R's and it's going to get worse as time goes by. I don't have numbers and my only proof is the D's ran on it last election. I understand my bias but it was the first national campaign were I saw and heard commercials from the pro choice side. My guess is suburban middle class females. Something that cut into the GOP margins. If the GOP continues to lose elections on it. It will be out of the platform.

Owl, think that was Van Jones.

(05-11-2013 07:48 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Owl, think that was Van Jones.

You're right, edited to correct.