I thought Fox News versus the administration story would be over by now but it is escalating beyond belief. The last part of Fox news Sunday was devoted to a one-sided attack against the administration, with former Bush spokesman Dana Perino, trying to link the White House with Hugo Chavez's suppression of the news. CNN's Reliable Sources, Meet the Press, ABC Sunday with George Stephanopoulos also chimed in on the subject. George had to cut off Laura Ingram when she tried to say that the administration ought to use as much zeal against the Islamic terrorists as they do against Fox….Fox cannot claim to be the victim and at the same time brag about an increase in viewer rates.
In my unofficial viewpoint, the Republicans and conservatives are fighting for a true identification. This is the way I see it: They all call themselves conservatives.
Moderate Republican…. A relic, who will now be the independent vote both parties will seek…. They are the old Barry Goldwater fiscal conservatives.
Social Conservative…. This person wants to repeal Roe v Wade and never allow gay marriage, or amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Neoconservatives……. They are not into the social issues or economic policies but they would rather use the military to bring democracy to the whole world.
Tea Party Conservatives… This group is part libertarian, anti- tax, smaller government, types that will embrace the social issues the social conservatives have.
It will be conservative versus conservative in the Florida governor race and the New York house seat.
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are getting wackier by the day (if that's possible) in fact the other day, Rush was telling his viewers about a thesis the president wrote while at Columbia, denouncing the Constitution. After he was told it was a hoax (from a website that specializes in hoaxes) he didn't recant but said everyone knew that was what Obama was thinking. Shamelessly, Glenn Beck is using the swine flu shot as a prop to get his listeners and viewers to distrust the information coming from the administration… If hundreds of his listeners die because they dismissed the warnings, will Mr. Beck come forward? I seriously doubt it.
I thought the president was being reasonable by taking his time before committing 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. You'd think, we would have learned a lesson from Iraq but the very same people that rushed to war in Iraq are accusing this president of dithering. I'm glad I don't have to make this decision because on one hand, the war is escalating in Afghanistan whether we want it or not and on the other hand, no one is discussing an exit strategy. The only thing certain is that we will not pull out our 68,000 troops from Afghanistan; anytime soon and it's starting to become really expensive. This past weekend, this issue was discussed on every news show but without any mention of the deficit or the debt.
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
30 Comments
Follow Mike
Comments
BTW, like your party's programs, your links don't work.
October 29, 2009 at 3:40 p.m.Hey buckshot, no ones threatening you. More of showing how individual rights are second hand to the party in control. Sure is funny how all of a sudden you want ot consider legal compliance a threat. The fact you would even use the word "threat" in such a manner indicates some level an anxiety disorder. Probably explains why you are so determined to have "big brother" to take care of everything.
As far as hitting up right vs left wing blogs, you are the ONLY one here who posts consist nearly entirely of promoting any political party specific ideology d'jour. He77 man, you even have a jacka$$ as your little icon. Don't see any elephants around here.
Disclose your affiliation to the entity you are working so hard to promote, as now required by the now Dem controlled FTC, you crazy scofflaw you.
October 29, 2009 at 12:47 p.m.Johnny
On second thought send your concerns,opinions to some one that might care.
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo...
or http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo...
Quit boring me with the same old threats.
October 28, 2009 at 5:24 p.m.Johnny
This is the second time you had threatened me with this so called law but you're very selective because you don't threaten the right wing bloggers.
The poster in question was deleted because he has been a four-year nemesis...You don't know the history,so your opinion does not have a basis.
You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of free speech,the Constitution and coward but that is all that is, and it carries very little weight.
October 28, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.This will be interesting on 12/1/09, when the new FTC disclosure rules for amature bloggers kicks in.
Anyone promoting any specific organization which operates any commerce or fund raising activities, will have to disclose his/her full identity as well as whether or not he/she is now, or has ever been, compensated in any way from the organization being promoted. This would even include acknowledging if said blogger has ever been a paid volunteer for such organization, or if an unpaid volunteer, in what capacity and whether or not any compensation (including meals) was provided.
It appears that in order for VA to remain in compliance, they will at least need to remove the ability of a blog author to censor other commentors. Failure to do so would be in blatent support of supression of evidence (eg: someone responds on Joe's supposedly amature blog promoting Green Party ideals with, "Hey Joe, remember when we both worked with Nader, how's he doing theses days?", then Joe deletes post).
The VA, as well as the blogger, could be subject to significant fines.
As a side note, how in the world can anyone claim to be a supporter of the Constitution of the US, then blatently and proudly restrict another's right to free speech. I have one word for those individuals: cowards.
October 28, 2009 at 4:55 p.m.exresident
October 28, 2009 at 2:31 p.m.I will concede that Social Security, Medicare Medicaid and the VA are all socialist programs and every industrial nation has a socialist component.
I'm not going to pretend I know what's going on behind the scenes in Afghanistan but the fact that Hillary Clinton is trying to smooth our relationship with Pakistan( since we are removing our troops from the Afghan -- Pakistan border) has something to do with the overall strategy...The parallel with Vietnam will always be made by the naysayers.
October 28, 2009 at 2:29 p.m.This from the Advocate's user policy:
"Users agree not to knowingly give out any private information about other users. Users who engage in the behavior of continually trying to guess other user's private information may be banned and their account and contributions removed. "
OK Mr. Cobler, here is your opportunity to equally enforce the rules. You removed a number of posts yesterday because someone complained. I am now complaining.
October 28, 2009 at 2:28 p.m.Mike-
How would you define a "socialist agenda?"
Many thanks.
October 28, 2009 at 2:26 p.m.I think I used a lot of IMOs.. a self proclaimed expert would not do this.
You may speak for the right-wing rollingstone but according to yesterday's NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, President Obama still had a 51% job approval but most people are concerned about the high unemployment rate.That same poll stated that only 20% blamed the president for this economy,68% said he inherited it... I think the administration needs to do more about the job situation.
Only the Tea Party Conservatives,and the Cold War mind-set are worried about a socialist agenda but for the most part, McCarthyism is dead.
No intention on leaving Afghanistan..Can you cite a source where the president said we would remove the 68,000? What would you do?
October 28, 2009 at 2:23 p.m.Mike seems to be an expert on what other people think, believe or want - typical liberal hubris.
Most people, me included are very concerned about the runaway, unsustainable, asinine spending and the socialist philosophy that government should solve every stinking problem.
And sadly it looks like the current administration is taking a page out of the LBJ play book and trying to split the difference between winning and leaving in Afghanistan.
October 28, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.This comment was removed by the user.
October 28, 2009 at 12:56 p.m.This comment was removed by the user.
October 28, 2009 at 12:53 p.m.Good!!
October 28, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.I am not going to allow Roy Mark (gyroscope) to post on my blog..He was thrown off the forum for continuing to try to bait posters to engage in ad hominem attacks and using seven identities at the same time,in doing so....Went on an all night rant to disparage anonymous posters,yet he is using one today....Not worth my time and effort..Plenty of blogs he can post on or write his own.
October 28, 2009 at 12:47 p.m.This comment was removed by the user.
October 28, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.This comment was removed by the user.
October 28, 2009 at 11:59 a.m.I thought the same thing when Mike said that about Goldwater, but I considered the source. I don't think Mike has any idea what goes on in the Republican Party, and he is certainly no authority on the subject.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice...and...moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~ Barry Goldwater, 1964 RNC
Does he sound like a moderate?
Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, based solely on the requirements it made of business owners. His ideology could be no further apart than that of McCain, Graham, Ridge, etc. You know...today's moderates.
October 28, 2009 at 10:18 a.m.Barry Goldwater was against the New Deal and the policies of the Great Society, and welfare, based on his libertarian and fiscal conservative view points. Much like the moderate Republicans of today…. … He railed against the John Birch Society and the Christian Coalition becoming a part of the Republican platform…Much like the moderate Republicans of today.
One who listens to Michael Savage should not be lecturing those that watch Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow. ..Hello pot meet kettle.
October 28, 2009 at 10:14 a.m.It is Lynne.
October 28, 2009 at 10 a.m.Moderate Conservatives are Barry Goldwater Conservatives?
In no way are ANY kind of moderate a Goldwaterite.
More study of exact beliefs of Goldwater is needed.
Not listening any left "news or blogs" will be helpful to avoid.
Fox News off tilt...Olbermann, Maddow, Contessa, talk about off tilt.
Like I said before. Sad what CNN has turn into. I miss Lynn, a journalist.
October 28, 2009 at 9:59 a.m.itisi
I believe we are more polarized today, than we ever have been in our history...We operate in a parallel universe..IMO
I agree with the statement Mike Barnacle made this morning when he said"In this political environment,we could not pass the Federal Highway bill,the G.I. Bill of Rights or more benefits for our veterans."
October 28, 2009 at 9:33 a.m.Dollysdad
I think you're way off base with your made up description of the Democratic Party… There is a difference between ideology and political affiliation…. The environmental zealots align themselves mostly with the Green Party but it more in tune with their other believes with the Democratic Party, than the Republican Party…. The Clinton wing of the Democratic Party merged with the Obama side just before the convention, giving the President the 69 million votes he needed to win the election. Hillary Clinton is the current Secretary of State and Bill Clinton has campaigned and has been an advocate of the Obama administration. The Blue Dogs are conservative Democrats from conservative districts…The Yellow Dog is becoming obsolete because of the new young Democrats and the diverse makeup of the party… The Yellow Dog should not be confused with those that do not agree with the Republican platform.
I admit I don't know the ideology or agenda of the Tea Party conservatives because they are all over the map but I believe my descriptions of the fiscal, social and neoconservatives are correct.
I was not trying to say that CNN was fair and balanced, just that they bent over backwards to let John Kyl of Arizona, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Chuck Schumer of New York, and Senator Brown of Ohio give their talking points without being challenged, amounts to an infomercial…I believe “fair and balance” is just a marketing slogan.
I would continue to say that the news is not bias but then again I don't think all the news stories are political fodder…i.e. The 8 soldiers that were killed by road side bomb yesterday, the FAA revoking the license of the Northwest pilots who overflew their destination, and H1N1 vaccinations are news stories that should not have a political slant.
The increase of listeners of talk radio is still a very small fraction of the population, for one, AM radio does not appeal to those less than 40 years old, I think when the extreme right wing starts to win elections, and they will be considered a threat. Viewership and listeners did not transcend into wins at the ballot box in 2006 or 2008.
October 28, 2009 at 9:24 a.m.Parallel universe, I just don’t see it within the context of slanted words, which are very biased in nature. Perhaps you could do another spread sheet, and give us a more detailed analysis on the progressive liberal democrats that believe in big government, more social programs, and shovel more taxes down our throat whether you like or not. Let’s create a new healthcare system that we cannot afford because some people namely 15% do not have insurance. IMO, I think this spaceship the democrats are on is just about to run out of fuel, because after Nancy Pelosi statement, we are now calling the public option “consumer option.” What a pathetic bunch of morons…
October 28, 2009 at 9:10 a.m.This comment was removed by the user.
October 27, 2009 at 11 p.m.The same could be said of various news networks. And don't hand me the CNN tried to be fair line. Along with MSNBC, CBS, ABC,and NBC, they have led a biasis charge to wreck the prior administration, uplift the current one.
Perhaps the right wing radio group has increased in popularity because the public distrusts the so-called news organizations. Ever think of that?
October 27, 2009 at 8:01 p.m.They are more dangerous because many people think that what they say IS news.
October 27, 2009 at 6:14 p.m.And Democrats have morphed into the following.
Blue Dogs-Social moderate, fiscal moderate
Yellow Dogs-Democrat is the only way!
Gore Dogs-Social Kooks, Environmental Kooks
Obama Dogs-Fiscal Irresponsible, Social Leftists, blame the last guy. "Let me perfectly clear...", then proceeds to spin.
Clinton Dogs-Jealous of Obama Dogs, watch the guy before last one.
Should I continue?
And who thinks that Beck, Hannity, or Rush are journalists? They are self proclaimed popular (and growing more so) entertainers. Do you really think they are any more dangerous than Reality TV?
October 27, 2009 at 6:04 p.m.I think people want filtered news, as the ratings indicate... I saw CNN drop to the bottom because they bent over backwards, trying to stay in the middle, by allowing their guest give their viewpoint without interruption. It became an infomercial for both parties.
The News Hour with Jim Lehrer will bore most people but it is quite informative without a partisan slant…IMO
The 20 minute newscast by the networks, Monday –Friday, remind me of the old newsreels we used to see in the movies. No in-depth information.
PBS's Frontline had a special about the financial crisis the other night but it had a very low rating because people want to believe their filtered account rather than investigative reports these days..IMO
October 27, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.Do you think maybe that news has morphed into commentary, and the fragmentation of the media has lead to pursing the ever elusive market share?
October 27, 2009 at 5:25 p.m.