Clinton gets p*issed off...

TroyD

While I'm on my soapbox......

Here is the thing that gets me about the Democrats (not that Republicans don't have thier issues but I digress). It is a fact that they have been losing ground, on the national level, at the ballot box for years.

Now, the Democrats seem to have a penchant for wanting to blame:

1. The Republicans for polarizing the country. This is a crock. Everyone has just as much right to push thier agenda as anyone else.

2. Talk radio. This is such crap and I'll lump Fox news in as well. To basically give credit to Rush Limbaugh, one guy and his radio show, credit for derailing the democratic process is absurd. Yeah, he has an audience of 20 million or so. When he started, he had zero. Something he has to say MUST resonate. Same thing with Fox, what they say must resonate with someone. Democrats have the EXACT same opportunity yet can't seem to pull it off (Air America? gone bankrupt with dismal ratings). Hannity, Coulter et al. Yup, they are very biased. At least they don't hide behind the utter farce of 'journalistic objectivity'. Again, see Rather and the whole Bush ANG thing. If that was not carrying water for the DNC....well, not much I can tell you. Same thing with the others. Gregory, Stephanopolous etc etc.

The point is, as long as Democrats continue to blame others and point fingers for thier losess, they will continue. The fact is, thier message does not resonate with voters. Until they face that fact, they will continue to flounder.

BDT

hearingimpared

TroyD wrote:

While I'm on my soapbox......

Here is the thing that gets me about the Democrats (not that Republicans don't have thier issues but I digress). It is a fact that they have been losing ground, on the national level, at the ballot box for years.

Now, the Democrats seem to have a penchant for wanting to blame:

1. The Republicans for polarizing the country. This is a crock. Everyone has just as much right to push thier agenda as anyone else.

2. Talk radio. This is such crap and I'll lump Fox news in as well. To basically give credit to Rush Limbaugh, one guy and his radio show, credit for derailing the democratic process is absurd. Yeah, he has an audience of 20 million or so. When he started, he had zero. Something he has to say MUST resonate. Same thing with Fox, what they say must resonate with someone. Democrats have the EXACT same opportunity yet can't seem to pull it off (Air America? gone bankrupt with dismal ratings). Hannity, Coulter et al. Yup, they are very biased. At least they don't hide behind the utter farce of 'journalistic objectivity'. Again, see Rather and the whole Bush ANG thing. If that was not carrying water for the DNC....well, not much I can tell you. Same thing with the others. Gregory, Stephanopolous etc etc.

The point is, as long as Democrats continue to blame others and point fingers for thier losess, they will continue. The fact is, thier message does not resonate with voters. Until they face that fact, they will continue to flounder.

BDT

and then realize that Republicans are just plain smarter than Democrats . . .

Demiurge

Troy is batting 1.000 today. :eek:

brettw22

It's a debate based on facts, not myths...........

aaharvel

TroyD wrote:

aaharvel, c'mon, that's just quitting. I'm all ears for the rebuttal to my theories.BDT

i've already made my rebuttal. You called me on the 103rd Congress bit, and in essence what Clinton said. I have no answer to that, especially from someone that was actually in Somalia at the time. I sure wasn't. In other words, you win.

I would be more than happy to carry on this debate with you, IF I weren't so outnumbered which always seems to be the case, but that's ok. Everybody has the right to their opinion. I just hope the majority realizes this as well. Sometimes you just gotta admit that your beat and go and live to fight another day. But the thing that i'm proud of is that I at least know when I'm wrong, and the fact that I acknowledge if not agree with what MAC said, and I admit to it. And we're both straddling opposite sides of the political fence.

Good job.

TroyD

Yeah, but in the case of the 103rd Congress, that's ancilliary. Even if you were factually correct, it still wouldn't make a whit of difference.

Also, it' not a matter of right or wrong, it's actually being able to apply objectivity to what you believe. The problem with most people and politics is that they let thier emotions clound thier judgement.

Back to one of the original points about the media being biased....lemme run this scenario by you. On 3 Oct 1993, the US force in Somalia conducted a raid, without UN coordination, lost 19 US lives and over one THOUSAND civlian casualties. OK, I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of media coverage focused on the captrue of Mike Durant. The fact we killed over a thousand civilians in one DAY? Very little, if any mention. Now, let's assume for a moment that tommorow, in Iraq, we lost 19 troops and killed 1000 civilians, honestly, you would hear NOTHING but the 1000 civilian casualties, that would be the headline.

BDT

aaharvel

TroyD wrote:

Yeah, but in the case of the 103rd Congress, that's ancilliary. Even if you were factually correct, it still wouldn't make a whit of difference.

Also, it' not a matter of right or wrong, it's actually being able to apply objectivity to what you believe. The problem with most people and politics is that they let thier emotions clound thier judgement.

BDT

Objectively speaking, i thought i did in my first post. I was glad Clinton brought it up, if not for the sole reason (and imo it isn't the sole reason) to show liberals that if they want to win elections to stop ****-footing around and show emotion once in a blue moon, which btw fuels the heart of debate on both sides of the aisle. I do think Chris Wallace was a whipping boy to Clinton's frustration, and could've been more productive if he took someone like Hannity or O'Reilly behind the woodshed. The only ones appearing to me doing it now on "my side" or Air America which is a joke, Michael Moore who is imo full of it, and now Keith Olbermann, who I used to be a fan of until he started these "special comments" at the end of every Monday show.. Showing emotion because you have an Axe to grind (Dick Morris and now regrettably Keith Olbermann- bad. Showing emotion to further your own cause under the belief that what you're doing is right (Clinton) good.

jdhdiggs

aaharvel wrote:

Showing emotion because you have an Axe to grind (Dick Morris and now regrettably Keith Olbermann- bad. Showing emotion to further your own cause under the belief that what you're doing is right (Clinton) good.

Totally agree, I wish both sides of the aisle would get a little more public with their true feelings. In fact, I wish there was more to this election then one side saying "we're strong on defense, you don't want to die do you?" or the "we hate George Bush" sides.

More issues and concrete plans need to be brought up. I would really love to have liberals to state a plan for the war on terror (good or bad) beyond "Bush's plan sucks". It's probably the only way the can take back both houses.

univera

I'm with aaharvel, as much as I like Clinton, he would have done better to show up O'Reiley or Hannity, but they wouldn't have gone down as easily. I just would have enjoyed seeing O'Reiley knocked down a few pegs. And, just for the record, I would like to see some unity. Period. I'm not for any person on any side of the aisle that does nothing but bashes the crap out of the other side. Air America is a nice counter to the Conservative only talk here in Charleston, but they aren't objective anymore than O'Reiley and Hannity in particular. There are a few afternoon guys on the conservative side that I can listen to because they have objectivity. And, no, impotent Rush ain't one of them.....

cheddar

Sounds like almost all the mainstream media is having a problem even getting people to listen to them. So much for public sentiment:

"only one of the three main cable channels is growing: Fox, which now commands more than half the cable news audience at any one time (55% daytime and 59% prime time)"

from:
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/narrative_overview_audience.asp?cat=4&media=1

The rest of the article basically says that newspapers and magazines are losing subscribers. While some of the loss is probably due to online etc., my guess is that most of the public just isn't buying the liberal line anymore after having it pounded into them by the likes of Rather and the security leak-of-the-week NY Times...

zombie boy 2000

I work at a newspaper....

trust me when I say most of the loss is due to online habits

cheddar

zombie boy 2000 wrote:

I work at a newspaper....

trust me when I say most of the loss is due to online habits

Still doesn't explain the GROWTH of Fox at the expense of CNN and MSNBC.

zombie boy 2000

cheddar wrote:

Still doesn't explain the GROWTH of Fox at the expense of CNN and MSNBC.

And with that, I agree

markmarc

Fox grew for one reason, they hired media types with a conservative bent. Once viewers heard that their viewpoint was being promoted, they flocked to it. It's called targeting to your market audience. Pure and simple.

On to Clinton, a genius politician who is privately morally bankrupt.

GWB, morally strong, but severely blinded by loyalty.

cheddar

markmarc wrote:

Fox grew for one reason, they hired media types with a conservative bent. Once viewers heard that their viewpoint was being promoted, they flocked to it. It's called targeting to your market audience. Pure and simple.

Since Fox crushes the competition in audience share throughout the day, by your argument, the news market is overwhelmingly conservative. I guess the american public isn't as polarized as we've been led to believe by the pundits...

markmarc

Cheddar:
Fox= conservative
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc= liberal

I bet if you add up all the viewing numbers it probably equals a 50/50 split

aaharvel

markmarc wrote:

Cheddar:
Fox= conservative
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc= liberal

I bet if you add up all the viewing numbers it probably equals a 50/50 split

i agree with you regarding MSNBC and CBS, at least on a daily basis.

cheddar

markmarc wrote:

Cheddar:
Fox= conservative
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc= liberal

I bet if you add up all the viewing numbers it probably equals a 50/50 split

Nope, in a direct competition between apples and apples (cable news networks, broadcast news has its own market) Fox gets 55% daytime and 59% prime time as I quoted in the earlier article. Now if you add in broadcast news (ABC, CBS, NBC) I'm sure the numbers favor the liberal news orgs. But then again, there is no competition in the broadcast market with a comparable conservative network.

CNN and MSNBC only dream of getting Fox's numbers. But the cable watching public just isn't buying their line.

markmarc

To be honest, I watch very little cable news, especially the pundits. I have better things to do than listen to the self-serving blowhards of all spectrums. I want the hard news, skip the opinions.

MacLeod

Wow! Boy did I miss it! You guys are supposed to wait for me with these political discussions!!

All those hanging curve balls I wouldve loved to knock out of the park but Troy Bonds did a fine job of it.....and without the steroids....so I guess Ill go back to downloading ****.

opus

If your are a Liberal or Conservative just admit it. Damn it. Then we can move on. What pisses me off the most is this mock outrage that newspeople have when you question their fairness. I don't have a problem with "Gunda Dan" Rather having a liberal bent. That's fine, just own up to it. To think that your personal views don't shape how you see events is silly and naive. My father-in-law and I can watch the same event and see two oppostite story lines. Too assume that if we were reporters that we wouldn't write the story different and tell it different is laughable. It doesn't make us wrong. Just human. And I for one will miss Dan Rather on election night. I have grown up watching him and enjoy greatly his election eve coverage. I hope he can do it on HDNET when he gets his new show.

Kevin the Conservative

markmarc

Well said Opus, especially the following:

"To think that your personal views don't shape how you see events is silly and naive. My father-in-law and I can watch the same event and see two oppostite story lines. Too assume that if we were reporters that we wouldn't write the story different and tell it different is laughable. It doesn't make us wrong. Just human."

cheddar

I'm all in for the free flow of ideas. I don't see anything wrong either with reporters having biased viewpoints as long as they're honest about them. I just don't think that there are enough conservative journalists out there to fill the newsrooms at the present time. Too bad, 'cause when there are conservatives who enter the political debates, they appear to be very popular with the american public.

The liberals are at the very end of the following chart. Al Franken at least beat out Alan Colmes and Dr. Dean Edell...

<img src="http://www.talkers.com/images/talkhosts.jpg&quot; width="612" height="792"></img>