Indecision 2012

[Aaron]

I wish I could take that attitude, that they've been trashing him the whole time, so what difference will it make? Unfortunately, I think that's tempting fate. We know that, statistically, election year is the only year that counts in terms of incumbency, and like I said, there will literally be billions of dollars spent on the anti-Obama propaganda. It's going to be nonstop, and a lot of it is going to stick, because Democrats are not happy with Obama. It's not just going to be a continuation of what we've already seen, it is going to be ramped up to an insane degree, and it's gonna be ugly.

The passion just doesn't exist in Democrats for Obama anymore, and the passion isn't really there for Romney nor Gringrich, from anyone, but the Republican establishment knows that there are plenty of Democrats who wouldn't kill themselves if Romney won. So they're banking on the fact that the real passion out there is from Republicans, independents, and even some Democrats AGAINST Obama. And again, they have the Koch brothers' billions just waiting to absolutely destroy him in the months before the election. I'm trying to look at this in a realistic way. If Obama doesn't do some amazing, messianic shit this year (especially for the economy), I am very afraid of what the GOP machine is going to do to him come election season.

[sublimaze]

Last Gallup poll has Obama's favorable-unfavorable rating at 47-45. The economy is improving. The Occupy movement is waking people up to the unfairness of income inequality, and Obama is wisely riding the wave. This past few week's "What does $40 mean to you" campaign from the White House was brilliant. The Tea Party is looked upon unfavorably by most Americans, as is the Republican Party, especially the Republicans in Congress. And Obama has plenty of successes to tout, especially in foreign policy. His worst problem is the economy, which as I said looks to be improving. The "anti-Obama" pack is fading, and will fade further if he continues to be the lone "adult" in the room. The Dems need to start acting like adults and stop whining. The slogan was "Yes we can," not "Yes I can." Obama's only one person. Without a strong network of support behind him, nothing will get done. Look at the havoc the "Blue Dog" Dems caused in the Senate a couple of years ago. You wouldn't see Mitch McConnell putting up with that crap. Harry Reid needs to go.

I agree that Romney has the best chance, but he'll gather even less enthusiasm among the right than Obama currently has from the left. And I wouldn't pack up and move to Canada if he were elected. But he's like Kerry with a better haircut and more flip-flopping. Way too "meh." His wealth won't help (esp since much was inherited, unlike Obama), neither will his business record.

It's premature to say Obama has it in the can, but right now he's gaining ground.

[50 Volt Phantom]

I might actually sit down and watch Fox News regularly for laughs if Obama wins next year. The annoyance will be so transparent, it'll be a thing of beauty.

Oh you mean like CNN and MSNBC last year during the elections? particularly on MSNBC where Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews acted like 3 year olds having pouty temper tantrums.

We always forget that no matter how "meh" the GOP candidate is, the Republicans (meaning the Koch brothers, etc.) will literally spend a billion dollars or more on the smear campaign against Obama once the general politickin' season begins. It's going to be rough. Real fuckin' rough. I don't know exactly what it will be, but they are going to come up with something really good, really shitty, and really convincing. Remember how Kerry was going to win? Until they "Swift Boat"ed him into oblivion? Yeah, I'm really afraid that's going to happen again. They have more money and resources than ever, this time around.

I don't know, I'd say the left does the same thing, I mean they somehow convinced the country that a "meh" candidate like Obama was actually special, and spent most of their time systematically destroying Palin's life. As much as I dislike her, the attack on her was far more merciless and relentless than anything the right has done, hell she's not even in the spotlight anymore and the attack still continues. The left are the group of people that went after Clarence Thomas, went after Cain, destroyed the lives and reputations of people involved in the Lewinsky case. Let's not pretend for one second that the left doesn't run a meaner and more aggressive smear campaign strategy than the right.

Win or lose, I really think this will be the beginning of the end of the spotlight on the extreme right, and maybe the end of it's influence on the media (one can only hope).

The extreme right has influence on the media? Haha, you have to be kidding right? Mainstream news is unabashedly left, Hollywood is left, the music industry is left, the magazine industry is left, and on and on.

I also think Obama has much less of a chance than many of you do and although I'm not big on really any of the GOP candidates, I think he's pretty easy to defeat at this point. His own people in the media are turning on him, and everything about him that people were duped into believing is wearing off. Occupy hasn't helped his image, I'm pretty sure Occupy is much more detested than the Tea Party amongst the average person that isn't super left or a union goon. The economy may be improving a little bit here and there, but I don't think it's enough to save him, especially amongst people that realize the economy would be better off without things like the stimulus and Obamacare.

[chris]

So Palin and Cain were viable candidates who were "destroyed" by the mainstream media's liberal stance? What primary race have you been watching? They wrecked their own chances by saying and doing dumb shit. Their fuck-ups weren't staged or edited, they were right there on camera. They're either idiots or they viewed running for president as a publicity stunt to make money. I saw Karl Rove say that about Palin numerous times on Fox News, which I'm sure hurt her as much as any left wing commentary. As for the argument that all the important media is liberal, where do you think they get their advertising money from? The "liberal media" view is a classic talking point, part of the overall strategy of making white conservatives feel like they are the ones who are the oppressed. Its been a successful strategy from Nixon right on up to today's assholes like Rove and Frank Luntz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority

[Elke]

I don't know, I'd say the left does the same thing, I mean they somehow convinced the country that a "meh" candidate like Obama was actually special, and spent most of their time systematically destroying Palin's life. As much as I dislike her, the attack on her was far more merciless and relentless than anything the right has done, hell she's not even in the spotlight anymore and the attack still continues. The left are the group of people that went after Clarence Thomas, went after Cain, destroyed the lives and reputations of people involved in the Lewinsky case. Let's not pretend for one second that the left doesn't run a meaner and more aggressive smear campaign strategy than the right.

If 'the left' (whatever that is because, as a European, the idea that anything in American politics is actually left of center is hi-la-ri-ous) was as good at spinning tidbits of people's lives and carreers as a very vocal and visible part of the Republican backbone, Bush would never have been elected in the first place, let alone re-elected after the whole 9/11-Saudi-Iraq clusterfuck. Even a semi-conscious muppet like Kerry would have been a shoe-in, in that case.

And at least two of the examples you give are not at all related to any effort on the side of whatever it is you percieve as 'left-wing' US media: John McCain ruined Sarah Palin's initial chances by being the worst flip-flop in history and bowing to Tea Party / Bible Belt pressure to change some very long-held and very bipartisan beliefs so he could worship at the altar of 'real America'; and Sarah Palin then ruined her own chances by not only revealing herself to be stupid (STUPID), but unreliable (being elected into office and saying 'well, that was fun, what's next?' halfway through does not inspire voter confidence) and opportunistic (the 'punditry' for Fox? the reality show? the Twitter/Facebook commentaries on anything semi-political, usually without any background). Her hardcore fans probably figured they were in the moshpit and loved it, but she alienated more center-oriented voters completely.

And as for Cain.... seriously? Watched The Daily Show? Some of Jon's 'Herman Cain' segments don't even add funny graphics, and I'm sure the writing staff loved every interview with the guy because he doesn't need to be mocked: Rachel Maddow's I see what you did there speech, about how everyone should have figured it out at Pokemon, was a spot-on review of Cain's parcours. It was sad, sad, sad.

And what about Rick Perry? Is that a left wing spin job, or is he just honestly and seriously a loser? Michelle Bachman: is that the left making her look bad?

Let's face it: the only viable candidates right now seem to be Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney v. 2.0, because they're not insane, and by comparison they come off as mature, intelligent, educated and not likely to fuck things up for the Republicans and the U.S. Everyone else has disqualified themselves merely by opening their mouths. There's no need for a 'left wing attack machine' when you're most steadfast and ideologically sound candidate is Ron Paul.
I mean, if Ron Paul ends up looking good...

And just to give you some perspective on things: you say that 'the extreme right' is invisible in the media. However, Fox is the most-watched news network, leaving every other newsoutlet in the dust. Which means that most Americans get their news from Fox.
Fox is right wing to extreme right wing. So how is that invisible?

[theruiner]

^^Just like the left-wing media to use logic and facts to dismantle the unstable and faulty arguments from the the right. Socialist!

[halloween]

Not exactly new news but still frustrating to read about.

[50 Volt Phantom]

So Palin and Cain were viable candidates who were "destroyed" by the mainstream media's liberal stance? What primary race have you been watching? They wrecked their own chances by saying and doing dumb shit. Their fuck-ups weren't staged or edited, they were right there on camera. They're either idiots or they viewed running for president as a publicity stunt to make money. I saw Karl Rove say that about Palin numerous times on Fox News, which I'm sure hurt her as much as any left wing commentary. As for the argument that all the important media is liberal, where do you think they get their advertising money from? The "liberal media" view is a classic talking point, part of the overall strategy of making white conservatives feel like they are the ones who are the oppressed. Its been a successful strategy from Nixon right on up to today's assholes like Rove and Frank Luntz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority

The difference between Palin and Cain and say Obama, is that all three said incredibly stupid shit, "57 states" anyone? The inability to really even speak without a teleprompter anyone? The guy and his VP have plenty of gaffes, several made during the primaries, the difference is not only were they largely ignored or just played off as cute, the coverage on them paled in comparison to the meticulous and relentless effort in tearing apart Palin. The sad fact is that she was a far more experienced candidate then Obama, and yet that also never came up, it was just attack attack attack. Now I'm no fan of hers, but if you actually think that what was done to her was fair and appropriate then you are so delusional that we might as well just drop the conversation on her right now.

Karl Rove is a piece of garbage, I don't even want to start on him and how much I despise him.

The "liberal media" view isn't a classic talking point, it's the truth. Who cares about their advertising money, the left has enough assets and pull to not have to worry about advertising. Hollywood is pretty well known to be a stronghold of the left, and Hollywood is pretty rich, so is George Soros, CNN is on almost every public television set, I've never seen anything but CNN on at an airport for instance. It doesn't matter that Fox News gets more views then CNN and MSNBC, the overall system of liberal media is far greater than Fox News. I mean are you really going to tell me that most newspapers aren't liberal leaning, that the music industry isn't liberal leaning, that Hollywood doesn't lean left, that the magazine industry isn't liberal leaning, that most news sources on the average person's television don't lean left, etc.? As far as I see it the only thing the right has a firm grasp on as far as a message goes, is radio.

Elke, Al Gore and Kerry were terrible, that's why they lost, because they were absolutely awful candidates, and Fox News extreme right? Haha, I can agree they lean right, but not extreme right. They don't even lean as far right as CNN and MSNBC do to the left.

[orestes]

Got anything to back up your claim that there is a "liberal bias" in the media other than empirical evidence of what's broadcasted on airport televisions? (Btw, I've seen FOX News on plenty of public televisions.) Just because you don't agree with what's reported from mainstream media sources doesn't mean that there is an overwhelming slant towards a liberal agenda.

And how is that Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama for the Presidency? It couldn't be because she's fully served an elected position. Palin is as qualified to serve the office of President as much as Herman Cain. At least Palin waited until after the election cycle to use her newly gained celebrity to milk speaking fees from deep-pocket GOP fundraisers. Cain's "campaign" was nothing more than thinly veiled book tour. How is that we've gotten to the point where candidates like Palin and Cain are allowed to espouse such ignorance over a basic grasp of history or current foreign policy and when they are exposed for this, they try to point the finger at "gotcha journalism" or even worse, boast of such ignorance as if it should be an exemplary quality?

[littlemonkey613]

The difference between Palin and Cain and say Obama, is that all three said incredibly stupid shit, "57 states" anyone? The inability to really even speak without a teleprompter anyone?

False equivalency! Obama did not seriously think there are 57 states there is a HUGE difference between misspeaking and misTHINKING. Notice also this is basically the only gaf that you have... It's the only one I ever hear Conservatives talking about. Jesus. Take away all the times Sarah Palin mispoke and you still have some of the most idiotic opinions of all time.

NOTHING in America is left compared to every other Western nation.

"How is that we've gotten to the point where candidates like Palin and Cain are allowed to espouse such ignorance over a basic grasp of history or current foreign policy and when they are exposed for this, they try to point the finger at "gotcha journalism" or even worse, boast of such ignorance as if it should be an exemplary quality?"

They literally boast ignorance. "We need a leader not a reader" I've never heard such an anti-intellect statement. Not only that, on social issues these people are simply archaic and despicable. And stop it with Cain. If any candidate had sexual assault allegations the way he did they would have to drop out of the race as well.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Ya that's all opinion and you don't know whether Obama thought it or not, plus there were other gaffes that simply didn't get reported very much, shocking I know.

[orestes]

ZOMG IT'S A CONSPIRACY.

Volt, we're still waiting for you to supply us with facts to support your​ opinion.

[Magtig]

Ya that's all opinion and you don't know whether Obama thought it or not...

You're being disingenuous.

...plus there were other gaffes that simply didn't get reported very much, shocking I know.

Probably because people knew they were mistakes, not actual opinions. Feel free to point these out, if you'd like, but the idea that Fox News hasn't jumped all over ANYTHING they could is utterly ridiculous (the same goes for MSNBC jumping all over Republican gaffes as well, blah, blah, blah). The things you're talking about are empty gotcha bullshit. Bring actual positions Obama holds that you disagree with to the table, otherwise you're simply playing right along with the lamestream media game.

What's more important than gaffes on either side are the actual positions politicians take. Littlemonkey is probably referring to things like Palin's shockingly cruel position that victims of incest and rape be forced to have the child, should they get pregnant during assault.

[sublimaze]

Ya, remember the impeachment scandal with Clinton. He got a blow job and LIED about it? It was HUGE in the press, all we heard about for weeks. Meanwhile Newt Gingrich was having a long-standing affair with his current wife. Not a peep from the press.

What was that about a liberal media, again?

The media goes for spectacle, scandal, and controversy. If it won't catch the American public's attention, it won't be heard. And we are really ADD.

Obama's made a few gaffes, for sure, but he's also a proudly well-educated human being. Today I fumbled over my phone number on someone's voicemail, took me a couple of attempts to get it right. My brain just froze for a second. Does that mean I don't know my phone number? Fuck. No.

My parents taught me to value education above everything else. Financial success was important, but academic success was much more important. I really feel that if I dropped out of college, started a business, and made billions, they'd still be disappointed that I didn't finish school. *shrug* So I have little respect for Rick Perry, a C- student (at most) at A&M, but lots of respect for the Obamas.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Orestes, facts on what opinion, furthermore I think that burden goes to other people on here too if that's the case, just because I seem to be the lone person not lining up to show affection to Obama doesn't mean that I'm the only person held to that standard.

During the Clinton sex scandal the media spent a large chunk of time trying to downplay the incident and suggest that the only reason it was a big deal at all was because Republicans are sexually repressed, David Axelrod and the rest did a good job.

I do understand the desire to be educated and the weight in which one can give education, however, I personally would stand more on the side of business. Besides I don't believe you can judge someobe's true intellect on school grades.

[orestes]

Right, you're the one make such claims and yet it's everyone else's responsibility to prove you wrong otherwise?! *eye roll* I don't think so.

Your memory seems to be falling, though, on the Clinton sex scandal. There were many people, including people within Clinton's own Cabinet, that were outraged and ashamed of the president's misconduct. I remember the scandal well because it played out over the summer of 98 like a damn soap opera, with leaked testimony coming out about blow jobs and fucking cigars. The only person, other than President Clinton, who was a political pariah at that point was Independent Counsel Ken Starr. I don't know why you brought up Axelrod because he was still working in Chicago at the time. The Clintons like to think that they were the target of a GOP witch hunt. I disagree but that doesn't mean that Clinton's misconduct deserved impeachment.

[Wretchedest]

Orestes, facts on what opinion, furthermore I think that burden goes to other people on here too if that's the case, just because I seem to be the lone person not lining up to show affection to Obama doesn't mean that I'm the only person held to that standard.

During the Clinton sex scandal the media spent a large chunk of time trying to downplay the incident and suggest that the only reason it was a big deal at all was because Republicans are sexually repressed, David Axelrod and the rest did a good job.

I do understand the desire to be educated and the weight in which one can give education, however, I personally would stand more on the side of business. Besides I don't believe you can judge someobe's true intellect on school grades.

And where were you during the Clinton sex scandal, the fucking twilight zone?

[50 Volt Phantom]

Right, you're the one make such claims and yet it's everyone else's responsibility to prove you wrong otherwise?! *eye roll* I don't think so.

Your memory seems to be falling, though, on the Clinton sex scandal. There were many people, including people within Clinton's own Cabinet, that were outraged and ashamed of the president's misconduct. I remember the scandal well because it played out over the summer of 98 like a damn soap opera, with leaked testimony coming out about blow jobs and fucking cigars. The only person, other than President Clinton, who was a political pariah at that point was Independent Counsel Ken Starr. I don't know why you brought up Axelrod because he was still working in Chicago at the time. The Clintons like to think that they were the target of a GOP witch hunt. I disagree but that doesn't mean that Clinton's misconduct deserved impeachment.

Ya Axelrod isn't who I meant sorry, at the moment I can't recollect the name of who I'm thinking of.

[Magtig]

Ya Axelrod isn't who I meant sorry, at the moment I can't recollect the name of who I'm thinking of.

You know, you keep insisting that everyone here is blindly liberal despite all evidence to the contrary. It seems to be a cover for not being able to backup the things you say. I keep wondering if you're ever going to grow. I have a strong belief that a dissenting voice and difference of opinion, when well argued, is a good thing even when I don't agree. It keeps me, and people in general on their toes. You're not keeping anyone on their toes.

[Elke]

Elke, Al Gore and Kerry were terrible, that's why they lost, because they were absolutely awful candidates, and Fox News extreme right? Haha, I can agree they lean right, but not extreme right. They don't even lean as far right as CNN and MSNBC do to the left.

Actually, they weren't terrible. Especially compared to the man who actually got elected, they weren't terrible at all. This is a matter of opinion, obviously, but I think it's safe to say that the whole Iraq war might not even have happened had Bush not been in office. And yes: that was a big, big mistake.

As for FOX News not being extreme right, maybe you need to read up on your Politics 101 course, but here's the gist of it: MSNBC and CNN may seem very left wing to you, but at most they're liberal voices. At most. Almost nothing in US media, news or entertainment, is socialist. (Well, The Fraggles are a marxist critique of capitalism, but whatever.) When we talk about 'the left' or left wing politics, usually we're talking about socialism. A few vocal exceptions aside (people like Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow), there's hardly any visible socialism out there. I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart and he's clearly a liberal, but that makes him a centrist voice, maybe on some issues left-of-center.

Let me give you an idea. Let's take the issue of legalizing abortion, because it's a rather clear example of how the three political groups work.
On the left, the argument will be that if you legalize and legislate abortion, more women can have it done safely, without risking their health; and because you legislate it, more opportunities will be created to inform women of other options. Moreover, by legalizing abortion you remove the income-related health issues, because rich women are more likely to be able to pay a decent doctor for an illegal abortion, and poor women are more likely to resort to hangers, musterd and the staircase.
For a socialist, abortion is a health issue.

In the center, the liberal argument will be that women should have the right to decide over their bodies. Period. There are discussions, obviously, about any rights of the unborn, but as in most circumstances the rights of the parent trump the rights of the unborn child.
For a liberal, abortion is an rights issue.

On the right, the argument will be one of these:
- Either it's politically conservative, in that it doesn't want to legislate too much, and so any legislation legalizing or criminalizing abortion would be condemned. Abortion should be a local, regional or state-issue. This is more the minimal state approach to conservatism.
- Or it's ethically conservative, in that it adheres to an already existing set of ethical values, either supporting or banning abortion, and that is the reason why it shouldn't be banned / legalized.

Now, far-right stances are extremely conservative, and completely unwilling to compromise: immigration is bad (because it disturbs the status quo), ethical progressive ideas are bad, secularization is bad, government policies are bad...
Spot a pattern?
Moreover, arguments in far-right politics are almost always based on history and tradition ('our founding fathers'), religion ('the Bible says'), nature ('we are born different, we should be treated different') and authority ('Reagan says'); rather than ideology, economics or practical reasonings.
See the similarities?

Here's a fun excercise for you: watch Fox News, and tell me how often you see one of the following things pass:
- 'government is bad'
- 'our founding fathers'
- 'the constitution'
- 'God'
- 'christianity'
- 'unnatural'
- 'evil'
- they vs. us rhetorics

Now, I'm not saying there's no extreme left, but there's no extreme left in US politics or media. I should know: I am a socialist, leaning towards the extreme left, and I know the rhetoric and politics of the European news outlets that hold viewpoints similar to my own. I'm always slightly appalled when people call Huffington Post or MSNBC 'extreme left', because to me that's communism, marxism and left wing ecologists; not Ariana Huffington and Keith Olberman.
But it's a sign of how thoroughly right-wing the American society is as a whole, that people would percieve their own ideas as only right of center, and those of slightly left-leaning liberals as extreme left.

[aggroculture]

Elke your posts here and on the last page are spot-on.

[chris]

But it's a sign of how thoroughly right-wing the American society is as a whole, that people would percieve their own ideas as only right of center, and those of slightly left-leaning liberals as extreme left.

THIS.

Over the past few decades the right has figured out how to bypass objective reporting altogether. They created their own mainstream media with Fox News, but what really keeps the rumor mills churning is the internet. Obama’s use of it in 2008 pales in comparison to the right wing crap that has been spewing from the dark corners of the web since day one. Try going to one sometime. There are so many outrageous lies being touted as truth, and posting something that disproves it just makes you more hated. Its sad, everyone thinks they’re more informed than in the past, but really they’re just being segmented further.

[littlemonkey613]

THIS.

Obama’s use of it in 2008 pales in comparison to the right wing crap that has been spewing from the dark corners of the web since day one. Try going to one sometime. There are so many outrageous lies being touted as truth, and posting something that disproves it just makes you more hated. Its sad, everyone thinks they’re more informed than in the past, but really they’re just being segmented further.

Also Obama's rhetoric was only hyperbole about himself and hope and change. He wasn't demonizing gays, or the poor, immigrants or women who want abortions. He wasn't demonizing people with conservative ideologies (more than half the time he is trying to cater to those people). I'm always appalled when people try to insinuate he's just as horrible. Really?

[50 Volt Phantom]

You know, you keep insisting that everyone here is blindly liberal despite all evidence to the contrary. It seems to be a cover for not being able to backup the things you say. I keep wondering if you're ever going to grow. I have a strong belief that a dissenting voice and difference of opinion, when well argued, is a good thing even when I don't agree. It keeps me, and people in general on their toes. You're not keeping anyone on their toes.

I'm not trying to keep anyone on their toes, I could really care less, the majority of you will vote for Obama again, just like you would've voted for Kerry, just like you would've voted for Gore, just like you would've voted for Clinton. I would vote for anyone over all of those people, it's not like we're going to change each other's minds. The fact that you all don't see a liberal bias to the media is absolute proof of this.

Elke, they were terrible, sorry, I didn't care for Bush, but compared to Gore and Kerry I'd take him. I'd take him right now over Obama too, and the Iraq war was by almost all accounts a war led hastily under false information, it was expensive and nasty, but Saddam is gone, and Iraq is better off without him and with the opportunity for Democracy. I can't imagine what Al Gore would've done after 9/11, and I'm glad we didn't have to find out.

Your take on our media is absolutely fucked Elke. First of all, I still take the stance that Fox News is not extreme right by any means, and second of all, left to me doesn't mean socialism outright, it means the sway towards regulation, big government, lots of spending, and government invasion and control, but not outright socialism. You can't tell me that outlets like MSNBC and CNN don't project those policies and values. Left is not center, left is left, and Jon Stewart as far as I'm concerned is not a centrist voice.

Your abortion example is interesting I guess, except for the fact that most vocal pro-abortion people I hear combine the socialist and liberal attitude into one, I've actually seldom heard one without the other. I consider myself a conservative, and quite frankly, if we're going to define the center by what liberals think, then some of you might even consider some of my ideas "extreme right," but personally I'm mostly okay with abortions up until the third trimester, or if the mother is in danger. I think there are better options, and that sometimes outright stupidity shouldn't be given such an easy out, but oh well, I'm not going to be out there protesting against abortion any day soon. So then where do I fall now on your little cheat sheet? I'm all for immigration if it's LEGAL, I'm not particularly religious, and while I think Reagan was right, I also don't tend to favor government expansion because next to no US government institution or plan has ever cost near what was advertised and is almost always completely and utterly ineffecient and stifling, how is that for practical and economical reasoning? Ideologically I'm not tied down to our founding fathers, I just think that personal responsibility, hard work, and freedom are good things. I don't think having my hand held and being told what I can and can't eat by the government is the proper way to live, I should be able to make my own choices and live with them.

I also tend to watch a balanced amount of MSNBC, CNN, and Fox when I decide to watch the big news channels, which is rarely. I can assure you that most of that list applies to MSNBC and CNN, just in the opposite direction. If you don't think us vs. them rhetoric and the word "evil" is used a bunch on CNN and MSNBC, I'd have to say you're wrong.

Also, it was Paul Begala I was thinking of last night, remembered it today.

[sublimaze]

I voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama. Bush II sucked as a president. Ignored Bin Laden and Al-Qaida until 9/11. Invaded Iraq without hard evidence of WMD's. Shortly thereafter neglected Afghanistan and took focus away from Bin Laden and actual terrorists. Fucked up our economy by decreasing taxes (on the wealthy) while being in TWO wars. The list goes on and on. I don't know if Gore or Kerry would have been better per se, but probably wouldn't have been worse. Bush II will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.

Everybody thinks that personal responsibility, hard work, and freedom are good things. Duh. Unfortunately, that's not enough to keep people fed, clothed, and sheltered in our current economical condition.

[50 Volt Phantom]

I don't think Bush will go down as the worst president or even close to it in history, and let's not forget that Clinton made 9/11 possible.

[orestes]

Anywoo, enough dredging up past presidencies. The Iowa caucus is next week and Gingerich's numbers continue to fall.

[Jinsai]

let's not forget that Clinton made 9/11 possible.

What? How exactly do you figure that? Wait... never mind, I really don't care.

I still take the stance that Fox News is not extreme right by any means

Would you consider water to be "extremely wet?"

[50 Volt Phantom]

Clinton could have had Bin Laden, he ignored the chances, and let al Qaeda gain strength under his watch.

And yes, water is extremely wet, but that still doesn't make Fox News extreme right, unless you're delusional and think that left is center.

[Jinsai]

Clinton could have had Bin Laden, he ignored the chances, and let al Qaeda gain strength under his watch.

Well, those are some pretty impressive sources. You can prove anything if you just make shit up, huh?