The Obama Administration thread

[GeorgeSteele]

This is interesting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/bush-waited-nine-days-to_n_406307.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31049.html

Very funny, but it begs the question of why the Democrats weren't more critical of Bush at the time.   

[Perfect Criminal]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the validity of anything that comes from msnbc or foxnews whether its their news or their opinion.  Both outlets are extremely biases.  msnbc is the Obama network with morons who openly rooted for the guy to win the election.  Foxnews is every bit as biased in the other direction.  Don't get me wrong though, only one of those networks employs opinion personality people that are engaging.  Msnbc has horrible opinion people (is there anyone worse than Mathews, Maddow and Olbermann?) while foxnews has some savvy, intelligent, connected individuals like Rove, Juan Williams, O'Reilly, Gingrich, that guys whose name I forget that worked in the Clinton White House and had teh falling out with Hillary, etc.  Unfortunately for msnbc, that's why they get absolutely clobbered in the ratings by foxnews (and I mean clobbered!!!)  

I tend to agree with you that it is hard to judge Obama on 1/4 of his term.  We'll know a lot more by this time next year for sure.  I believe the Dems will lose a ton of seats in congress in the 2010 elections.  It's just the way the cycle works.  Happened to Clinton; happened to Bush, etc.)  

I listened to foxnews on the way to work this morning (not the channel with the live tv broadcast but the commentary), and they spoke at length about the Obama Administration's lack of support for the Iranian protests.  I have to say that I agree with the opinion that Obama should publicly denounce the Iranian leadership as having gained election unfairly and unjustly and should support the pro-democracy protests.  He should stand up for human rights (like Reagan would do) and let those oppressed Iranian protesters know that the US stands behind them.  I absolutely hate where our foreign policy has gone under Obama.  He runs around apologizing for us (a weak posture for sure with no upside at all unless you naively believe it will make the terrorist like us more) and takes a very passive (clintonesque even) approach to terror.  Instead of being on the offensive, it seems to be that we are taking a defensive posture.  His idea of engaging Iran in face-to-face talks to try to negotiate with them on the nuclear issue was a colossal failure (I mean who didn't see that coming except Obama and his supporters?)  His own imposed deadline for Iran is 3 days away.  Do you honestly think he has the nuts to do anything come January 1st when Iran doesn't live up to their end of the bargain?

His first year in office has been a huge mess of overspending, governing from the far left, horrible decisions (like closing Gitmo which I bet you anything he wishes now he never agreed to do), redistribution of wealth, pushing a horrendous health care bill, etc.  He has apologized for the US on a dozen occasions, he accepted a nobel prize he didn't deserve, he lost the olympics for Chicago.  I can not think of much that I like about what he has done.  AT least under republican leadership we maintained our strong military dominance and stood up for human rights.  Along with our economic dominance, we have lost both of those now as well.

I am actually quite depressed about the direction this country is headed.  

[Perfect Criminal]

As an aside...I remember when the fundamental rallying cry of the Republican party was to balance the budget.  They pledged, promised, and swore they were the best party to do that.  And I have to admit...back in the days of Reagan and Bush I, I was right there with them on that principal.  In fact, I voted for Bush I in my very first presidential election for just that reason.  Then a weird thing happened....Clinton went out and actually DID it!

To be clear, Clinton did not do it until he had a Republican congress.

[pilferk]

Very funny, but it begs the question of why the Democrats weren't more critical of Bush at the time.   

Because, well...there wasn't much to be critical of.  Just as there really isn't anything to be critical of, today, with Obama's adressing of the matter.

The point is:  The Repubs are simply more willing (and I'd argue, more able) to use stuff like this to gain political advantage.

[Perfect Criminal]

The big difference is that there was no question whatsoever about Bush's leadership on the terrorist front.  He was out front on the issue.  He was clear.  There is still a big debate out on whether Obama is gonna be soft or tough on terrorism so that's why you get the questioning.  If Obama took a strong posture, no one would care if he took 5 days to respond.

[pilferk]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the validity of anything that comes from msnbc or foxnews whether its their news or their opinion.  Both outlets are extremely biases.  msnbc is the Obama network with morons who openly rooted for the guy to win the election.  Foxnews is every bit as biased in the other direction.  Don't get me wrong though, only one of those networks employs opinion personality people that are engaging.  Msnbc has horrible opinion people (is there anyone worse than Mathews, Maddow and Olbermann?) while foxnews has some savvy, intelligent, connected individuals like Rove, Juan Williams, O'Reilly, Gingrich, that guys whose name I forget that worked in the Clinton White House and had teh falling out with Hillary, etc.  Unfortunately for msnbc, that's why they get absolutely clobbered in the ratings by foxnews (and I mean clobbered!!!)  

I'd offer that your opinion of the personalites is largely colored by your political leanings.  I rather like Olberman (have since his days at ESPN) but would also conceed he was a better sports personality than he is a political commentator.  I can't STAND O'Reilly.  Maddow is a self important bitch while Hannity is a self important bastard.  Honestly, I'd color their "talent" as roughly equal.

But again, the content of the NEWS articles on MSNBC are pretty much "straight off the AP wire".  So if you argue bias on the msnbc.com articles...you're going to lose steam, quickly.

And I pay little attention to the ratings (popularity matters a whole lot less to me than accuracy)...though I did hear that "clobbering" was a whole lot less pronounced recently.  

As for the rest, again...I'm talking NEWS coverage, not their nightly prime time politico opinion hours.  There's a BIG difference.

I tend to agree with you that it is hard to judge Obama on 1/4 of his term.  We'll know a lot more by this time next year for sure.  I believe the Dems will lose a ton of seats in congress in the 2010 elections.  It's just the way the cycle works.  Happened to Clinton; happened to Bush, etc.)

In their SECOND terms, though, right?  Again, we'll know more by mid-2010.  The Repubs are the only ones "campaigning" right now...and rightly so.  The 2008 elections made it obvious they have ground to make up.

I listened to foxnews on the way to work this morning (not the channel with the live tv broadcast but the commentary), and they spoke at length about the Obama Administration's lack of support for the Iranian protests.  I have to say that I agree with the opinion that Obama should publicly denounce the Iranian leadership as having gained election unfairly and unjustly and should support the pro-democracy protests.

There's that liberal nationalism, rearing it's head.  Until the imposed deadline for nuclear fuel exchange passes, I think we've pretty much agreed (along with the rest of the nations involved) to keep our mouths shut.  The time for rhetoric will be when they fail to comply with the deadline we've set.  THEN you address it, all at once.  And you ramp up sanctions.

If they do comply (and I agree, it's likely they won't)...we have no real interest or reason for nation building.  It's their elections.  Would you have wanted France, Russia, or China getting involved in the 2000 elections?  Of course not....

 He should stand up for human rights (like Reagan would do) and let those oppressed Iranian protesters know that the US stands behind them.

You need to review Reagan's foreign policy decisions in matters like this...and Bush I's.  And Bush II's.

 I absolutely hate where our foreign policy has gone under Obama.  He runs around apologizing for us (a weak posture for sure with no upside at all unless you naively believe it will make the terrorist like us more) and takes a very passive (clintonesque even) approach to terror.

It's interesting you'd cite Clinton, all things considered.  That's more than a bit ironic.

 Instead of being on the offensive, it seems to be that we are taking a defensive posture.  His idea of engaging Iran in face-to-face talks to try to negotiate with them on the nuclear issue was a colossal failure (I mean who didn't see that coming except Obama and his supporters?)  His own imposed deadline for Iran is 3 days away.  Do you honestly think he has the nuts to do anything come January 1st when Iran doesn't live up to their end of the bargain?

No, but why are negotiations, as a STARTING point, a bad idea?  You'd have us go in with guns blazing?  Because that worked so very well in Iraq, right?

His first year in office has been a huge mess of overspending, governing from the far left, horrible decisions (like closing Gitmo which I bet you anything he wishes now he never agreed to do), redistribution of wealth, pushing a horrendous health care bill, etc.  He has apologized for the US on a dozen occasions, he accepted a nobel prize he didn't deserve, he lost the olympics for Chicago.  I can not think of much that I like about what he has done.  AT least under republican leadership we maintained our strong military dominance and stood up for human rights.  Along with our economic dominance, we have lost both of those now as well.

I am actually quite depressed about the direction this country is headed.  

You could always leave......you might be happier.  I kid.  I kid.

Seriously, you've just recited the Republican talking points for the 2010 elections (but which have started now).  And I think we've addressed about 90% of them, already.

And, FYI, the "strong military dominance" still exists....we're just not going to use it like cowboys.  We will (I imagine) still stand up for human rights...but it's funny you cite the Repubs as the champion of that cause (becuase, unless it's proven to be monetarily beneficial...they've not usually championed that cause).  And the economic dominance you wistfully mourn was lost on the Repubs watch...and is largely the reason we can't make the other 2 things you talk about our top priority.

[pilferk]

The big difference is that there was no question whatsoever about Bush's leadership on the terrorist front.  He was out front on the issue.  He was clear.  There is still a big debate out on whether Obama is gonna be soft or tough on terrorism so that's why you get the questioning.  If Obama took a strong posture, no one would care if he took 5 days to respond.

There wasn't?  Really?  2 months after 9/11 and there was no question about Bush's leadership?  The guy who, at that point, was facing the criticism that he stayed and read to kids while the towers were getting hit had NO questions about his leadership?  That's not the way I remember it.  There were not REPUBLICANS asking questions....on that we agree.

But for your explanation...it looks like you're rationalizing.

Obama basically took the same posture that Bush took in the shoe bomb case.  Actually, stronger if you look at what he's already done (or had done) to effect changes.

The only people that question Obama's position are the ones looking for a reason to question it, actually.  And NOTHING he does is going to satisfy them...they're going to nitpick everything.  But it's interesting that those folks didn't hold Bush, about 2 months AFTER 9/11, up to nearly the same standard in VERY similar situations.  No?

[pilferk]

To be clear, Clinton did not do it until he had a Republican congress.

He did it IN SPITE of the Republican Congress, yes.  They were quite ticked off that he managed it, too....and tried to trip it up a couple of times.

[freedom78]

Unfortunately for msnbc, that's why they get absolutely clobbered in the ratings by foxnews (and I mean clobbered!!!)  

Funny...I thought it was because Republicans liked hearing their own opinions repeated back to them as dogmatic "news".

[pilferk]

Unfortunately for msnbc, that's why they get absolutely clobbered in the ratings by foxnews (and I mean clobbered!!!)  

Funny...I thought it was because Republicans liked hearing their own opinions repeated back to them as dogmatic "news".

Honestly, on the ratings, this is my opinion:

There is exactly ONE source of "Republican biased" news and opinion on the TV. 

There are at least 2, and the Repubs would argue many more, of the same for "Dem biased" news and opinion.   In addition, if you look at audience demos for CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and other news networks/offerings...they more heavily skew toward Dems and Indies.

The Fox News network skews mostly toward Repubs.

It's an audience thing, at least in part.  FoxNews was also first, so there's something to be said for familiarity, too.

But really, at the end of the day...I don't rightly care if more people watch Hannity than watch Maddow.  What I care about is, if I want info...no matter where I go I have to cherry pick past some opinion and editorializing.  That being said, I prefer to go where the fact portion is more often right.  It makes the cherry picking easier.

[freedom78]

Personally, I get very very sick of the biased programming on cable news.  Maddow, Olberman, The "Ed" Show, Hannity, OReilly...don't watch any of 'em.  Of those on MSNBC, The Ed Show is the worst.  Sorry, I just don't have it in me to get outraged every fuckin' night, Ed.  Maddow is obviously liberal, but her show is much better (or was last I watched, which was months ago).  When Keith started getting crazy liberal, it irritated me.  He did so with such an air of self-righteousness, thinking himself the next Murrow and never realizing that for the media to be effective criticizers of politicians they have to be neutral and unbiased the vast majority of the time.  Murrow wasn't criticizing McCarthy for being a Republican, but for his outrageous abuses of power.

The last time I watched OReilly was when he did the Obama interview during the election.  It was nothing but condescension and interruption, after which he had on a strong decisive conservative and weak kneed liberal to analyze Obama's performance and answers.  Of course, the liberal was such a pussy that OReilly and the conservative guest just ran roughshod over her.

Hardball is the show that bothers me least.  Chris interrupts both sides and calls 'em out.  He has been a little anti-Republican this past year but the Republicans have been acting like jackasses, so whadya expect?

[Perfect Criminal]

Hardball is the show that bothers me least.  Chris interrupts both sides and calls 'em out.  He has been a little anti-Republican this past year but the Republicans have been acting like jackasses, so whadya expect?

Isn't he the guy that got a shiver up his leg after hearing Obama speak?  I watch him sometimes, and agree he is the best msnbc has to offer. 

I'd love to respond to you pilferk but i am running out of time to discuss today.  Have a great new year!!!

[GeorgeSteele]

Very funny, but it begs the question of why the Democrats weren't more critical of Bush at the time.   

Because, well...there wasn't much to be critical of.  Just as there really isn't anything to be critical of, today, with Obama's adressing of the matter.

The point is:  The Repubs are simply more willing (and I'd argue, more able) to use stuff like this to gain political advantage.

The other thing is that there's the conservative hawk / liberal dove perception which means that Republicans must always be right about national security. 

[pilferk]

Personally, I get very very sick of the biased programming on cable news.  Maddow, Olberman, The "Ed" Show, Hannity, OReilly...don't watch any of 'em.  Of those on MSNBC, The Ed Show is the worst.  Sorry, I just don't have it in me to get outraged every fuckin' night, Ed.  Maddow is obviously liberal, but her show is much better (or was last I watched, which was months ago).  When Keith started getting crazy liberal, it irritated me.  He did so with such an air of self-righteousness, thinking himself the next Murrow and never realizing that for the media to be effective criticizers of politicians they have to be neutral and unbiased the vast majority of the time.  Murrow wasn't criticizing McCarthy for being a Republican, but for his outrageous abuses of power.

To be clear...it's not like I prowl the news channels every night.   But I do get "stuck" on them if I'm channel surfing (because, lets face it...the on-screen guides are just no fun).

I've yet to see Ed's show.  I've heard him on the radio a couple times and that was enough to steer me clear (not to mention, it's on at a "bad" time...usually prepping the kids for bed).  He's a big blowhard.  Sort of the "anti-Rush".  Funny thing:  Apparently he was a staunch Repub until he met his wife. 

Rachel is best when she's interviewing....but her "commentary" bores the crap out of me.  I feel like she talks to her audience like a kindergarten teacher.  The rhetorical questions fly just a little too much...

Keith is just funny, IMHO.  He's got a dry, sarcastic sense of humor that closely matches mine.  That being said, the fire and brimstone segments are when I change the channel.

The last time I watched OReilly was when he did the Obama interview during the election.  It was nothing but condescension and interruption, after which he had on a strong decisive conservative and weak kneed liberal to analyze Obama's performance and answers.  Of course, the liberal was such a pussy that OReilly and the conservative guest just ran roughshod over her.

Hardball is the show that bothers me least.  Chris interrupts both sides and calls 'em out.  He has been a little anti-Republican this past year but the Republicans have been acting like jackasses, so whadya expect?

O'Reilly, personally, just drives me nuts.  His voice, his mannerisms, the way he won't let a guest get a word in edge wise....it's like nails on a chalk board to me.  His OPINIONS don't bother me as much.  I've read some of his stuff and while he plays fast and loose with the facts a bit too often for my taste, I can at least READ what he writes.  Hannity is best when he's commentating (and again, I find he plays it a little too fast and loose with the numbers) but downright AWFUL in interviewing people.  He's like the Anti-Rachel.  I genuinely like Hardball, Morning Joe, Gretchen, and SOMETIMES Fox and Friends.

[pilferk]

The other thing is that there's the conservative hawk / liberal dove perception which means that Republicans must always be right about national security. 

Oh, absolutely that plays into it.  No doubt about it!

But this is one of those cases where, when looking at the ACTUAL actions taken.....there's really no difference between them.  I don't think Bush did anything wrong (he had people addressing it...HE just didn't address it).  Obviously the Repubs didn't think so at the time.    Yet now, Obama does fundamentally the same thing...and they fly off the handle.

I don't think it's news that politicians (on both sides) are hypocrits.  But when it's this jarring, I find it interesting to point out....

Happy New Year, everyone!!

[D]

I still think people miss the boat on Bill O Reilly

reason he is fair and balanced is, whatever issue there is, he has a democrat and a republican on his show to debate it. He interrupts those who are trying to dodge the question or are spinning and I like that.

so maybe he leans a bit towards the left.. but on his show, both sides are represented and that is the best u can do. have a dem and a rep on and let the audience decide who they support.

[GypsySoul]

I still think people miss the boat on Bill O Reilly

so maybe he leans a bit towards the left..

You must mean the other left because Bill O'Reilly has to be one of the most Right Wing Conservative "Independents" out there!!! 

[polluxlm]

I still think people miss the boat on Bill O Reilly

reason he is fair and balanced is, whatever issue there is, he has a democrat and a republican on his show to debate it. He interrupts those who are trying to dodge the question or are spinning and I like that.

so maybe he leans a bit towards the left.. but on his show, both sides are represented and that is the best u can do. have a dem and a rep on and let the audience decide who they support.

O'Reilly only puts on people who either agrees with him or retards who can't defend themselves. Clever, but not exactly balanced.

[freedom78]

I still think people miss the boat on Bill O Reilly

reason he is fair and balanced is, whatever issue there is, he has a democrat and a republican on his show to debate it. He interrupts those who are trying to dodge the question or are spinning and I like that.

so maybe he leans a bit towards the left.. but on his show, both sides are represented and that is the best u can do. have a dem and a rep on and let the audience decide who they support.

It's not about having one on the right and one on the left.  First, if we count Bill himself then it's 2 on 1, by default.  Second, he (and Hannity, perhaps moreso) have a habit of picking the most ridiculously wussified liberals they can find, who come on and give these weak kneed defenses of their beliefs.  Take Hannity and Colmes, for example.  It was Hannity, being strong, decisive, and aggressive and Colmes being a big pussy.  And then they say it's "fair and balanced" because you have a conservative and a liberal, when every liberal who watched is embarrassed by the lame defense Colmes offers up. 

[sandman]

I still think people miss the boat on Bill O Reilly

reason he is fair and balanced is, whatever issue there is, he has a democrat and a republican on his show to debate it. He interrupts those who are trying to dodge the question or are spinning and I like that.

so maybe he leans a bit towards the left.. but on his show, both sides are represented and that is the best u can do. have a dem and a rep on and let the audience decide who they support.

It's not about having one on the right and one on the left.  First, if we count Bill himself then it's 2 on 1, by default.  Second, he (and Hannity, perhaps moreso) have a habit of picking the most ridiculously wussified liberals they can find, who come on and give these weak kneed defenses of their beliefs.  Take Hannity and Colmes, for example.  It was Hannity, being strong, decisive, and aggressive and Colmes being a big pussy.  And then they say it's "fair and balanced" because you have a conservative and a liberal, when every liberal who watched is embarrassed by the lame defense Colmes offers up. 

D's point is correct. O'Reilly actually has very strong left-leaning guests on, sometimes by themselves. the "left" opinion is made and heard. if you watched you would know that.