Conservative Media Bias is a Fantasy

[ReaPsTA]

Caveat - None of this post is about FOX News

I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe conservative media bias exists.  People talking about how negatively Obama is covered have clearly forgotten the Bush years.

Complaining about media bias in general seems to be more an issue of feeling victimized than it is about facts.  No one complained about media bias against Bush after 9/11.  Reagan, one of the most prominent Republicans ever, is always treated with reverence by the media.  Before his administration became more and more surrounded by controversy, Obama was basically untouchable in the news.  No one complained of media bias against Obama after he was elected.

It's weird for people to claim the media is biased to the right when the political ideology of people who work within the industry leans left of the general population.  Here's the Pew Research Center's analysis of media party affiliation from 2006:

When it came to the subject of party affiliation, 36% of the journalists said they were Democrats in 2002 compared with 44% in 1992. (That’s the lowest percentage of self-proclaimed Democrats since 1971.) The percentage of Independents dropped slightly from 1992 to 2002 and the ranks of Republicans grew incrementally from 16% to 18%. (There was actually a notable bump in the percentage journalists who named another political affiliation or declined to answer the question in 2002)

https://www.journalism.org/node/2304

And here's a graph from the same page charting their take on the views of journalists vs. those of the general public.



And an excerpt from an earlier survey they also performed:

There are significant ideological differences among news people in attitudes toward coverage of Bush, with many more self-described liberals than moderates or conservatives faulting the press for being insufficiently critical. In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar - 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).

https://www.journalism.org/node/818

Maybe you could say there's a trend and that more conservatives are entering the business.  But I really doubt that.  I'm a broadcasting major, and I can assure you that I've never met anyone who is openly Republican.  Anecdotal?  Sure.  But I live in one of the most conservative areas of the country.  When even the most conservative people in my department are against bigotry of GLBT people, it should tell you something.

I can also tell you that, more than anything else, as a media person you're trained to look for a story.  Negative stories about Obama are easy to write, which is why they're written.  We've already forgotten, but the Republican primary was treated by the media essentially as a joke, because it was easy to do so.

Another thing to think about, why is it in the media's interest to be biased against Obama?  There's no reason for them to be.

Lots of people believe lots of things that I find frustrating.  But this just leaves me confused and baffled.  At least people who are anti-gay marriage or pro-gun control manufacture fake facts to support their arguments.  The arguments for conservative media bias seem to come down to "they write mean stories about Obama more than I'd like."

[rumborak]

I've actually never heard anyone say the media is inherently right-biased. The only thing, and I agree with that, is that the conservative media is getting more and more extreme in what they say.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

Yeah, I agree with Rumby, I've never heard much hoopla over conservative media bias, all you ever hear about it, it seems, is liberal media bias.  Which I think exists, but is way overblown.

[El Barto]

Agreed. Aside from FOX and a couple of print outlets, who thinks the media has a right bias?

[ReaPsTA]

This article is what set me off.  I felt like "okay, I need to write a post about this, if only to make sure I'm actually not insane."

[El Barto]

Based on my quick skimming of that article, I think it's factually correct (assuming gas prices are actually coming down in a reasonable manner).  Where we differ is that I don't think it's a right/left or even corporatist matter.  The media follows it's own path.  It's simply self-interest.  Stories that will attract readers/listeners/viewers/browsers get produced, and stories that won't, don't.  Given that most people think Obama sucks ass, it's not surprising that there would be more coverage about him sucking than not.  After all, people like to hear their opinions validated. 

[ReaPsTA]

Based on my quick skimming of that article, I think it's factually correct (assuming gas prices are actually coming down in a reasonable manner).  Where we differ is that I don't think it's a right/left or even corporatist matter.  The media follows it's own path.  It's simply self-interest.  Stories that will attract readers/listeners/viewers/browsers get produced, and stories that won't, don't.  Given that most people think Obama sucks ass, it's not surprising that there would be more coverage about him sucking than not.  After all, people like to hear their opinions validated.

Pretty much.

[Scheavo]

I think the coverage for Obama has been shitty as hell, but I think it's recent its due to mass incompetence. We let quotes and video dominate the news too much, it's always who said this, and isn't much better than a reality show. So, when someone like Romney acts psychopathic and basically lies every time he opens his mouth, they're usually not challenged for this lie. That's "rude," apparently, and biased. The sound clip spreads, and more people start to believe the lies.

Also, just showing the political leanings of journalists doesn't actual deal with whose more powerful and who leads news stories. Matt Drudge is one person, but he alone has a TON of influence on what becomes a story and what doesn't. The same goes for Rupert Murdoch. On top of that, just because some is liberal and identifies as being liberal, doesn't mean they aren't moderate, aren't civil and don't have factually good arguments an opinions that even conservatives can agree with, and find appealing.

[bosk1]

So, when someone like Obama acts psychopathic and basically lies every time he opens his mouth, they're usually not challenged for this lie. That's "rude," apparently, and biased. The sound clip spreads, and more people start to believe the lies.

I agree.

Also, just showing the political leanings of journalists doesn't actual deal with whose more powerful and who leads news stories. Matt Drudge is one person, but he alone has a TON of influence on what becomes a story and what doesn't. The same goes for Rupert Murdoch. On top of that, just because some is liberal and identifies as being liberal, doesn't mean they aren't moderate, aren't civil and don't have factually good arguments an opinions that even conservatives can agree with, and find appealing.

In all seriousness, good point.  That's the problem with only taking high-level stats such as what Reap posted.  As with a lot of things, those stats are still useful for getting a high-level picture.  But to really drill down on the issue, you are right that there is additional parsing of the data that can be valuable.

[Scheavo]

So, when someone like Obama acts psychopathic and basically lies every time he opens his mouth, they're usually not challenged for this lie. That's "rude," apparently, and biased. The sound clip spreads, and more people start to believe the lies.

I agree.

If you wanna make the point that Obama gets too comfy of coverage, I'll agree. He should be hounded just as hard as Romney. It's just that Romney is soooOOoo much worse than Obama. I'd really like you to give one example like Romney trying to TAKE CREDIT for the auto industry bail out. Despite the fact that Romney was publicly against what actually occurred, and even though the most he could have possibly done is write one OP about the article.

And let's forget every other position the man holds, seeing as how nothing he says is consistent much longer than a news cycle. Obama has been consistent about a ton of things, he's just been extremely pragmatic as President. It's disappointing to me that being a pragmatic ruler is frowned upon so much in this society, but it's probably due to the very media we're discussing.

[bosk1]

  Although I was just having a bit of fun, in all seriousness, I think it's true of both guys, probably in very large doses.  No point in arguing which of the two is worse.

However, I've just been informed that if I'm against Obama, it must be because I'm a racist, so there you go.

[Scheavo]

  Although I was just having a bit of fun, in all seriousness, I think it's true of both guys, probably in very large doses.  No point in arguing which of the two is worse.

If they weren't running for political office, I might agree with you that there isn't a point. That not being the case, I can only see it being very largely off-topic, and as previously, probably not terribly fruitful.

Eh, being against Obama can be very reasonable. Being against him as vehemently and as negatively as some people are is very questionable to me though. When Gingrich calls him the most radical President ever, he's talking about his skin color, and not his policies. The man's moderate, very much so, perhaps TOO much so.

[El Barto]

When Gingrich calls him the most radical President ever, he's talking about his skin color, and not his policies. The man's moderate, very much so, perhaps TOO much so.

Nah, he's just being a partisan hack.  That seems to be the style of late.  The GOP mantra for a couple of years has been X is the most liberal ever!  I recall back in 04 that John Kerry was the most liberal senator in history.  It's just something you can say to spook your base that can't be verified or easily refuted. 

[Scheavo]

When Gingrich calls him the most radical President ever, he's talking about his skin color, and not his policies. The man's moderate, very much so, perhaps TOO much so.

Nah, he's just being a partisan hack.  That seems to be the style of late.  The GOP mantra for a couple of years has been X is the most liberal ever!  I recall back in 04 that John Kerry was the most liberal senator in history.  It's just something you can say to spook your base that can't be verified or easily refuted.

It strikes me as much more prominent now, but that could just be my memory. It also seems to go one step farther than it has before.

[El Barto]

When Gingrich calls him the most radical President ever, he's talking about his skin color, and not his policies. The man's moderate, very much so, perhaps TOO much so.

Nah, he's just being a partisan hack.  That seems to be the style of late.  The GOP mantra for a couple of years has been X is the most liberal ever!  I recall back in 04 that John Kerry was the most liberal senator in history.  It's just something you can say to spook your base that can't be verified or easily refuted.

It strikes me as much more prominent now, but that could just be my memory. It also seems to go one step farther than it has before.

Well, yeah,  it has to. Otherwise it loses all significance.      The next prominent democratic candidate will be objectively the biggest liberal since the dawn of man. 

[MasterShakezula]

I have a question:  Would you say that the Repub. party is a lot more conservative than the Dem. party is liberal? 

I see the Dems. lambasted as being uber-liberal, yet they seem rather moderate, IMO, sometimes talking about liberal stuff when it's convenient.

Does this have to do with the U.S. leaning right in comparison to other NATO members?

[El Barto]

In this era, absolutely.  I think there's been a pretty big shift to the right.  It's as if the whole spectrum has slid over a couple of notches.  I think part of the cause of that is the bogus labeling Scheavo and I were referring to.  If you keep pronouncing moderates to be the biggest liberal since, whenever, then plenty of people will start to realign themselves.  I've said all along that Obama is pretty close to Reagan ideologically, and at this point, as much as they fawn over the guy's corpse, Reagan couldn't even get his foot in the door with today's Republicans.  I also agree with his daughter that Ronnie would be pretty much disgusted with the GOP of today.  They have nothing in common with his party.

[Scheavo]

Can't remember what university, cant' remember professor, but I remember watching a new item about a study that looked at this issue scientifically, using congressional records as the data.. Everyone's getting more extreme, but conservatives more so. Today's moderate republicans are as conservative as the 1970's extreme Republicans. What today is a mainstream political idea, used to be the fringe. Democrats are getting a little more liberal, but I think moderate democrats are staying pretty damn near the same.

Depending upon what definition of conservative and liberal you want to use, and what issue's we're talking about, I might actually say Democrats are now conservative, and Republicans are now radical. Democrats want to preserve the policies of the 1930-2000, while conservatives seem to want to go back to 1890.

[rumborak]

I find myself scratching my head where this country is heading quite a bit lately. Mostly because I have the impression that there's open war between segments of the population. I really wonder when the first serious attempt to leave the union comes on the table.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure it has to be a dis-unionization, but this country definitely has to reorganize it's power structure. I don't think leaving issues up to the states would create just as many problems as it would solve, but adding regional governments might be an effective way to transfer power more locally, but not too parochially.

[ReaPsTA]

Depending upon what definition of conservative and liberal you want to use, and what issue's we're talking about, I might actually say Democrats are now conservative, and Republicans are now radical. Democrats want to preserve the policies of the 1930-2000, while conservatives seem to want to go back to 1890.

What?  Obama just openly said he supported gay marriage.  I recognize that not all Democrats have to follow his opinion, but it seems to me like a bad sign that the Democratic Party is conservative.  The same "conservative" party tried to pass health care reform legislation that would have been far broader in scope if not for Republicans reducing the amount of change created by the bill.

I don't understand the 1890 thing, even though I know you're just using a figure of speech.  As awful as they've been acting lately, it's not like the Republicans are trying to bring back segregation.

In this era, absolutely.  I think there's been a pretty big shift to the right.

Why do you say this?  Economically, the shift has been far to the left.  Socially, it's a mixed bag.  But in neither sense is the U.S. becoming more right wing.  If nothing else, actual right wingers don't seem to think so.

I have a question:  Would you say that the Repub. party is a lot more conservative than the Dem. party is liberal? 

What I think:

The Democratic Party has become very economically leftist, but socially speaking hasn't gone either way.

The Republican Party has become shockingly (perhaps barbarically) socially conservative, but economically doesn't really seem to care what's happening anymore.

[Super Dude]

So, when someone like Obama acts psychopathic and basically lies every time he opens his mouth, they're usually not challenged for this lie. That's "rude," apparently, and biased. The sound clip spreads, and more people start to believe the lies.

I agree.

If you wanna make the point that Obama gets too comfy of coverage, I'll agree. He should be hounded just as hard as Romney. It's just that Romney is soooOOoo much worse than Obama. I'd really like you to give one example like Romney trying to TAKE CREDIT for the auto industry bail out. Despite the fact that Romney was publicly against what actually occurred, and even though the most he could have possibly done is write one OP about the article.

And let's forget every other position the man holds, seeing as how nothing he says is consistent much longer than a news cycle. Obama has been consistent about a ton of things, he's just been extremely pragmatic as President. It's disappointing to me that being a pragmatic ruler is frowned upon so much in this society, but it's probably due to the very media we're discussing.

Holy crap, Romney tried to take credit for the bailout? What an asshat.

[ReaPsTA]

And let's forget every other position the man holds, seeing as how nothing he says is consistent much longer than a news cycle. Obama has been consistent about a ton of things, he's just been extremely pragmatic as President. It's disappointing to me that being a pragmatic ruler is frowned upon so much in this society, but it's probably due to the very media we're discussing.

Pragmatic?  Signing a mess of a Health Care law is pragmatic?  Cutting funding to DC school voucher programs is pragmatic?  Bowing to foreign leaders and signalling weakness is pragmatic?  Allowing corrupt businessmen to have positions in government is pragmatic?  Bailing out corporations that create economic chaos without ousting their leadership is pragmatic?

Obama's been very pragmatic about making sure he's re-elected.  He's put himself in a position where he can say to the American people that their cost of living will go up if Romney tries to reverse his policies.  No counter argument exists, so Romney has a zero percent change of being elected.

Nothing pragmatic about how he runs the country though.  Just a lot of political policies that never have worked and never will work - but are politically beneficial.

[Scheavo]

Depending upon what definition of conservative and liberal you want to use, and what issue's we're talking about, I might actually say Democrats are now conservative, and Republicans are now radical. Democrats want to preserve the policies of the 1930-2000, while conservatives seem to want to go back to 1890.

What?  Obama just openly said he supported gay marriage.  I recognize that not all Democrats have to follow his opinion, but it seems to me like a bad sign that the Democratic Party is conservative.  The same "conservative" party tried to pass health care reform legislation that would have been far broader in scope if not for Republicans reducing the amount of change created by the bill.

Not sure what political system you've been watching, but Republicans sorta wanted to dismantle Medicare and Social Security. Health Care reform, was it was done, is basically the conservative idea for fixing the problem 10 years ago, and its a huge boon for insurance companies, private companies. Meanwhile, the ethos of taking care of your people is being carried forward by liberals, while conservatives want to scrap the whole concept.

Cause look at financial reform. There, Democrats several times suggested regulations that were in place from like 1932-2000, Republicans demonized it as socialism. Democrats suggest a tax rate comparable to 15 years ago, and Republicans demonize it as socialism.

And, like I said, it depends upon the issue. I never said for all issues, so please, read what I say. ] for fixing the problem 1

[Scheavo]

Pragmatic?  Signing a mess of a Health Care law is pragmatic?  Cutting funding to DC school voucher programs is pragmatic?  Bowing to foreign leaders and signalling weakness is pragmatic?  Allowing corrupt businessmen to have positions in government is pragmatic?  Bailing out corporations that create economic chaos without ousting their leadership is pragmatic?

Signing a Health Care law that was full of compromises is pragmatic.

If you should ask Osama how weak Obama is signalling he's going to be. And al-Walaki. And Ghadaffi. The man has done nothing "weak" in terms of foreign relatinos, except basically tell the Middle East that Iraq was a huge fuck up, and that there's  President in office now who actually understands Islam and that he's not an enemy of them.

You picked several issues where "pragmatism" doesn't really apply, congrats, you cherry picked wonderfully. Go actually look at all of his policies. He's working to get rid of unnecessary regulations, he wants to simplify the bureaucracy. Most of his policies are pragmatic, and very moderate.

*edit*

I also said more conservative, which is not necessarily conservative.

Holy crap, Romney tried to take credit for the bailout? What an asshat.

No fucking kidding. That event seriously deserves more coverage. The video of him taking credit for it shows a man who honestly believes he deserves credit. The man's fucking delusions, psychopathic and I might argue that the event is slightly racist. No way the black President could ever do something so well, so clearly it's the white guy who told him what to do who deserves credit.

Lastly, either way, I think it shows us just what Romney considers doing something. He's a playboy rich ass hat whose entire life has been pretty much telling other people what to do. For him, telling other people what do is what he considers work.

[Scheavo]

You picked several issues where "pragmatism" doesn't really apply, congrats, you cherry picked wonderfully. Go actually look at all of his policies. He's working to get rid of unnecessary regulations, he wants to simplify the bureaucracy. Most of his policies are pragmatic, and very moderate.

Actually, I take that back, everything you said is actually pragmatic. You make the President out to be a Dictator, which is neither is nor do you want him to be. He doesn't pass legislation, he approves it. And when Bills have rider after rider added through a corrupt process, his choice is either to veto, and do nothing, or accept the crap for what it is. The Senate also confirms appointees, which Republicans made fucking nearly impossible by filibustering everything. Elizabeth Warren would almost for sure be the head of the Consumer Financial Bureau right now, but she's so anti-monopoly/the status quo that she would never get legally appointed. Obama, being pragmatic, puts forward more moderate and pro-business people, which is good because you need balance and you need opposing view points in the Cabinet.

I think what you are angry about is the right thing to be angry about, but I think you put the blame on the exact wrong person. You're falling for the Republicans political games; Mitch McConnel, on more than one occaision, said his number one priority is preventing an Obama second term - not doing whats best for the country. That means you can't let Obama do anything really good for the country, meaning anything good got filibustered and prevented from passing.

[ReaPsTA]

Pragmatic?  Signing a mess of a Health Care law is pragmatic?  Cutting funding to DC school voucher programs is pragmatic?  Bowing to foreign leaders and signalling weakness is pragmatic?  Allowing corrupt businessmen to have positions in government is pragmatic?  Bailing out corporations that create economic chaos without ousting their leadership is pragmatic?

Signing a Health Care law that was full of compromises is pragmatic.

If you want to look good politically.  In that sense, Obama has done very well.  It's not good for the future of the country.

If you should ask Osama how weak Obama is signalling he's going to be. And al-Walaki. And Ghadaffi. The man has done nothing "weak" in terms of foreign relatinos, except basically tell the Middle East that Iraq was a huge fuck up, and that there's  President in office now who actually understands Islam and that he's not an enemy of them.

Your missing the point though.

I'm the Prime Minister of Britain.  I'm still flummoxed by getting DVD's from Obama that I can't play at my house because the region coding is wrong.  All the sudden, the United States is saying "hey, this Libya thing?  We got this."  I'm thinking, "Wait, what?  They can't even get the region coding on the DVD's right.  And why did I only get DVD's?"

I hate to make too much of Obama's foreign policy gaffes because they don't mean very much of anything in the grand scheme of anything.  But that doesn't change the fact they should have never ever happened.

Actually, I take that back, everything you said is actually pragmatic. You make the President out to be a Dictator, which is neither is nor do you want him to be. He doesn't pass legislation, he approves it. And when Bills have rider after rider added through a corrupt process, his choice is either to veto, and do nothing, or accept the crap for what it is.

Veto it then.  Why are so many people coming to Obama saying "these laws being handed to him suck, it's not his fault."  If the laws suck, fucking veto them.  Grow a set of balls and take some responsibility.

The Senate also confirms appointees, which Republicans made fucking nearly impossible by filibustering everything. Elizabeth Warren would almost for sure be the head of the Consumer Financial Bureau right now, but she's so anti-monopoly/the status quo that she would never get legally appointed. Obama, being pragmatic, puts forward more moderate and pro-business people, which is good because you need balance and you need opposing view points in the Cabinet.

There's a difference between people who don't hate business and people who are there to defend the power business has over government.

I think what you are angry about is the right thing to be angry about, but I think you put the blame on the exact wrong person. You're falling for the Republicans political games; Mitch McConnel, on more than one occaision, said his number one priority is preventing an Obama second term - not doing whats best for the country. That means you can't let Obama do anything really good for the country, meaning anything good got filibustered and prevented from passing.

The problem is everyone.  If Pennsylvania was an open primary state, I would have changed my party registration to independent or libertarian long ago.  The Republican Party has pretty much been terrible lately.

But Obama's the president and, limited powers or not, the president of all people should be held responsible for what he does.  I don't find him to be as much of a disaster as the Republicans do.  But I don't understand why people are willing to give him a pass on the numerous bad decisions he's made.  For example, which is he pushing for more power to spy on American citizens.  Is that Congress's fault too?

If you're going to blame everything that's gone wrong during Obama's administration on Congress, does that apply to Bush too?

[Scheavo]

I'm the Prime Minister of Britain.  I'm still flummoxed by getting DVD's from Obama that I can't play at my house because the region coding is wrong.  All the sudden, the United States is saying "hey, this Libya thing?  We got this."  I'm thinking, "Wait, what?  They can't even get the region coding on the DVD's right.  And why did I only get DVD's?"

This is just nonsense. I think you usually bring up good points, but this is just pure unadulterated nonsense.

You said Obama is weak, and signalling to enemies that he is weak. I pointed out how that is factually wrong. If you want to complain about Obama's foreign policy, you're free to do so, an on a lot of issues, we'll probably agree a good amount. But c'mon, let's have a factual discussion based upon his actual policies, and not the standard right wing "Liberals are weak!" bullshit.

Veto it then.  Why are so many people coming to Obama saying "these laws being handed to him suck, it's not his fault."  If the laws suck, fucking veto them.  Grow a set of balls and take some responsibility.

Because then NOTHING get's done, and as I said, there are often times something shitty is better than nothing. If Obama had vetoed everything, we'd be complaining about how he has vetoed everything, and hasn't gotten anything done. This is why he's pragmatic.

"Obamacare" get's a lot of flak, but it's amazing how much of it is ignorant and ill informed. Every single analysis says it won't add to the deficit, it might just reduce it a little, and when you go over the actual provisions of the bill, people don't complain so much. It did some very positive things, and they probably outweigh the negatives. It needs to be fixed, but let's remember, he didn't right the law. He could either pass it, and finally get some form of Universal Health Care law into the system after decades of tring to get it done, or he could have done nothing. Seriuosly, if you think him doing nothing would have been better, you're just being silly.

There's a difference between people who don't hate business and people who are there to defend the power business has over government.

You ignored the entire reasoning behind why those people are there. The senate has to confirm them, and the senate and bought and sold by powerful business.

If you're going to blame everything that's gone wrong during Obama's administration on Congress, does that apply to Bush too?

There's a world of difference here. Congress, under Bush, pretty much passed the legislation Bush wanted, and more or less as he wanted. Republicans, under Obama, filibustered everything, making it so he could barely pass anything he wanted.

Generally though, yes, we should blame congress more. Using the President as a scape goat, like you're doing, is very fucking bad for democracy. It allows the Congress to maintain corrupted, because everybody blames the President, votes him out, and pretty much keeps their Congressmen.

But Obama's the president and, limited powers or not, the president of all people should be held responsible for what he does

Then let's look at what Obama does. He's not nearly so bad as you make him out to be.

Oh, and just to be clear, there are numerous policies of Obama's I don't like. I'm not giving him a carte blanche, I"m not defending everything he's done - I'm defending against the idea that the President is a dictator, that everything the Government does while he's President is somehow now his fault. The law recently that allowed him to detain citizens, for example; Obama was left with either vetoing a huge defense spending bill, one he needed to sign to fund the army, fight the wars he's involved in, etc. If he had vetoed that bill, the negative consequences would have been huge. He made a signing statement saying he pretty much opposed the part of the law authorizing his power to detain, becuase that's pretty much the most he could do. That could all be bullshit, but it becomes hard to tell whose to blame in the current political system.

When it's quite obvious that the Senate Republicans have been controlling legislation for the past 3 years, it's pretty fucking ridiculous to blame Obama for the legislation over the past 3 years.

[ReaPsTA]

You said Obama is weak, and signalling to enemies that he is weak. I pointed out how that is factually wrong. If you want to complain about Obama's foreign policy, you're free to do so, an on a lot of issues, we'll probably agree a good amount. But c'mon, let's have a factual discussion based upon his actual policies, and not the standard right wing "Liberals are weak!" bullshit.

It's not exactly about weakness.  It's about appearing stupid.

Politics is not about policy.  It's about politics.  90% of how Obama will be judged by other foreign leaders has nothing to do with his policies, but how well he plays politics with them.  To me, it seems like Obama does not play foreign politics well.  This cannot possibly be good for the country.

Because then NOTHING get's done, and as I said, there are often times something shitty is better than nothing. 

"Obamacare" get's a lot of flak, but it's amazing how much of it is ignorant and ill informed. Every single analysis says it won't add to the deficit, it might just reduce it a little, and when you go over the actual provisions of the bill, people don't complain so much. It did some very positive things, and they probably outweigh the negatives. It needs to be fixed, but let's remember, he didn't right the law. He could either pass it, and finally get some form of Universal Health Care law into the system after decades of tring to get it done, or he could have done nothing. Seriuosly, if you think him doing nothing would have been better, you're just being silly.

See, you want Universal Health Care though.  I'm frightened to death of it.  By design, it is incapable of properly allocating resources.  So when you say it works because at least it's a step toward universal health care, that has no meaning to me.  Economicaly, the government can't be involved in Health Care the way it currently is.  It forces the price of everything up, which is why we have a healthcare problem in the first place.  It's easier for people to get Healthcare now, but that's not because it's easier to personally pay for.  It's because the government and private companies are shouldering the burden.  At some point, Medicare will collapse.  At some point, private insurance will cease to exist, and then we'll have no competition to create a health care system that's under any meaningful pressure to do a good job.

If Obama had vetoed everything, we'd be complaining about how he has vetoed everything, and hasn't gotten anything done. This is why he's pragmatic.

But that's politically pragmatic again.  It has nothing to do with running the country properly.  Politics is the enemy of anything actually getting done.

You ignored the entire reasoning behind why those people are there. The senate has to confirm them, and the senate and bought and sold by powerful business.

Then nominate the right person.  If the position isn't filled, then who cares?  At least 90% of what government does is useless anyway.

There's a world of difference here. Congress, under Bush, pretty much passed the legislation Bush wanted, and more or less as he wanted. Republicans, under Obama, filibustered everything, making it so he could barely pass anything he wanted.

Generally though, yes, we should blame congress more. Using the President as a scape goat, like you're doing, is very fucking bad for democracy. It allows the Congress to maintain corrupted, because everybody blames the President, votes him out, and pretty much keeps their Congressmen.

Fair enough.  Although No Child Left Behind had to go through Ted Kennedy.

Oh, and just to be clear, there are numerous policies of Obama's I don't like. I'm not giving him a carte blanche, I"m not defending everything he's done - I'm defending against the idea that the President is a dictator, that everything the Government does while he's President is somehow now his fault. The law recently that allowed him to detain citizens, for example; Obama was left with either vetoing a huge defense spending bill, one he needed to sign to fund the army, fight the wars he's involved in, etc. If he had vetoed that bill, the negative consequences would have been huge. He made a signing statement saying he pretty much opposed the part of the law authorizing his power to detain, becuase that's pretty much the most he could do. That could all be bullshit, but it becomes hard to tell whose to blame in the current political system.

He could have some political savvy then.  Release this statement to the American public:

"My fellow Americans.  Recently, I was forced to sign a law giving me the power to detain American citizens without trial because it was part of a huge defense bill.  I am deeply upset at the political gamesmanship that was performed to make this happen.  Part of fighting the war on terror is focusing this country's resources where they need to be focused in order to fight an elusive and cunning enemy.  This country's own citizens are not that enemy.  I have signed an executive order stating that the executive branch of government, in spite of having the power to detain Americans without proper investigation, shall not do so.  I am also asking Congress to introduce a law repealing these powers.  Every time you walk through an airport security line, you experience first hand what happens when the government runs amok.  I want to stop that."

To say this would send shockwaves through Washington is an understatement.  It would also guarantee that Obama would be re-elected unless he was caught molesting a ten year old or something equally severe.  But he won't do this... for some reason.  Probably because he doesn't care.

When it's quite obvious that the Senate Republicans have been controlling legislation for the past 3 years, it's pretty fucking ridiculous to blame Obama for the legislation over the past 3 years.

He can still veto it.  Every time Obama makes an angry speech at the podium to show he's standing tough against Republican political grandstanding, you can believe Mitch McConnel is laughing hysterically in his office.  Powerful people don't waste time on fits of impotent anger.

[Scheavo]

You said Obama is weak, and signalling to enemies that he is weak. I pointed out how that is factually wrong. If you want to complain about Obama's foreign policy, you're free to do so, an on a lot of issues, we'll probably agree a good amount. But c'mon, let's have a factual discussion based upon his actual policies, and not the standard right wing "Liberals are weak!" bullshit.

It's not exactly about weakness.  It's about appearing stupid.

And I just don't 'see how you can come to that conclusion. Libya was a rather huge international success, compared to, say Afghanistan and Iraq. He seems extremely intelligent, actually, becuase he got accomplished what we wanted accomplished, didn't piss off a bunch of radicals, didn't mire us in a country for decades, and spent a fraction of the money. What exactly is stupid about that? You and I may disagree with the general policies, but there isn't anything stupid about it.

By design, it is incapable of properly allocating resources. 

This statement right here makes me know you know nothing about foreign countries, their health systems, how they work, etc. We allocate resources much more improperly in our system than any other system out there. It's not a matter if you believing this, you're just factually and comparatively wrong.

If Obama had vetoed everything, we'd be complaining about how he has vetoed everything, and hasn't gotten anything done. This is why he's pragmatic.

But that's politically pragmatic again.  It has nothing to do with running the country properly.  Politics is the enemy of anything actually getting done.

? So you're agreeing with me while disagreeing with me? Pragmatism, in an elected official, isn't about properly running the country, it's about getting something actually done. Obama could have gotten NOTHING done, and then you'd be here complaining about how he got nothing done, or he could have gotten something done, as he did.

You ignored the entire reasoning behind why those people are there. The senate has to confirm them, and the senate and bought and sold by powerful business.

Then nominate the right person.  If the position isn't filled, then who cares?  At least 90% of what government does is useless anyway.

90% of the government does is useless when the necessary positions aren't filled and there isn't any leadership in a department. Nominating the right person would have done nothing ,ti would have just guaranteed a filibuster and that he wouldn't be able to properly run the bureaucracy he heads. Then, when he cant' properly run the bureaucracy he heads, you'd be blaming him for that as well.

Oh, and just to be clear, there are numerous policies of Obama's I don't like. I'm not giving him a carte blanche, I"m not defending everything he's done - I'm defending against the idea that the President is a dictator, that everything the Government does while he's President is somehow now his fault. The law recently that allowed him to detain citizens, for example; Obama was left with either vetoing a huge defense spending bill, one he needed to sign to fund the army, fight the wars he's involved in, etc. If he had vetoed that bill, the negative consequences would have been huge. He made a signing statement saying he pretty much opposed the part of the law authorizing his power to detain, becuase that's pretty much the most he could do. That could all be bullshit, but it becomes hard to tell whose to blame in the current political system.

He could have some political savvy then.  Release this statement to the American public:

"My fellow Americans.  Recently, I was forced to sign a law giving me the power to detain American citizens without trial because it was part of a huge defense bill.  I am deeply upset at the political gamesmanship that was performed to make this happen.  Part of fighting the war on terror is focusing this country's resources where they need to be focused in order to fight an elusive and cunning enemy.  This country's own citizens are not that enemy.  I have signed an executive order stating that the executive branch of government, in spite of having the power to detain Americans without proper investigation, shall not do so.  I am also asking Congress to introduce a law repealing these powers.  Every time you walk through an airport security line, you experience first hand what happens when the government runs amok.  I want to stop that."

 

That's basically what he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/31/National-Politics/Graphics/Obama-NDAA-signing-statement.doc.pdf

Do you see what I mean now about how inaccurate all these complaints are? It's really getting annoying, especially when you say the President should do what he did do, and that doing so would be monumental. FUCKING BULLSHIT.

When it's quite obvious that the Senate Republicans have been controlling legislation for the past 3 years, it's pretty fucking ridiculous to blame Obama for the legislation over the past 3 years.

He can still veto it.  Every time Obama makes an angry speech at the podium to show he's standing tough against Republican political grandstanding, you can believe Mitch McConnel is laughing hysterically in his office.  Powerful people don't waste time on fits of impotent anger.

And what would vetoing it do? It would make him look like a do-nothing, it would make him look like he's not willing to compromise, get anything done, etc. Vetoing everything would be worse.

[ReaPsTA]

And I just don't 'see how you can come to that conclusion. Libya was a rather huge international success, compared to, say Afghanistan and Iraq. He seems extremely intelligent, actually, becuase he got accomplished what we wanted accomplished, didn't piss off a bunch of radicals, didn't mire us in a country for decades, and spent a fraction of the money. What exactly is stupid about that? You and I may disagree with the general policies, but there isn't anything stupid about it.

It's not about whether or not what he did was stupid.  It's the perception of him by other foreign leaders.  Maybe other foreign leaders feel differently.  But whenever I see him talk about foreign policy, it never comes off well.  Maybe he just sucks at being diplomatic.

Also - additional thing i thought of - I still hate the way he handled Afghanistan.  He put on a show of caring that didn't require serious troop commitment until the American public got sick of the war and just wanted to go.  Politically ingenious, not good for accomplishing the military objectives of the war or making sure soldiers aren't purposelessly killed.

This statement right here makes me know you know nothing about foreign countries, their health systems, how they work, etc. We allocate resources much more improperly in our system than any other system out there. It's not a matter if you believing this, you're just factually and comparatively wrong.

Wait, when did I say our system was more efficient than the systems of other countries?  I didn't.

? So you're agreeing with me while disagreeing with me? Pragmatism, in an elected official, isn't about properly running the country, it's about getting something actually done. Obama could have gotten NOTHING done, and then you'd be here complaining about how he got nothing done, or he could have gotten something done, as he did.

I'm not entirely sure what this means.  Don't you want the president to do what's best of the country?  If that's true, then why are you praising Obama for placing less emphasis on that goal than political success?

90% of the government does is useless when the necessary positions aren't filled and there isn't any leadership in a department. Nominating the right person would have done nothing ,ti would have just guaranteed a filibuster and that he wouldn't be able to properly run the bureaucracy he heads. Then, when he cant' properly run the bureaucracy he heads, you'd be blaming him for that as well.

I'm not talking about his relationship with Bureaucracy, I'm talking about his relationship with Congress.

That's basically what he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/31/National-Politics/Graphics/Obama-NDAA-signing-statement.doc.pdf

Do you see what I mean now about how inaccurate all these complaints are? It's really getting annoying, especially when you say the President should do what he did do, and that doing so would be monumental. FUCKING BULLSHIT.

Important things missing:

 - He said he wouldn't detain American without trial.  He didnt put a mechanism in place to prevent future administrations from doing so.  He didn't address whether or not he could have.
 - He has made no effort to make sure, legislatively, that this would be impossible.  He's made no effort whatsoever to fight for the ability of Americans to have any feeling of safety from their own government.  He essentially released the statement I wrote, but what's missing is what makes it meaningless.
 - Also, it's not like he particularly cares about Americans getting hassled.  The TSA's security procedures aren't legislatively mandated.  Right this very second, Obama could decide that enough is enough of the TSA's stupidity and end it with an executive order.  He hasn't done this.  "Oh, now you're just calling Obama a do nothing."  Sure, because he can actually effect this.  When the choice is between doing nothing or doing something stupid, doing nothing is usually the right option.  When the choice is between doing nothing and doing something helpful, doing nothing is almost always wrong.
 - The issue is ultimately about power.  Aside from saying he wouldn't hold American citizens without trial (then doing nothing to make sure this authority was erradicated), Obama has done nothing to limit the power of the federal government.  The Justice Department wants ISP's to hold onto internet records longer.  I think they should be legally required to instantaneously destroy all internet records.  Obama has shown little regard in general for the notion of privacy, even though it's crucial to prevent descent into totalitarianism.  Obama still believes that United States "enemy combatants" should be able to be held without trial.  As someone who believes the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was a good thing, I still find the notion of detention without trial of anyone rather shocking.  Obama wants to guarantee that he has power.  In his statement he even talks about wanting to have the descrition to do what's necessary to protect the country.  That's what he cares about.

And what would vetoing it do? It would make him look like a do-nothing, it would make him look like he's not willing to compromise, get anything done, etc. Vetoing everything would be worse.

Worse politically.  In terms of foreign policy, perception is more important than reality because other world leaders make their decisions based on perception.  In terms of domestic policy, keeping up political appearances is not irrelevant but also not the primary goal of your actions. 

[Super Dude]

Gas prices are going down. Good thing Obama can control gas prices, huh? Oh wait.

[Cool Chris]

Why is this debate between ReaPsTA and Scheavo more thought-provoking that any debate I have ever seen between two politicians running for office?

[Nick]

Why is this debate between ReaPsTA and Scheavo more thought-provoking that any debate I have ever seen between two politicians running for office?

While I'm not going to say that internet debates are always fantastic, the sad fact is that often times they discuss more important and solid points then politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator ever will. On the flip side it's also were you see some of the crazies and cooks come out full force as well.

[MasterShakezula]

May have something to do with their actually debating based on their own principles, as opposed to 'debating' for a cushy and renewable 2-6-year office job.