Will He or wont He? Will She or Wont She? Will They or...

[ED-057]

The Dems are too far left & the Reps are too far right

I don't know, lately it seems like neither group has many ideas on how to fix anything other than throwing more money at it. While there are loud arguments back and forth about certain issues (social spending, gay marriage, etc.) I feel that there is lot more in the background that neither party wants to touch for fear of pissing off some special interest and losing campaign money or inviting a swarm of negative sound bites.

Look at immigration, although there was some media attention focused on that issue a while back what actually was done? Approximately nothing, as I recall.

If the blogs are any indication, the people paying attention to politics are spending all their time obsessing about grr Clinton fatigue or grr Obama the queue jumper or grr McCain the fuddy-duddy, rather than actually thinking about the issues...

It's a sad state of affairs. At least the random idiots on TV have an excuse for talking about that stuff. But when it comes to people who are writing about politics, they should consider that anyone who is going to read the article necessarily has an attention span greater than a few Planck times, and could benefit from some actual relevant content.

[BulletMagnet]

The Dems are too far left

Huh? Considering that the entire political spectrum has shifted to the right in recent years/decades, not to mention how pathetically p-whipped the Dems have been when it comes to dealing with the conservatives lately, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here...granted, there's plenty to complain about when it comes to their performance (which is why I'm not one of them, despite being liberal), but being "too left" isn't a legitimate complaint, since they're as cowardly as it comes when actually attempting to push forward anything resembling a progressive agenda (see Obama's health care "plan" in particular).

I say we ban congress & elect Richard Simmons King for Life!

Oh come on, you know he's already the one pulling the strings in the shadows.

[doodude]

As a moderate independent conservative libertarian reformed extreme liberal ( whew! ) I see the Dem party moving in & hovering in the 'Move on Dot Org' camp which I consider too far left. (I use MO.org as an example only.)

As a self proclaimed Liberal, you may or may not see MO.Org this way, I dont know & Im not asking. I also dont want to get into comparisons of whos ideology is correct or better since we are both most likely, fairly committed to our beliefs & not likely to change those beliefs thru this forum.

But its been my experience that people on both/either/any side do not consider their side to be 'too far' anything, but as a rule, in the right. So to speak...

Liberals dont see themselves as too liberal.
Conservatives dont see themselves too conservative.

I find it funny that in spite of polls of news journalist where they ( journalist ) claim overwhelmingly to be liberal, that liberals see the news as slanted against them.

Yet Conservatives make the same claim that the news is slanted far too left.

It just seems to make my point I think. That each group feels the other group is going to far & neither group sees themselves as going far enough.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I offer this link as just an example of the kind of media bias reports I speak of. Im sure there are different results with different polls...

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp

[The n00b]

As a moderate independent conservative libertarian reformed extreme liberal ( whew! ) I see the Dem party moving in & hovering in the 'Move on Dot Org' camp which I consider too far left. (I use MO.org as an example only.)

As a self proclaimed Liberal, you may or may not see MO.Org this way, I dont know & Im not asking. I also dont want to get into comparisons of whos ideology is correct or better since we are both most likely, fairly committed to our beliefs & not likely to change those beliefs thru this forum.

But its been my experience that people on both/either/any side do not consider their side to be 'too far' anything, but as a rule, in the right. So to speak...

Liberals dont see themselves as too liberal.
Conservatives dont see themselves too conservative.

I find it funny that in spite of polls of news journalist where they ( journalist ) claim overwhelmingly to be liberal, that liberals see the news as slanted against them.

Yet Conservatives make the same claim that the news is slanted far too left.

It just seems to make my point I think. That each group feels the other group is going to far & neither group sees themselves as going far enough.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I offer this link as just an example of the kind of media bias reports I speak of. Im sure there are different results with different polls...

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp

Isn't that why conservatives have the fox news channel and liberals have 30 min of the daily show? I would complain but fox news has tons of hot chicks.

As for dems being too liberal... Well they aren't liberal enough compared to the Green party. Republicans also are moving away from neo-conservatism and I think we've seen the last of that movement. Radical conservatism and libertarianism are, by their very nature, extremely exclusive in terms of voters.

You can't attract voters if your philosophy is that certain kinds of voters don't "deserve" to vote for you.

[BulletMagnet]

Liberals dont see themselves as too liberal.
Conservatives dont see themselves too conservative.

There is always this to take into consideration, obviously, but I can't help but imagine that it'd be tough to deny that the "center line" in American politics has been shifted to the right for a good long time now...seriously, how much of a "liberal" was Bill Clinton, or anyone who's come since? Their efforts to reform health care are pathetic, their willingness to dispel wingnut propaganda ("tax cuts increase revenue!") is non-existent, and they're constantly rolling over and dying whenever they're accused of being "partisan," and falling hook, line and sinker for meaningless "spirit of bipartisanship" (read: let the conservatives do whatever they want) garbage (I consider this perhaps Obama's biggest weakness). As far as the press goes, just the fact that they're owned by corporate interests and pay their talking heads millions does not give me much faith in any "liberal" tendencies that might exist on their part...if nothing else, just try to compare their treatment of "Monicagate" (or, even more appallingly, Whitewater) to the far more serious blunders and sellings-out of the current administration.

Perspective is always a factor, but it doesn't account for absolutely everything. Heck, I thought that was the sort of much-maligned "everything is relative" mindset that only pie-in-the-sky liberals were supposed to have.

You can't attract voters if your philosophy is that certain kinds of voters don't "deserve" to vote for you.

Nah, anyone can vote for 'em - but almost no one can expect anything back from 'em once they're elected. And yeah, to some extent this goes for all parties, but the farther right you go the more all-encompassing this rule becomes.

[Ex-Cyber]

I find it funny that in spite of polls of news journalist where they ( journalist ) claim overwhelmingly to be liberal, that liberals see the news as slanted against them.

Reporters tend to be liberal, but they're on someone's payroll and they probably want to stay that way. The owners/managers get to set company policy, and you don't need a poll to figure out that the big media corporations aren't exactly the guiding lights of liberalism.

seriously, how much of a "liberal" was Bill Clinton, or anyone who's come since?

Hardcore conservatives seem to see anyone to the left of Reagan as a closet communist. They'd probably have a heart attack if they ever read a Counterpunch article, let alone actual communist writings.

[JoshF]

Reporters tend to be liberal, but they're on someone's payroll and they probably want to stay that way.

The people who sign the checks know who they're giving the megaphone to

[doodude]

I have heard from conservative pundits that the country as a whole has shifted right of center & has been moving that way for some time. I see no real proof of this & wonder if its just conservatives "talkin' shit!"
I personally think & I cant back it up, if this is true its because the population as a whole is older & getting even more so.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "if you aren't a liberal in your 20s you have no heart, and if you aren't a conservative by your 40s you have no brain," *

Thus, perhaps this is the reason FOX News has become such a 'force' if you will. Where else does a possibly growing population of conservative go for his or her news when there is only one option?
Look at the alternative of what is & has been available. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CBN, BBC...
This is also why conservative radio has become such a phenomenon. And conservative radio isnt sponsored by public tax dollars like Public Radio with (IMO) its liberal slant.
Unfortunately, conservative talk radio has produced the likes of Micheal Savage who is IMO an extremist nut.

To corporate America pulling the strings of all those Liberal journalist, Id hardly call the creator of CNN, Ted Turner, a conservative or the NY Times conservative or the Dallas Morning News, Los Angeles, Denver, Seattle, KC or any of the other outlets mentioned above as conservative & controlling the news to slant it to the right.

Its just my opinion but I think you can add up all the Conservative journalist on CNN, CBN & BBC & still not have as many Liberals that are on FOX.
If you were to actually watch FOX & I have sneaky feeling that most of you do not, you would see there are quite a few Liberals with their own 1/2 to 1 hour & more shows.
The only Conservative on CNN is Glenn Beck & Im fairly sure you dont watch his show either.

Which all goes back to my original point.
Liberals see with Liberal eyes & Conservatives see with Conservative eyes & neither the two shall meet...**

* - There is actually no proof that Churchill said this although it is a good line.

** - These ramblings are my own of which I have a right to as do you regarding your own ramblings.
I realize Im in a minority here being a conservative so I would ask you to take a deep breathe before you reply & keep it polite.
After all, we're just fellow Shmuppers having a conversation...

[antron]

Rupert Murdock saw an open market in conservative news and seriously cashed in on it (with money he got from the Simpsons lol).

Now he calls Obama a rock star and says he will win in a landslide. I wonder how he plans on cashing in on that.

[BulletMagnet]

I have heard from conservative pundits that the country as a whole has shifted right of center & has been moving that way for some time. I see no real proof of this & wonder if its just conservatives "talkin' shit!"

If you want an easy measure of where the rhetoric has gone, just take a look at the laundry list of debacles that the current administration has managed to get away with, and the absolutely pathetic excuses it's used to get away with them...voodoo economics are back and the economy's in the tank (and Charlie Gibson is raising concerns about capital gains tax and insisting that a teacher and a fireman can make 200K a year during debates), we can't help veterans get into college because they're just going to use it as an excuse to stop serving their country, we'll deport illegal immigrants but refuse to punish the corporations who employ them, universal health care is Communism, retired generals with continuing ties to the Pentagon are being touted as "independent" war analysts, environmentalism is a fool's errand, and holding anyone responsible for any of this (and much more besides) is offering "aid and comfort" to our enemies.

As was mentioned, Clinton was hardly a liberal at all, but do you think for a second that he would have gotten away with such radically partisan policy shifts with such flimsy rationale behind them? Bush, however, has hardly raised any eyebrows from anyone besides the "liberal nutcases," who have accurately predicted almost every failure he's headed (yet are still the ones who are nuts).

Thus, perhaps this is the reason FOX News has become such a 'force' if you will. Where else does a possibly growing population of conservative go for his or her news when there is only one option?

Correction - where do they go when they are told that they only have one option? If you want Dem-bashing (outside of Fox), you can't do better than Chris Matthews and Tim Russert on MSNBC...and the other networks aren't far behind them, if not in outright defending the administration and/or trashing liberals, than in conveniently failing to offer counterpoints/counter-facts to blatantly false conservative rhetoric - the ol' "we'll report (one side of the story), you decide" boondoggle. If not outright partisanship, it's frighteningly lazy journalism.

To corporate America pulling the strings of all those Liberal journalist, Id hardly call...the NY Times conservative

You mean the paper which broke several of its own hiring rules to take on a braintrust like (freakin') Bill Kristol, whose errors (read: lies) they've had to correct almost constantly, but still keep on?

And it's not like their editorials/articles were particularly "liberal" in nature to begin with...ever read (the supposedly "liberal") Maureen Dowd, in particular?

Its just my opinion but I think you can add up all the Conservative journalist on CNN, CBN & BBC & still not have as many Liberals that are on FOX.

Got anything hard to back up that opinion?

[Acid King]

Radical conservatism and libertarianism are, by their very nature, extremely exclusive in terms of voters.

The reason libertarians never get anywhere is that they refuse to moderate their message. A pragmatic libertarian in wolves clothing as a democrat or republican would probably garner a lot of support. I don't know why we haven't seen one yet.

[Ex-Cyber]

The reason libertarians never get anywhere is that they refuse to moderate their message. A pragmatic libertarian in wolves clothing as a democrat or republican would probably garner a lot of support. I don't know why we haven't seen one yet.

Probably because neither party wants them. The Democratic Party promotes regulated capitalism, and the Republican Party is pretty authoritarian about everything other than money and guns (e.g. sex, religion, culture, foreign policy). Any consistent ideological break with the party would invite primary opponents assisted by outside forces, and without such a break a libertarian would be so in name only (and not even that, given that they're running under an R/D party banner).

[Acid King]

Probably because neither party wants them. The Democratic Party promotes regulated capitalism, and the Republican Party is pretty authoritarian about everything other than money and guns (e.g. sex, religion, culture, foreign policy). Any consistent ideological break with the party would invite primary opponents assisted by outside forces, and without such a break a libertarian would be so in name only (and not even that, given that they're running under an R/D party banner).

That's not completely true. There are huge variations within the two parties, they are not nearly as homogenous as people make them out to be. Simple party hackery doesn't necessarily fly in political reality, just look at the Republican attempt to knock Specter out.

[doodude]

Well BM, you are, in my mind just making my point, as I see it differently.

You say tomayto I say tomahto & we could, which Im not, trade tit for tat about our opinions & views about policies, people, who has done what & who has blah blah blah...

As I said earlier, Im not interested in debating the Conservative or Liberal, right or wrong issues.
Im only making the observation that as a rule opposing sides see or better yet dont see beyond their own concerns.

I dont know if the statement that either side is getting more extreme is accurate but a small % of the extremist seem to be garnishing the largest % of the headlines.
Maybe its just because sex, tragedy & conspiracy sells more ad time & space.

As to the number of Libs vs Cons on the channels... nope, nothing but my own viewing experience of watching FOX, CNN, & the BBC. I dont watch CBN but I just threw that in.

This has been an interesting ( if time consuming ) subject but Im going to leave this thread alone now as I see no good in continuing to kick a dead horse with he said, he said & reanalysis of opinions & partial quotes.

But I respect everyones opinions & will chew on those opinions for awhile & who knows, maybe Ill see things your way after a time.
I suspect that we're not that far apart in our goals but really differ more on how to achieve them.
And IMO, a forum like this where we cant see one another makes it difficult to truly understand each other.

So, on with the Shmupping!

[The n00b]

I've watched Fox news and yes it's like a giant conservative circle jerk. The few "liberals" on there are just conservatives who are just a tiny bit more moderate than their extremist counter parts. Are the other stations liberal? No they just look that way because you are comparing them to Fox News. CNN even overdoes the attempt to be fair by hiring extremist conservatives like Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Jack McCafferty. MSNBC is the only station I know that even has one commentator who skirts with extreme liberalism and that's Keith Olberman.

On another topic, I read a recent article in Texas Monthly that made an interesting case about how the Republican Party will eventually become more moderate in order to survive. Basically while the Republican party has a strong base, the racialist, virulently anti-immigrant, and exclusive culture of the party is scaring away a lot of moderate conservatives who are voting demo. I wouldn't be surprised if people like John McCain and Condelezza Rice become the new faces of the Reps while heavy duty Bushites are relegated to extremist factions of the party.

[Ex-Cyber]

Probably because neither party wants them. The Democratic Party promotes regulated capitalism, and the Republican Party is pretty authoritarian about everything other than money and guns (e.g. sex, religion, culture, foreign policy). Any consistent ideological break with the party would invite primary opponents assisted by outside forces, and without such a break a libertarian would be so in name only (and not even that, given that they're running under an R/D party banner).

That's not completely true. There are huge variations within the two parties, they are not nearly as homogenous as people make them out to be. Simple party hackery doesn't necessarily fly in political reality, just look at the Republican attempt to knock Specter out.

Of course they're not totally homogeneous (especially not at the state and local levels), but the ability to actually do anything with policy depends heavily on influence within the party, and it's hard to get that if you basically reject the platform. Some manage to play the middle in order to gain influence, but that tends to be limited to specific issues while generally supporting the party otherwise, and that can backfire if their party gets a big enough majority (cf. Joe Lieberman's current situation).

[Acid King]

Of course they're not totally homogeneous (especially not at the state and local levels), but the ability to actually do anything with policy depends heavily on influence within the party, and it's hard to get that if you basically reject the platform. Some manage to play the middle in order to gain influence, but that tends to be limited to specific issues while generally supporting the party otherwise, and that can backfire if their party gets a big enough majority (cf. Joe Lieberman's current situation).

Since all national offices, sans the president, are elected at a local level (by state or congressional district) it has a huge influence on it. Aside from that, a moderate libertarian running as either side doesn't necessarily have reject either partys platform, certainly no more than the members within the parties do right now. Aside from that, influence lies more in committee assignment than party position, though the two are related.

[Nuke]