Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> First of all, my post wasn't about "the right wing noise machine is worse than the left," << <No, but it WAS about trying to differentiate between the noise machine and the republican party - and I don't see it. I think you're letting rank and file republicans off the hook too easily. ALL of this crap that's being spewed is traceable directly back to the GOP.> Okay - but now we're really talking about THREE entities. The noise machine, the GOP leadership, and rank and file Republicans. You know what I think of the first. The second I think is absolutely being dominated by the first in a tail-wagging-the-dog way, and it's unseemly at the VERY least. More likely, they're happy to let the noise machine rile up the base and spread their lies and refuse to call them out on it (or in some cases, actually kiss the ring of Limbaugh after daring to criticize him even mildly). At worst, the leadership and the noise machine can absolutely coordinate their "talking points" and often do. The noise machine spews their garbage, see if it resonates with the base, and if it does, pretty soon you're actually seeing the same garbage spewed on the floor of Congress. But then there's that third group that includes: my parents, any number of friends, and people here who have been very critical of the current GOP yet still remain members - people like SPP and Kar2oonman, I believe. They remember (and so do I) a more moderate GOP, and are hoping for a return to it. I can't really come down too hard on people who ARE moderate and would like to see the GOP return to what it was. It's hard to give up party affiliation, especially when for much of your life it didn't stand for the extreme crap it sadly stands for today. Of course, a lower percentage of Americans now consider themselves Republican than at any time in recent memory, which means they HAVE given up on the party (usually becoming independent). But those who remain who want no part of the crap - well, I think we have to give them props for wanting no part of the crap. I guess you disagree. <I understand that not every person who votes republican also supports the birthers, deathers, tenthers, teabaggers, paliners and ditto heads, but they enable the nonsense to continue unabated. > I understand that train of thought - but I know some Republicans who HAVE let their elected officials know that they need to cut the crap, or they'll leave the party. Yes, there are a lot of silent enablers, but there are also not-so-silent moderates who want their party back. I don't think they'll be getting it back any time soon, but there's other whole school of thought that says that change is best brought about from within, rather than from the outside. On the OTHER-other hand, that's the sort of thing people like the Log Cabin Republicans say, and I've been very critical of them as being enablers, so yes perhaps I'm contradicting myself. That's the curse of being able to see two sides I guess.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The noise machine spews their garbage, see if it resonates with the base, and if it does, pretty soon you're actually seeing the same garbage spewed on the floor of Congress. << No question. We saw this with the 'death panels', first uttered - outrageously - by Sarah Palin. But instead of going away, it actually caught a toe-hold, and quickly become part of the republican canon. I think the same thing about Bachmann's ridiculous notions about abortion providers in the inner city elementary schools. That's no more crazy than the birthers and deathers claims. >> Of course, a lower percentage of Americans now consider themselves Republican than at any time in recent memory, which means they HAVE given up on the party (usually becoming independent). << And Fox news ratings have never been higher. Warning - the following link is heartbreaking ... <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...260.html</a> There's just no explaining it.
Originally Posted By hopemax From the link, FOXNews averaged 2.25 million viewers in prime time. By comparison, Monday Night Football, which is now a cable show, last week got 14.85 million viewers. O'Reilly is the biggest show at 3.2 million, but when I saw the football rating, I also saw that WWE on USA gets 4-5 million. So while FOXNews may have the biggest slice of the cable news pie, the slices are still relatively small compared to other things. I think that gets lost a bit because of the intensity of the noise machine. All the conservatives are watching FOXNews, while the other side, may be watching the traditional media networks, or MSNBC, or at this point Comedy Central. Like the Democratic Party vs the GOP one is in lock-step and the other is herding cats. So at quick glance the lock-step group looks "better."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes, that's right. It's a relatively small number who watches Fox, BUT they're totally committed. So it's not a contradiction that the GOP is shrinking while Fox's audience goes up. In fact, (God willing) there maybe a correlation, and moderates see the party drifting more and more to the fringe, as represented by Fox, and it turns them off.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<From the link, FOXNews averaged 2.25 million viewers in prime time. By comparison, Monday Night Football, which is now a cable show, last week got 14.85 million viewers. O'Reilly is the biggest show at 3.2 million, but when I saw the football rating, I also saw that WWE on USA gets 4-5 million.>> I believe there's also a correlation between the worsening economy/unemployment, and how the different cable shows are delivered. As commenters on HuffPost pointed out, many markets do not offer MSNBC in basic cable; Comcast pulled MSNBC from the basic cable services last year. But all of these cable companies still offer Fox News in the basic package, so it's more widely available to cable audiences. Also, as hopemax pointed out, the non-conservatives are probably watching broadcast news, which still outranks Fox News in ratings, or they're ditching TV-based news and opting for internet provided information, even those cable shows which deliver their programs through iPhone apps, such as Rachel Maddow. I believe what we're witnessing here is a lack of accurate information gathering on the part of the survey takers. Fox News' largest demographic is uneducated white males over 65. I highly doubt that those individuals are "plugged in" with iPhones and internet provided content, so they are somewhat forced to watch Fox for their "news" if they're conservative leaning. The younger and more educated are less inclined to watch TV for anything other than entertainment purposes, so they're gathering their news from non-traditional sources such as their iPhone apps and internet blogs. Even if they watch the Daily Show, they're probably doing it from Comedy Central's web site. Until these poll takers can more accurately measure how the citizens get their news info, I'll take most of the poll data with a large grain of salt.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Even if they watch the Daily Show, they're probably doing it from Comedy Central's web site.*** That's me.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I also saw that WWE on USA gets 4-5 million.<< Oh good. I feel MUCH better now.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Okay - but now we're really talking about THREE entities. The noise machine, the GOP leadership, and rank and file Republicans." Can we throw greedy corporations in there somewhere too? I bet they are feeling lonely since they are being overlooked in this discussion. If anything they should be at the top of the list of entities that are hoping to see Obama fail.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<The problem is, each side has their own noise machine, so to single one side out for having loud noise machines is unfair... or have the Democrats disowned Michael Moore and friends?>> There are plenty of us liberal Democrats who have voiced our disdain for Michael Moore.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt And I'm one of them, but I have to say that the man has a point every now and then.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I saw Michael Moore's new film today. Very informative. Folks who don't understand or think they understand but can't logically explain the mess we're in regarding how financial institutions and major corporations operate in the 21st century need to see this film. Many Americans, especially the ones over 65 yelling at town hall meetings, still think our country is guided by Horatio Alger mythology, and the middle class "Ozzie and Harriett" lifestyle they grew up with is still obtainable for everyone. Wrong on both counts.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>If anything they should be at the top of the list of entities that are hoping to see Obama fail.<< Depends on the corporations. I'm sure Goldman Sachs is DELIGHTED that he's succeeding as well as he is. For them. >>Many Americans, especially the ones over 65 yelling at town hall meetings, still think our country is guided by Horatio Alger mythology, and the middle class "Ozzie and Harriett" lifestyle they grew up with is still obtainable for everyone. Wrong on both counts.<< If only he could have stuck to this point throughout the movie .... I saw "Capitalism" yesterday. I was disappointed in a few things: (1) He seems to have held his fire on Obama, while piling on to Bush. It was almost like he had originally included an Obama-directed nastygram in the flick, but then decided it would blunt his community organizing pitch with all the election stuff in it, so he snipped it out. Blame Bush all you want, but he's GONE. The Obama administration is the problem now. (2) Like some other reviewers, I thought he inserted himself into the movie too much. If you love Michael Moore, then hooray, but if you don't, his constant visible presence works against his message. (3) Speaking of that, his concluding message comes across as "Socialism isn't so bad, why don't we try it?" Like that's going to fly in the USA. I see where he's coming from, but again, why express it like that? (4) Why why WHY didn't he just bleep the potty-mouths and go for a PG rating instead of an R? Doesn't he WANT everybody to see his movie? (5) Most of all, he has once again made an episodic, meandering, disorganized mess that bounces from one point to another without really building to a single thesis, thus becoming a "look what a smart-a** I can be" festival instead of a genuinely effective piece of advocacy. I wasn't as disgusted with him here as I was with Bowling for Columbine (which I hated so much - even though I agreed with most of it - that I avoided all his movies between it and this) ... but I was hoping this was something you could drag a wayward Conservative to. It most definitely isn't. He's still just preaching to his choir.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Speaking of that, his concluding message comes across as "Socialism isn't so bad, why don't we try it?" << He could start by just putting his films up for free online. It's a bit odd to charge $10 to see a film and then talk about how cool socialism might be to try.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I lost whatever crumbs remained of respect for Michael Moore when he cornered an aging, clearly-suffering-from-dementia Charlton Heston in his own home.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yes, that's right. It's a relatively small number who watches Fox, BUT they're totally committed. So it's not a contradiction that the GOP is shrinking while Fox's audience goes up. In fact, (God willing) there maybe a correlation, and moderates see the party drifting more and more to the fringe, as represented by Fox, and it turns them off.<< The problem with the polls showing the GOP is shrinking is that there's a large number of self-identified conservatives who refuse to call themselves "Republican" but who, for all practical purposes, are Republican. Ever talk to a teabagger? They'll swear up and down they aren't Republican. Glenn Beck insists he's not a Republican. But when it comes time to vote, we all know who these people will be voting for, and it ain't the Democrat or the Libertarian candidate. So while I definitely think Dabob2's post is correct that it's not odd to see Fox News' ratings go up, I don't think you can count on the Republican party shrinking all that much when election time rolls around.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Excellent column today from Paul Krugman in the NY Times ... <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?hp" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10....html?hp</a> [Excerpts - the whole thing is a good read] The Politics of Spite By PAUL KRUGMAN There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games. “Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on. So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old. But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America. To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform. The main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe. Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs. But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies. How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern? The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern. It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt but I was hoping this was something you could drag a wayward Conservative to." MM will never make that kind of movie. "He's still just preaching to his choir." And that's fine. Sad to say, but the days of bipartisanship are over. I agree with you that MM's new film is convoluted, but his point that most Americans are just too blind (or stupid) to see how they are being manipulated by Wall Street is right on the money.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I believe that both parties are ruthless, embracing scorched-earth tactics and that it is just more evident now. Everything is in our face now and publicized instantaneously on the internet. Moreso now then when Clinton was in office and even Bush for that matter. Do I like it? No. As a conservative I am embarassed by a lot of the behavior. But, have I seen that side of Democrats too? Of course I have. My biggest fear is it is only going to get worse. We are in the age of the loudest getting the attention, whether or not that person is right. And, "news" is pretty loosely defined these days. Heck, Kate Gosselin was on the Today Show again this morning. THAT is news? This particular situation of some corners of the conservative side of the aisle cheering or otherwise gloating over Chicago's loss was immature and, to some degree, unpatriotic. But, it shouldn't come as a surprise when the Obama's and Oprah were being idolized last week, particularly on Friday, for running in to seal the deal. I don't know, I guess I'm just becoming increasingly jaded because I'm sick of it all.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I believe that both parties are ruthless, embracing scorched-earth tactics and that it is just more evident now." I disagree. Just look at the difference in tone between the current White House and previous one. Then compare Bush to Clinton. The Dems may have some tricks up their sleeves, but we fall way short of the Republicans when it comes to nasty bullying tactics.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.> I think that sentence - with particular emphasis on the last 9 words - is right on the money. On some deep level, there are a lot of Republicans (speaking of those in government/politics now, not rank and file) who really don't think Democrats/liberals are "American enough" or "name-your-adjective-here enough" to have the RIGHT to govern. They simply don't accept them as legitimate, and so they are demonized from the first day they arrive.
