Isnt that called the exception that proves the rule?

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

I think Obama, unlike Bush, is fine with criticism.

In fact, I believe he's too fine with criticism, so much so that defaults into constantly using a purely democratic style of leadership.

There are three styles of leadership:

1) laissez-faire: positives include delegating responsibilities and trusting staff; negatives include always deferring to others, like Bush with Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz.

2) autocratic: positives include being able to persuade others with one's own voice, like Bush and getting us into Iraq, or Bush and forsaking the constitution in order to get torture or illegal wiretapping approved; negatives are obvious, including the trap of thinking your voice is the only way, which can lead to arrogance and getting us into more conflicts than we need.

3) democratic: positives would be that everyone gets a little and gives up a little; negatives are obvious in Obama's case, that by always being democratic, it appears that he nibbles when big sweeping changes are in order.


The President reminds me of Jed Bartlett in the West Wing, so concerned with not wanting to rock the boat in any which direction that when confronted with a phat pitch down the middle, his tendency is to foul it off when he should be parking it in the upper deck.

If you're typically a FOX watcher, and don't really tune in to the others, than you have a bias about what you think you should be thinking about those other networks, since the rest of them have been critical of the President about his watered down plans so far on granting equal rights to gay unions, on avoiding the glaring problem in healthcare (insurance companies), on his strategy of sending more troops and resources into Afghanistan, a country where the enemy has mostly fled to Pakistan, leaving us fighting with locals who are all too used to outlasting foreign occupiers.

The problem as I see it, particularly in the last two months, has been the rage from the right.

From Beck to Rush to Newt to Dick to O'Reilly to Palin vs. Letterman, the voices on the right insist on making everything about themselves, as loudly as possible.

They're grievance is that they just can't stand Obama, can't stand that minorities are taking over, can't stand to not be in power anymore. How do I know this? Because their audience is the converted, and yet they aggressively continue to use an angry tone in the pretense that they are trying to convince their audience of something, but just what I can't put my finger on, unless it's to continue to passively incite rage across the country.

A whole lot of voices making every issue about their rage, rather than about their ideas.

This is what leads them to falsely believe that the media is not scrutinizing Obama, when in fact they are.

As far as Obama and what he said about FOX; it's not like he wasn't saying anything untrue. Here's a network that couldn't even admit that their President did just fine in his handling of the pirates off the coast of Somalia, and instead they berated him that whole week it was happening, and then just ignored the whole thing after it's conclusion.

That you can't even give the guy a pat on the back for such an unambiguous success renders everything else you say irrelevant. And that's what really bugs them the most, the fear that they are becoming irrelevant.

If they only knew it was because they're bankrupt of ideas and relying on sentimentality.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

Bush didn't need to persuade the people to go into Iraq. He was already in power. However, he did lie his way to another term. Kind of like when Obama lied his way to the Presidency.

Like the O criticizing Fox for his perceived bashing. How dare they. I think we can add whiner to his resume.

Wasn't this an argument used against the Bush bashers? Except it was with any success he had, not just the unambiguous ones. Admitedly not many in the last few years but you particularly Jason never gave him props for anything.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

To assume means to make an ass out of u and me. I do occasionally watch all three of the above programs. All three are biased; I just believe Fox to be more so.

Sorry, I can no longer take anything that you post with even a smidgen of seriousness.

Every thinking person knows that Fox is slanted to the right. That said, every thinking person also knows that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC are slanted to the left. For God's sake, Chris Matthews stated that he "got a tingly feeling up his leg" when he listened to Obama!

You are very wrong. The MSM is pro-left. Fox News is not desperate in the least. They have already established themselves as the only "heavyweight news organization" on the right. As such, they are the market share leaders.

this is the precursor to turn off all radio and inject the fairness doctrine so that only the left will be heard

Fox News is always desperate. I've seen some of their stuff and I drop in form time to time. What camoulflages their bent is the writing: listen to where the emphases' are placed in their copy. In the interview segments with liberlas pay close attention to how the interview starts and ends: it's usually combative and always ends on an up note for the rightwing perspective on the subject.

This is also why the ratings do okay: Fox News and Haninity are a comfort zone for the the extremists as well as those who believe themselves to be perhaps leaning to the right.

Hannity has had his butt in a sling so many times that he never talks about military service, or what it means to be in combat, or anything that will further expose him: he's under contract. He always couches everything with "How great this country is, and don't we live in a wonderful capitalist nation"...

He's a cheer leader - that's all. Have you ever noticed that the only people he calls Great Americans are the people that agree with him....

That means the rest of the country is engaged in some sort of betrayal.

No, Fox News is not desperate. They completely own the "not liberal" news segment. While ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, et al, fight amongst themselves for liberal viewers, Fox fights with nobody for the conservative viewers.

As far as your "analysis" of Fox, do you really claim that the MSM outlets are not equally, if not more so, biased to the left?

Hannity is indeed a cheer leader. Thank God he never mentions "tingly feelings up his leg", though.

I see your reply to be simply vacant:
What does that mean? Fox owns what? Fox News is backed by pretty heavy money. The whole rightwing agenda is backed by big money. You appear to know very little about television: The first three networks have been going since 1949 - and they're still going very strong as networks. Television as well as radio has always played to audience appeal - that's the business.

Politics these days has become thee market - it's like car wrecks, and everybody's in on it. I don't know what to tell you about MSN: I don't have cable. I won't pay for television. I have a nice new big TV, I paid 50 bucks for the box and I still get 60 channels - for free. And several HD channels - for free. With Blue Ray, I get all the HD and great 500 watt souround sound I can handle - for free. Fox broadcast their news over the air and I can look in on them and their thinking whenever I want. (The national flag next to ours way up in the upper right hand corner of this post will tell you about prudent buyer's plan).

Look, I don't know if you understand at all what you're doing: you're in section 21, row 12 seat 15 at the biggest World Wrestling Federation show that's ever been put on, with all the characters in the cast present, including Fox News: they're the guys with the black mask and the purple cape and everyone yells, "Boooo!!!" And all of Fox's fans sit in their little group with Budweisers in their hands (lawn mowing beer) and yell, "Yeaeeahh!!! HOOOO HOOO HOOO": just like a Raider game.

You're being duped! Because the networks know people love to fight. What really happens in politics happens in the street and the ballot box. The rightwing comes into places like this - where thinking people tend to circulate and the rightwing and their thug extemist attempts to peddle that nonsence, like it means something and expects to be taken seriously.

What a scream.

The networks are laughing all the way to the bank and you're paying for it - unbelievable. Only in America.

Fox News are scavangers like Micheal Weiner who calls himself Savage: he ain't no Irishman: but these putzes call him up and refer to him as "Doctor Savage" as though he knows what he's talking about: this jerk broadcast out his home now. He got run out of the ABC affiliate that introduced him, and the riot is, his show is broadcasted out of the same building at 6th and Townsend that local Air America affiliate broadcasts out of: Clear Channel is taking people's money and putting it in both pockets. All this is the hight of yellow jounalism: like Larry Flint and Hustler.

And you think you're serious, and, Sean Hannity is a broadcaster: for $250 mil, you bet he is: he'll say anything they want for that kind of money: just like Ozzie Osborne is a cartoon.

The right wing... what a show.

Im confused then. You said you had ended your interest in a news network because of their bias, but yet now youre saying you watch all 3.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

when the assertion is that all media adores him, any exception proves it false.

__________________

The assertion was:

In this case FOX's coverage proves that the rest of the media adores him because their negative coverage stands alone.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

In no way does FOXNews' coverage prove that other media "adores" Obama or anyone else. The only thing that it might prove is that the objectives of FOXNews are different from those of other media--it does not even "prove" that FOXNews is in any way accurate.