Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * And you say there is no media bias... < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2477
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 07:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."

Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
 

brewer of beer
Junior Member
Username: Brewbeer22

Post Number: 61
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 08:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It should be taken for granted that a top political strategist of one party would want the top politician in the other party to fail. That doesn't sound like news, it sounds like politics as usual.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10082
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 09:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It depends on whether you are faulting the media for their reporting, or the individuals for their opinions. I make a distinction between the two.

Carville and Limbaugh, although they differ in their affiliations, and to a degree in their roles, are basically birds of a feather. They are opinion makers, and as such are entitled to speak their minds. Obviously I'm not much of a fan of Rush, but I give him his due. He's a blowhard to be sure, but his goal is to air his views and hold his audience, and he's undisputably accomplished at both.

Nor do I fault the media for not taking Carville to task for his opinions about G.W. Bush on the very day of September 11, 2001. It was a time for national unity, and Carville was correct in retracting his comments, and the media for allowing him to do so. Had there been a profound national event on the same day Limbaugh made his remarks about Obama, he would have been afforded the same opportunity, and I hope he would have taken advantage of it.

As it was, nothing of grave consequence occurred immediately after he expressed his opinions. I might add my own opinion that I find him counterproductive in a time of a different crisis than 9/11, but I acknowledge that Rush is who he is, and there's not much to be gained by faulting him for that.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2478
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 01:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Had there been a profound national event on the same day Limbaugh made his remarks about Obama, he would have been afforded the same opportunity

Do you honestly believe that Bill? Cause it took me a few minutes to collect myself from bellowing laughter after reading it...
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10083
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 02:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes, on 9/11 Americans needed to (and rightly did) unite around the flag. I fully believe that everyone, including Rush Limbaugh, would have been given the opportunity to retract any statements that were less than supportive of the president.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2479
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 01:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill,

I still cannot believe you are serious. The notion the the press would ever give a pass to anyone on the Right, much less Rush Limbaugh, leaves me without words.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10086
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 02:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It was Sept. 11, 2001. The nation was under attack. To use Dan's term, are you so bimodal as to believe that partisanship would have trumped the need for national unity on that day?
 

Daniel Bishop
New Member
Username: Whatshisface

Post Number: 15
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 03:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I really do not understand why Rush was put in the spotlight in the first place. He is a private citizen with an opinion. The last I checked, free speech was encouraged in the U.S. Its one thing to be attacked by other private citizens with an alternative opinion like the news media, but it’s another thing all together to be attacked by the president and by certain members of congress, just for having a private opinion. Elected officials have no place discouraging free speech, period. When Michael Moore accused the U.S. of plotting 9-11 he pretty much received a free pass from the media, but more importantly our Government did not try to discourage him from sharing his opinion.
 

brewer of beer
Junior Member
Username: Brewbeer22

Post Number: 62
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 03:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"The Press" is hardly a unified block espousing the same position.

Whether any particular media outlet has a bias and to which side of the political spectrum that bias leans is a function of who is watch and paying the bills of the media outlet in question. After all, a media outlet is a business, in the business of making money. Follow the trail to the money. When you get to the source, you will find the source of the "bias".
 

David Lewinnek
Intermediate Member
Username: Davelew

Post Number: 477
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 04:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sure, elected Democratic officials might disagree with Rush, but have they ever discouraged him from speaking? They might disagree with him wanting the president to fail, but I don't think anybody has every said that he's not free to say that.

In fact, I think the Democrats are actively encouraging Rush to speak, in order to make him the face of the Republican party, which will radicalize the Republicans and make them more of a marginal party.
 

Daniel Bishop
New Member
Username: Whatshisface

Post Number: 16
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 04:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dave, think about this. When the most powerful man in the world, gets in front of every media outlet on the planet and makes a personal attack against you, just because of something you said, it's quite discouraging.

When some of the same members of Congress who want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” are attacking you for what you said; It can be down right threatening.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 2172
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 05:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sure, elected Democratic officials might disagree with Rush, but have they ever discouraged him from speaking?

Actually, yes, they are. They are trying to enact the "Fairness Doctrine" once again, aren't they? There has never been a more blatant attack on free speech than that.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 2173
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 05:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And in the interest of full disclosure, I don't listen to Rush or Hannity, so I don't personally care if they are on or not. I occasionally listen to Beck and Mancow because they are complete smart-a's like I am, but that's about it, and that's quite rare when I do that.

That said, millions listen to Rush and Hannity and it's not their fault that the left can't get anyone to listen to their blather. Using the fairness doctrine to silence them...er...I mean...to give equal time to the left is hardly "fair".
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10089
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 05:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There is really little chance of the Fairness Doctrine being re-enacted. It's more of an act of cage rattling by the left against the right, just as cries of media bias by the right are an attempt to provoke liberals.

We would be better served by less provocation on both sides. It's part of the problem rather than the solution.

(Message edited by BillPierce on March 12, 2009)
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2480
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 07:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"just as cries of media bias by the right are an attempt to provoke liberals."

lol. Bill, you continue to amuse me with your rose-colored view of the media.

I have said it before and I will say it again. A liberal telling a conservative there is no liberal bias in the news media, is like a white man telling a black man that racism is all in his head.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10090
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 07:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Obviously we disagree, Bob. I acknowledge that total impartiality and objectivity in the media are a myth. Everyone has a motive of some kind. And neither do I object to the expanded options available today for people to express their opinions. However, I fail to see how there is somehow a concerted effort in the media to advance a liberal agenda and stifle conservative points of view. If anything, the spectrum of opinion seems to me wider than it has ever been, to the point where the din sometimes becomes deafening and more attention is paid to the fringes than they deserve.
 

brewer of beer
Junior Member
Username: Brewbeer22

Post Number: 63
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 08:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There is both left and right "bias" in the media. The slant of the "bias" just depends on which media outlet you happening to paying attention to.

To say that there is "bias" in only one direction is to show ones own "bias".
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6567
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 01:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am still waiting for Bob or another righty to provide a list of non-MSM. It could not take very long.
 

Daniel Bishop
New Member
Username: Whatshisface

Post Number: 21
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 - 01:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

According to Daniel, if I recognize that is not perfect, then I am "willing to destroy it". Such extremist statements may make for easy point-scoring, but they do nothing to advance informed debate or understanding. It is lazy, and it utterly misrepresents everything I've said.

Paul, I am going to assume that I wasn’t clear enough in my last post and that you are not purposely trying to misrepresent what I said. I did not mean you were you were going to destroy the constitution because you didn’t think it was perfect, I myself said I didn’t believe it was perfect either. I meant you were going to destroy it because you wished to change it to support your world view, just as I would destroy it if I were to change it to support my world view. It certainly appeared to me that you were setting up your justification to change it by claiming it wasn’t a perfect document and that other people have changed it in the past. We do agree on one thing, I do believe that the Constitution can be changed. But I do not agree that it should be changed by this generation, period. Why because this generation is way too polarized.

So you see using the word destroy was not meant to be extreme or to detract from the point. It was in fact the exact point I was trying to make. Currently we have many people that would like to change the 2nd amendment to fit their point of view. We have others like the ACLU who would like to change the “Freedom of Religion” to the “Freedom from Religion”, we have members of congress who want to further squash our freedom of speech, through “Fairness Doctrine” and by limiting what we can say prior to an election. Yes these abuses are coming from both sides of the isle and they are destroying a great standard. You mentioned the Patriot act, as you should. That is exactly the point I was making, George Bush was wrong to try to circumvent the constitution, just as you, me or anyone else is wrong for wanting to change the constitution to fit there opinion. I hope this clears thing us.
 

Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett

Post Number: 2121
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 - 02:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thanks for the response, Daniel. I understand better now.

I will point out, however, that, once you really start to look at US history, you see that there was never a time when the country was not this polarized. Before the Patriot Act, there was Reaganism. Before that, Vietnam and the Civil Rights era. Before that, McCarthyism. Before that, the great expansions of federal power to counter the wholesale purchase of government by robber barons which had preceded it. Going further back, you have the abuses of Reconstruction, which followed the Civil War, which followed the Abolition Movement, which followed the fights (sometimes literal) between the Jacksonians and the remnants of the Founding Fathers. But the Founding Fathers had been at each others' throats too, with the Jeffersonians willing to sacrifice almost anything to beat the Hamiltonians.

The expansion of suffrage to women was highly controversial. Should women have waited until things calmed down? The same argument can be made about most amendments, especially the ones about abolition, voting rights for blacks, and poll taxes. Should the abolition of slavery have waited until tempers cooled? How would you have explained that to the slaves of the time?

No, the existence of discord and disagreement is no excuse for inaction. The Constitution, amendments and all, has always been formed between hammer and anvil, by people who felt passionately about the need to advance or prevent some change. This is who we are as a country and who we have always been. If what this country needs now is a Constitutional amendment to bolster protection against future Patriot Acts (as I believe) then there is no need to shy away from agitating for it. If, instead, you want to fight for looser restrictions on gun ownership, go for it. An active, involved citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: