Holding the Neocon's feet to the fire

For years the rabid right and their lackeys have been suggesting that we need to unconditionally support the President of the United States of America. That failing to do so is unpatriotic, unamerican, and possibly treasonous.

Obviously, I expect a complete 180 by all of these FASCISTS simply because their political opponent has become President.

My question, of a sorts, is: Should the mainstream press call them on their shit?

I mean, next time one of these idiots appears on the news decrying President Obama and declaring their opposition to his actions, should the reporter throw up a video of them saying the things above about patriotism and the like and call them on their hypocricy? Should they be openly discredited in this manner?

(For the record, I support doing this to any political figure who 180’s from previously stated views just because their party has gained or lost power and is on the other side of the fence now.)

Then they could reply, however, with the not-uncommon Democratic retort that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Rather than rub any noses in shit, President-elect Obama’s approach of turning the page seems to be more productive.

Hell no.

In a world where a grandmother murdering Muslim socialist who pals around with terrorists can be elected to the highest office in a nation that was so recently attacked with weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, resulting in the fundamentals of its economy ceasing to be strong, there is no reason to dig into what one side or another may have said or insinuated.

That might lead to some kind of public accountability, or reasonable discourse, and who knows where it might go from there.

It’s so good of you to be reasonable about it, 3trew


Should they ask? Probably not. That sort of question is like nailing Jell-O to a tree. It’s even less useful to ask it of the party that just got thrown out of power.

Will they ask? Definitely not. The mainstream press will ask things like “will the president risk his political capital on the health care plan when he may need to save it to build a coalition to break a fillibuster to approve his Supreme Court nominee in the leadup to the midterm elections?” The only thing more convoluted and slippery than mainstream political questions are the answers (and I use that term loosely).

Where you might hear this sort of thing discussed is on The Daily Show, Letterman, or The View.


Or am I being whooshed?

I’d love to be reasonable about it. That would be a great relief.

Unfortunately, a quick review of the recent news and the Straight Dope fora will reveal that there is a theory that Obama had his grandmother killed for the sympathy vote, many dopers have encountered people who believe he is a Muslim and a socialist, that the Bill Ayers is a terrorist whom Obama pals around with meme is alive and well, and that a significant fraction of the American people believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks and had weapons of mass destruction. Senator McCain’s comment on the economy is close enough that it can stand on its own.

The question at hand is whether the mainstream press should call the people who have been spreading the above myths on their shit.

I would suggest that yes, they should.

The idea that the reasonable position is in the middle of the two extremes just drives the extremes wider. The points above are all false, and were made to widen the gap. Anyone who used them should be called on it.

It’s not made to make the extremes wider, but to pull the country ever farther to the right. The Right stakes out a position way to the right; the Left “compromises” under the compulsive belief that the middle position must be the correct one, and the new center is that much farther right. Then the Right stakes out a new position even farther right, and the cycle begins again.

The Left has nearly managed to “compromise” this country into fascism. They need to stop compromising and hold actual positions.

Actually, I agree with the OP, so long as they apply the same standard to every pol. I think it should be SOP that the media have an audio/video database at hand of of previous public pronouncements by the interviewee, so they can immediately call up and display conflicting statements from the past. When someone says, “I never said that”, the next image on the screen should be the recording of them saying that, followed by a demand for an explanaion. And there’s at least as many examples of hypocracy and holdong members of the other party to a different standard than they hold their own members. These people need to be held to a higher degree of accountability than they have been.

We have the technology. We can make this happen.

Agreed. My favorite segments on The Daily Show are those that show politicians or pundits making completely contradictory statements at different times. Why on earth isn’t the MSM doing this more often?

The six million video men at YouTube. Better, stronger, faster! :slight_smile:

Because they work for them.

Just their feet? Why stop there?

Hell yeah. Damn skippy. AND for good measure, any of them who conveniently change alliances now should be keelhauled for flipflopping. let the games begin.