Nice try, but don’t expect your email to do anything. It’s ultimately about viewership and listeners (not principles), and healthcare just isn’t as sexy as this new diversion. A White House that attacks them in public? That’s hot! Fox loves it, the viewers love it, the pundits love talking about it…Hannity even has “Not White House approved” in the corner of his screen. Once the fringers have tasted this juicy piece of red meat, there’s no way they’ll want to go back to the ground beef of healthcare.
Not giving him credit for making the wrong decision exactly sums up what the far Left objects to in Fox’s coverage of Obama.
Regards,
Shodan
No — Not giving him credit (the right) for something the right wants, but the left does not. This is a major difference and you should know it.
A nigh but perfect summation of the right wing’s view on politics in America. Gosh, I wonder why you guys get called divisive.
Who exactly are “the adults?” If you mean congress, Obama doesn’t need anyone distracted to do that; he invites them to his office and they talk. If you mean the people … has there been some new proposal or initiative advanced in the last week that I missed? It’d be far more logically a strategy to get people to stop talking about healthcare while Congress negotiates behind the scenes.
This is actually the best explanation of this strategy I’ve seen. Leaving aside the Alinsky stuff, it boils down to this: the real goal is to keep quarantined whatever embarrassing news stories Fox digs up.
As I noted earlier, AFAIK nobody but Fox or other partisan media has ever broken a story making Obama look bad. The other networks and newspapers only picked up on things like Wright and ACORN and all that after they’d been on Fox for a week. The admin can’t really stop Fox from saying what they want to, but they figured they could try to keep what’s said on Fox confined there; so that, for example, the next time a Van Jones flap is uncovered, CNN never picks it up.
It’s pretty clever, and it seems to fit with what Dunn said of their campaign media strategy. At a minimum, it gives viewers something to think about when Fox breaks the next story.
What does ACORN have to do with Obama?
Fox hasn’t broken any stories making Obama look bad either. There aren’t any stories that make Obama look bad. If there were, everybody would report them. The items you listed are all bullshit Fox smears, not news stories, and none of them made Obama look bad. ACORN, im particular, had nothing to do with Obama. hell, it doesn’t really even have anything to do with ACORN.
The “Alinsky” theory is a joke, and represents the paranoid, fantastic thinking so prevalent on the right these days.
If you’re saying that Fox is the only “news” organization willing to contrive bogus, partisan scandals against Obama, then you’re only proving his point.
BWA-HA-HA-HA … and liberals wonder why conservatives mock the over-the-top adulation of Obama, why conservatives laugh at us and use terms like “Obamessiah”? Dude, it’s blind sycophants like you that are giving the conservatives ammunition to attack our Party.
I can’t figure out which is more naive. The idea that there aren’t any stories that make Obama look bad. Or the idea that if there were, everybody would report them.
Like the widespread coverage in the mainstream media about the White House trying to muscle the Fox News reporter out of the press pool only 48 hours after the White House Spokesman said they wouldn’t do it?
Yeah, that doesn’t make Obama look bad. Yeah, that got wide coverage … not.
Diogenes, do you know what you could do to really help the Democrats, to do the most you could for Obama, to truly advance the agenda of our party?
…
…
Stop posting … you’re embarrassing us. The very best thing you could do for the Democratic Party is to STFU.
I’m not a Democrat. and the “Obamamessiah” thing is a right wing canard. No one on the left feels that way.
I don’t buy for a scond that you voted for Obama, by the way. I think you’re a garden variety dittohead.
IIRC, you also thought Camille Paglia always sided with conservaives. The following is from Wiki:
“Paglia’s views have led to accusations of neoconservatism; she described those making the accusations as “idiots.”” 
And she voted for Obama:
“In the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Paglia supported Barack Obama.”
Who are you talking to, and who gives a shit?
You. And you should.
I have no idea what you’re referring to vis-avis Paglia, but I doubt I ever said she only takes the conservative view, and I really don’t see what relevance it has to this thread.
Camille Paglia is of modest interest as a cultural pundit, and a natural born shit-disturber. I would find it very difficult to consider her as a political observer of any real import. YMMV.
(Starving Artist as a major fan of Camille Paglia. Sure. That makes sense! Uh huh…)
Then maybe it wasn’t you. I could have sworn that it was, but I could be wrong. If so, I apologize.
Now having said that, what it had to do with this thread was to illustrate your propensity for calling Democrats who say things critical of Obama dittoheads.
But then maybe that wasn’t you.
I’m pretty sure it was though…
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t (in fact, I’m going to go ahead and say I KNOW it wasn’t…at most I might have said she’d been writing more conservative columns of late, but I’m sure I never said she ONLY takes conservative views), and I’m pretty sure intention isn’t a Democrat. If he is, he does a pretty good imitation of a dittohead.
You are correct. I seem to have merged this post by you in my mind with this one by Icerigger a few more posts downthread.
My apologies. I was wrong.
No worries.
Well, then you’re wrong, as well as being a fool for calling me a liar when you don’t know me. And I’ll likely vote for him again.
I also know that no one on the left feels that way. I’m just explaining that people like you who claim that “there aren’t any stories that make Obama look bad” are why the “Obamessiah” canard contains more than a grain of truth.
I am overjoyed, on the other hand, to find out you’re not a Democrat. Kinda restores my faith.
PS - What on earth is a “dittohead”?
The stories cited did not reflect on Obama in any way, particularly not the ACORN story. What does ACORN have to do with Obama? Van Jones and Wright didn’t reflect on him either. I don’t think either of them even said anything that objectionable. The only really dumb thing said be either was Wrights’ contention that the government started AIDS, but even that wasn’t so far fetched given that the government has intentionally given black people diseases before. It was a paranoid sentiment, but not a racist one, and not one that had anything to do with Obama.
Assuming this isn’t a whoosh – as it’s hard to imagine anyone as intelligent and knowledgeable as you remains ignorant of the term – many of Rush Limbaugh’s callers agree with him by saying “Dittoes, Rush.” Supposedly they can’t think for themselves and blindly agree with everything he says, thus their detractors around here call them “dittoheads.”