What is the liberal media’s version of the “terrorist fist jab”? FOX lies and distorts to an extent that can’t credibly be called news. Do you honestly think that MSNBC has an equal and reverse liberal slant? If you do, you’re wrong. MSNBC and CNN held their tongues while the shrub transmuted the international goodwill America received after 911 into disdain and mockery.
The Liberal Media’s version of the Terrorist Fist Jab is the theory that McCain is some sort of Manchurian Candidate because he was a POW. Maybe it isn’t reported on MSNBC, other than a bullshit ‘people are saying’ report, but it is there.
And no, MSNBC does not have an equal liberal slant to Fox’s obvious Conservative slant, but my point is only that both views are equally represented and there is no vast Conservative or Liberal media conspiracy. It’s stupid, it’s counter to profits which is what the corporations running the media care about, and it’s just plain silly to anyone with any ration of common sense.
Nah, were you for it before you were thrown under it? 
:dubious:
Wouldn’t that be “You were driving it before you were thrown under it”?
I just can’t keep up these days.
I notice that you have neatly slid over to my suggested foil for Fox (MSNBC) and discarded your original proposals (ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc). Good work there. At least now we can have a discussion.
That said, your example here is equally goofy. When has the “manchurian cadidate” meme poked its head out on MSNBC? As a kool-aid drinker, I watch MSNBC (and Fox) pretty frequently, and I can honestly say that I have never seen reference to the McCain manchurian candidate thing on MSNBC. I have, however, seen it referenced on Fox, in the context of “look at what these whackadoo liberals are saying about poor McCain!”. With cites to lefty blog comments, if I recall correctly.
Meanwhile, Fox’s big stars are spending hours a day on the similarly valid “William Ayers” thing, insinuating that Obama is running for president to undermine the country, a breathtaking bit of disingenuous cheek that I have not seen in many years of watching elections. Fuck Fox- they are incurious bullies with obvious contempt for their own viewers. There is no left wing analogue that gives you the one-stop-shopping experience that Fox does, and you’re tilting at windmills looking for one.
The McCain “Manchurian Candidate” smear came from the right, not the left, and it hasn’t been so much as broached on MSNBC. I don’t even think it’s been on any lefty blogs. That was Freeper shit, not Kos shit.
Anyone who says David Brooks is a hack just doesn’t know what she’s talking about. And since you admit you’ve never heard of him before, it would seem odd to criticize him for not doing enough research. FYI, he’s a well respected analyst for the NYT who has been appearing on PBS’s News Hour for years every Friday (opposite Mark Shields). There are a lot of political hacks on the right, but David Brooks is not one of them-- unless you define “hack” as “someone who holds different political views than I do”.
Nothing you’ve mentioned shows he’s not a hack. It just shows he stays employed.
Personally I’m not familar with his work and haven’t called him anything. I did note that the article mentioned in the OP is unoriginal and just a recycling of old talking points.
Well, if you think Jim Leher and PBS would keep a “hack” on as their most senior (conservative) political analyst for year after year, then I’m not sure I can convince you he’s not a hack any more than I can convince you he has stopped beating his wife.
How many articles would I have to link to by him being critical of Republicans before you’re convinced he’s not a “hack”? Hell, the article in the OP is trashing Republicans for not understanding what they’re up against-- it’s not an attack piece on Obama, as some seem to think.
I think Obama’s switch from supporting public financing of his campaign to alleging that the system is broken is new. That seems to have been the trigger for the article.
So no, despite Obama’s alleged commitment to the environment, it’s not recycling.
Regards,
Shodan
I would define a “political hack” as someone who consistently and predictably shills for a predetermined side without particular nuance, insight, objectivity or intellectual honesty. That article is definitely hack work.
Wait, sorry. When did he say it was broken? Honest question. I understand that he’s using private financing, but as far as I’m aware that doesn’t in itself pass a value judgment on public financing, only that private financing serves his position better at this point.
This Wikipedia article, at any rate, portrays Brooks’ politics and views as a bit more complicated than that. (For instance, he’s in favor of gay marriage and regards the “culture war” as just about over and done with.)
Obama’s argument on favor of public financing was that it would serve to remove corporate interests from the process. Obama has managed to solve that problem a different way, so while his decision to forgo public funding is a change, it’s a change in methodology, not in philosophy.
Agreed
Disagree. Where did you get that?
Agreed, but that’s the same thing as shilling for a predetermined side.
This article isn’t shilling for either side. It’s definitely not hack work.
Regards,
Shodan
Fair enough. Of course, it’s not logically inconsistent to say that while a public funding system is a good goal, this particular system isn’t meeting that goal. It still makes sense to me, in that private funds entirely from individuals > current public funding > private funding entirely from corporate and special interests.
You keep insisting on this, which leads me to think that you’ve either not read it or are unwilling to acknowedge the obvious.
The guy is essentially saying “Republicans are naive if they think Obama is some wishy-washy professor. Here are (x) examples of his Fast Eddie Chicago Pol Sellout side (the campaign finance turnaround, dredging up Rev. Wright yet again etc.)”.
The fact that he evinces some grudging respect for Obama’s alleged talent for unscrupulousness doesn’t make the focus of the piece “trashing Republicans”.
Talk about existing in a self-created Alternative Reality. :rolleyes:
Sure, that’s perfectly consistent. Obama’s position is not.
The system didn’t change; Obama’s situation changed. Like I said, back during the primaries Obama was using this as a stick to beat up Hilary. It had the same flaws then as it does now. But somehow he didn’t mention it then.
Now he finds out he can raise more money doing what he attacked Hilary for doing. And suddenly the system he endorsed is broken. Pretty convenient, doncha think?
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not a pro-public financing position. It’s an anti-special interest position.