Yeah, it’s never been part of Obama’s platform, and it’s antithetical to their economic and social ethos, so it is definitely a false scare tactic. However, you do at least actually find some minority of liberals supporting the FD in spirit, so I’d say it’s one of the more reality-based distortions you’re going to find.
But as I say above, I think such sentiments are easily tamed in the face of such an overwhelming victory. Liberals don’t actually care that outlets like Fox News exist per se. Though it deeply offends their sensibilities of credible journalism, they only get so worked up about it because of how controlling it has seemingly been on the political trajectory of the United States in recent history, reinforcing Republican myths and providing talking points echoing their positions, whilst moving all the other networks in reaction to their ratings. That this destructive impact seemed to directly follow the repeal of the FD, and the Telecommunications Act, was a convenient excuse to look to reinstate it.
But I think once you actually severe the narrative that Fox defines everything, as this election has done, I wager most liberals couldn’t care less about it.
One thing I’ve always wondered about the Anti-Gun mindset is this…
barring any traumatizing reasons (like being held at gunpoint/robbed/raped/assaulted/etc.) that would give someone a valid reason to personally dislike firearms, do some “Antis” hold that mindset simply because they’ve never been introduced to firearm use properly, in a safe, controlled environment?
Mainly I ask because a good number of Antis I’ve encountered have actually become, if not firearm fans/hobbyists, at least agnostic on the subject of guns once they’ve been taken on a range trip, and seen firearms being used in a responsible, levelheaded, controlled manner
more than one “Anti” has been converted into a full fledged hobbyist once they actually tried it out, and found out what we hobbyists already know, it’s loads of fun, a real blast!, they discover that firearms owners are not dangerous psychotic/sociopathic freaks, but normal people like themselves, just normal people that happen to enjoy propelling small bits of lead at high rates of speed towards paper targets or clay “frisbees”
Exactly. Obama and the Democrats can’t unilaterally declare friendship, or even friendly rivalry. The Right is the enemy, because they WANT to be the enemy, and making them choose otherwise isn’t in the Left’s power.
And frankly, they are simply nasty people who SHOULD be regarded as enemies, both of Democrats and people in general.
Bad, bad idea; the Republicans are all about Party Over Country, and would sabotage anything Obama tried.
You are right about it not getting any traction, but it’s perfectly defensible. The whole point of removing the Fairness Doctrine was a successful attempt to largely silence the political left. Not having it makes sure that the vast majority of the media output is controlled by the wealthy conservatives.
No, they showed that it’s possible to win if the situation is incredibly bad, and if they nominate someone who is a moderate right winger. The Right still has the overwhelming media edge.
I would consider myself a middle of the road person when it comes to gun control issues - though in the American context my views probably wouldn’t fly. I don’t accept the notion that unrestricted gun ownership is some kind of universal norm or right; indeed, I think it is actually only the particularly constitutional conventions and history of the US which has created such a special significance for gun ownership in US society. So, in the abstract, I think the balance can be struck differently, and be sensible, as it has been done in other countries. It is also a lot easier to have an effective regime when you don’t start off with such a high level of proliferation and cultural attachment to firearms to begin with, as entrenchment issues really do undermine the utility of post-factor attempts at gun control.
It has nothing to do with not being familiar with guns. I wouldn’t call myself a gun nut - (I collect swords instead ;)) - but I make no apologies for my position.
That said, I don’t think the political cost of pursing even what I would regard as limited, sensible gun control initiatives can possibly be worth it if it enables the Republicans to use the issue as a wedge to keep progressive politicians out of office.
And where do you think criminals get guns ? Mostly, by stealing them from people like you.
And what makes you think all gun owners are responsible anyway ? And if you are as responsible as you say, that just underlines their uselessness; if guns aren’t easy for you to grab and use on impulse, they aren’t much use for self defense; and if they are, then “responsible” or not you could easily kill someone by mistake.
That was always my impression. But furt brought up the fairness doctrine not just once, but twice, as if it were something Obama could do to win over conservatives. I never understood why they need him to say he won’t do something that he has said he won’t do, and has never said he would. Hopefully furt can explain it to me.
Because for all the noise they made, they were probably not the majority. Work with the moderates, work with the real conservatives (not the far right crazies, but the fiscal conservatives). Make it known that compromise is possible and all things are open to reasoned discussion.
And take the Bush way of handling things (“Bush said that and crushed all dissent and marginalized all dems. He figured he had no body to answer to and acted like it.”) and make it known that this will not be how things are done anymore. For those few who will insist on continuing the old ways, kill their pet programs and bury their personal porkbarrels forever. After all, money talks
Obama has won over my respect and this conservative’s vote. I think he’s in a unique position where he can play the good cop to Bush’s bad cop and really consolidate and turn Bush’s foreign policy into a major success.
I’d like to see him use that scalpel and really cut into government waste. I’d like to see him stay true to his revenue neutral program plans.
If he keeps his promises he’ll keep my respect.
That being said, I’d really wish for him to be able to unite this country and end the insane partisanship that’s been devastating us. He’s going to have to spank a lot of rabid democrats, and risk making people on both sides of the aisle very unhappy. I think he has the courage to do that, and if he pulls it off he could be great.
I think appointing Lieberman to the Cabinet is an EXCELLENT idea. Then, the day he is confirmed by the Senate, Obama can immediately fire his whiny ass and Connecticutt can replace him with an actual Democrat.
So, what you are saying here is you want to circumvent the will of the people of Connecticut who re-elected Lieberman instead of an ‘actual Democrat’…right? This seems like a good idea to you?
(BTW, I agree with those who say that Obama shouldn’t even consider Lieberman for any kind of position in his administration)
He already has my respect. There is little left for him to do but lose it.
The temptation is there for the Congress to go full-bore and exact some vengeance on the Republicans for the last 8 years. Please allow me to concoct a (perhaps not-so) fanciful scenario:
It’s no secret that my single-issue is guns, and I’m telling you right now that there are no people in the world happier than Carolyn McCarthy, Dianne Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg and Chuck Schumer. I would not be the least bit surprised to see them introduce a gun law on the first day of the new Congress. Now, does Obama make guns an issue and betray the moderate conservatives that got him elected, or does he tell his people to focus on what he campaigned on?
Take that scenario and apply it to a myriad of issues, and that’s how he can lose my respect. He needs to step up and be the man he claimed to be, the man I voted for, rather than a stooge for his party who gets run over by waves of vengeance legislation.
No offence, but when you carry a hammer of grievance like this, I think every possibility begins to look like a nail. There’s simply no rational evidence to support the notion that gun control is prominent on Obama’s agenda, or that of the 111th Congress.
I’ll give you that there are particular Democrats who you would be legitimately worried about that they would agitate in this direction eventually, but any suggestion that it would be on the agenda within the first 100-days, let alone the first day, is pretty laughable. It makes no political sense whatsoever for them to do such a thing, and it’s not going to be anywhere near the list of priorities.
Look how Clinton was derailed by getting bogged down in divisive schools debate and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The Obama Administration knows this and will have studied all the mistakes. They won’t touch anything divisive like that, which would kill a second term, until they’ve at least covered off actual pledge deliverables and necessary items like the tax cuts, and financial stimulus.
A while back, the administration of my school said they wanted to move toward a somewhat more collaborative work environment. We had a couple of meetings where faculty were invited to speak freely about the some of the issues the school faced, and give our opinions about where we wanted some things to go. There was one memorable meeting held with outside consultant, who listened to our (often passionate) suggestions so they could be passed on to admin anonymously. A lot of it was pissy moaning on our part, but there were more than a few reasonable proposals … not one of which was ever implemented.
I was far from alone in feeling that I’d rather they just ignore our opinions rather than jerk us around with the “we’re listening” crap, and get our hopes up before doing what they were always gonna do anyway. I accepted the fact that they’re in charge and I’m not, and I accepted the fact that their primary goal at the time (increasing enrollment) conflicted with our primary goal (raising standards) in pretty much irreconcilable ways. I didn’t have a problem taking orders, but I was insulted to be put through a charade.
I’m not a Republican, nor even a conservative unless very broadly defined. I’m a moderate and a small-l libertarian who hasn’t voted for a major-party presidential candidate since 1996. I would very much like for Obama to deliver on his rhetoric. I hope to see less-divisive governance. I would love to see a centrist Democratic party, which would create (I hope) a more centrist Republican party. My fear, however, and I don’t think it’s an unwarranted one, is that what we’re going to get an administration that is much more in tune with the Pelosi wing of the party.
I would like to be wrong about that. I would love to envision myself pulling a lever for Obama in 2012. I would like to feel as Scylla does. But to convince me, it will take a bit more than hearing Mitch McConnell come out of a meeting saying that his point of view was heard. That’s nice and all, and I’d be glad that Obama was being polite and respectful; but that isn’t the same as being centrist. That would require real, actual compromise on real, actual issues, and would necessarily entail the risk of pissing off real, actual people who voted for him and were hoping for exactly the hard-left partisan I fear.
Thus, my desire to hear conservatives – I might have been better off titling this thread with “moderates,” meaning the 40% of whom voted for McCain – explain what (if anything) they might regard as real evidence that Obam is not the leftist they feared, and to hear liberals say what issues they would be willing to bend on in the interests of unity.
Neither have I. Nor have I heard him say, himself, that he doesn’t, and that it’s something he’d require of a FCC commissioner. The issue is complicated, and there’s plenty of ways to acheive the ends without calling it the same thing, but a clear statement, in his own voice, would be appreciated. It would possibly annoy Pelosi and Durbin, by making a distinction between them and he … but that’s the distinction I’m hoping for.
It may seem crazy to you, but all those shows do in fact have significant moderate and liberal listenerships. No cite, but I remember reading somewhere credible that something like 20% of Limbaugh’s audience were liberal and/or democratic. Given the size of those audiences, that’s a lot of people.
