So what happens to Fox News now that Obama is President?

[QueQueg]

Fox has been a propaganda tool of the Bush administration since 2000. Now that they won't have daily talking points to parrot, what will they do?

Discuss.

[Ancalagon]

They will become the "underground" news station. They will report on the things Obama doesnt want you to know. They will out the truth, paint the picture of the Good Old Days, when Bush was our Lord and Master, and report of the failings of the New Administration as led by Darth Obama, despite threats to shut them down, but they will not be silenced!

Jokes, I dont know.

"Well.... ummm.. in news today, Billy's kitty got stuck in a tree."

[jacob.armitage]

...
Jokes, I dont know....



Truth! and you know it.

[Commissar Rob]

Either be a platform for a bit of soul searching for the conservative party - a reasoned analysis of what went wrong, what should have worked and how to reform the party to play to the strengths of conservatism while reducing the weaknesses. Or they could lead the charge to denial and demonization (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/the-republican-rump/).

It'll be interesting to watch...

[QueQueg]

Truth! and you know it.

Truth? As told by a... truth squad?

[KingGorilla]

Business as usual?

Poor Xians persecuted because people fail to see that the Founding Fathers wanted a conservative theocracy.

Provably prominent interviews with barely high school educated preachers talking about the immorality of science and medicine.

You know bread and butter stuff.

[Ancalagon]

Truth? As told by a... truth squad?

Well they have degrees in Truthology, they ought to be trusted.

Hey, have you heard the election was rigged? Like, the mainstream media is lying, Obama isnt popular, he bribed people to win.

(Seriously though, how long before that appears in the news?)

[TheFlyingOrc]

They'll probably continue to cater toward their demographic.

[QueQueg]

This is on the Fox News front-page right now... hilarious

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/110508_nuobama.jpg

[Johan]

Be honest now...the media did fuck all of actually investigating Obama or pretending to be unbiased as regards him. It was embarrassing and disgusting.

55+ MILLION people voted for McCain. They're going to want news that won't involve wiping the drool of these supposed "professional journalists" off of their floor/screen/paper/magazine. Fox News may become a breath of fresh air, as SHOCKING as that is, in light of the uselessness of the press overall.

Unless you're looking for campaign material and bullet-point-political-support-cards, in which case the news will be worthwhile everywhere!

Besides...the Democrats will muzzle free speech anyway! (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-defends-fairness-doctrine-as-fair-and-balanced-2008-11-04.html)

Now, Dems...you own the House, Senate, and White House. You have it ALL. Put up or STFU.

[QueQueg]

Wow, I think Johan is upset.

[Johan]

Wow, I think Johan is upset.

:D Not at all...I'm excited about my check!

I am, however, lacking any and all faith in the media. They're spineless campaign workers for the Democratic Party.

[QueQueg]

People on the far right keep saying that. They say "the media" as code for everything not owned by Rupert Murdoc.

The thing is, when you stand that far right-of-center... everyone looks like they're left. Even the center. That's the definition of bias. If CNN says anything negative about your man, then obviously CNN is the problem, they have a left-wing bias. How dare they question Sarah Palin's motives for questioning Barack Obama's supposed "pal'n around with terrorists"?

Face it Johan. The McCain campaign had more "issues" to report on. They made more mistakes. OF COURSE "the media" will discuss these mistakes. It would be bias if they didn't.

[TheFlyingOrc]

People on the far right keep saying that. They say "the media" as code for everything not owned by Rupert Murdoc.

The thing is, when you stand that far right-of-center... everyone looks like they're left. Even the center. That's the definition of bias. If CNN says anything negative about your man, then obviously CNN is the problem, they have a left-wing bias. How dare they question Sarah Palin's motives for questioning Barack Obama's supposed "pal'n around with terrorists"?

Face it Johan. The McCain campaign had more "issues" to report on. They made more mistakes. OF COURSE "the media" will discuss these mistakes. It would be bias if they didn't.

The overall media outside of Fox News is overwhelmingly democrat-voting, and I don't believe that a human being can actually remove their personal biases from their reporting, at least not fully.

[Johan]

Face it Johan. The McCain campaign had more "issues" to report on. They made more mistakes. OF COURSE "the media" will discuss these mistakes. It would be bias if they didn't.

McCain didn't lose primarily because of his mistakes, though he made some egregious ones. He lost because the country is sick of his party (a president with the lowest approval rate in modern HISTORY and yet McCain still pulled nearly half of the vote? WOW! How conservative must America be for that to happen?), primarily based upon the misallocation of blame for our economic ills (which rests with BOTH parties...thank you Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others) and because politics in America is cyclical. We kick out one group of morons hoping the next is not...then kick them out when we realize our mistake...and then rinse and repeat. Also, Obama is a brilliant politician. Whether he'll be a good leader or not is an open, legitimate question. We'll see. It's Democratic Party put-up-or-STFU-time.

[QueQueg]

I can point to a singular McCain mistake that swung the election against him.

Sarah Palin.

Economy aside, it was a close enough race up to that point that a better VP pick would've made all the difference. A better VP pick might have neutralized the economy issue.

[Ancalagon]

McCain didn't lose primarily because of his mistakes, though he made some egregious ones. He lost because the country is sick of his party (a president with the lowest approval rate in modern HISTORY and yet McCain still pulled nearly half of the vote? WOW! How conservative must America be for that to happen?), primarily based upon the misallocation of blame for our economic ills (which rests with BOTH parties...thank you Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others) and because politics in America is cyclical. We kick out one group of morons hoping the next is not...then kick them out when we realize our mistake...and then rinse and repeat. Also, Obama is a brilliant politician. Whether he'll be a good leader or not is an open, legitimate question. We'll see. It's Democratic Party put-up-or-STFU-time.

But you agree that McCain made more mistakes, and that these mistakes should be reported to the public, and that not reporting them would show bias?

[Telefrog]

If you want real crazy, go hit up Hillaryis44.org or freerepublic.com and prepare to gaze into the abyss.

Tonight proves that AA’s aren’t oppressed in this country; rather, they are given handouts. Never would an inexperienced, socialist, terrorist-loving, racist, sexist, gay-bashing, hypocritical, opportunistic WHITE junior Senator be given a free pass by the media like this son of a bitch has.

the only reason that Hillary is not President is because it was stolen from her. I have watched her face since June and she has aged beyond belief, and yes she and Bill had an effect on who won this election - party before country.

Alaska is HUGE! It could accomodate us. Lots of natural resources. Cold.

Now that Obama managed to steal this thing, and if he becomes the fascist dictator that I believe he will, I would not hesitate to move to AK and join Todd Palin’s secession movement. Then we could elect Sarah as much as we want.

[pheriannath]

The conservative pundits at FN will continue to spout their vitriol. If anything, they now have more shit to complain about. I don't really think anything is going to change.

[Savok]

That was always what the left hated most about Fox, it showed the zombies a kind of bias they'd never really seen on TV before, it finally dawned on a lot of people that "hang on, the media really can be a biased pack of assholes" and they started questioning everything then. More then ever Fox's brand of batshit insanity is needed to level the playing field some.

Did anyone bother to ask how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost after the whole Palin thing? How much was spent dressing up Obama's kids for the camera?

[Johan]

But you agree that McCain made more mistakes, and that these mistakes should be reported to the public, and that not reporting them would show bias?

I agree that the tremendously unprofessional fawning of the media over Obama does a disservice to democracy and intelligent discourse, and that it will no doubt continue for the next four or eight years.

So yeah...I agree with what I just said!

On second thought, with the Democrats wanting to enact the Fairness Doctrine, who needs to worry about discourse? The government can determine what should be said, and how much of it.

[pheriannath]

Telefrog, freepers are like the NMA members of politics.

[QueQueg]

That was always what the left hated most about Fox, it showed the zombies a kind of bias they'd never really seen on TV before, it finally dawned on a lot of people that "hang on, the media really can be a biased pack of assholes" and they started questioning everything then. More then ever Fox's brand of batshit insanity is needed to level the playing field some.

Did anyone bother to ask how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost after the whole Palin thing? How much was spent dressing up Obama's kids for the camera?

Yes Savok, that question has come up. You know the answer? The DNC or the campaign didn't buy Obama's clothes. Therefore it doesn't matter.

[Ancalagon]

If you want real crazy, go hit up Hillaryis44.org or freerepublic.com and prepare to gaze into the abyss.

You know, right now I wish I was Cartman in Scott Tennorman must die. Because I'd love to taste their sweet tears of disappointment. I'm sure they will be even sweeter than when Obama won the Democrat nomination.

[ShivaX]

People act like MSNBC somehow ceased to exist while Bush was president.
If anything Fox News is likely to become more popular.

[Loki]

McCain didn't lose primarily because of his mistakes, though he made some egregious ones. He lost because the country is sick of his party (a president with the lowest approval rate in modern HISTORY and yet McCain still pulled nearly half of the vote? WOW! How conservative must America be for that to happen?), primarily based upon the misallocation of blame for our economic ills (which rests with BOTH parties...thank you Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others) and because politics in America is cyclical. We kick out one group of morons hoping the next is not...then kick them out when we realize our mistake...and then rinse and repeat. Also, Obama is a brilliant politician. Whether he'll be a good leader or not is an open, legitimate question. We'll see. It's Democratic Party put-up-or-STFU-time.

What is an issue that obama wasn't fully vetted on by the media

[Primus]

Basically MSNBC and Fox are switching roles.

[Johan]

Yes Savok, that question has come up. You know the answer? The DNC or the campaign didn't buy Obama's clothes. Therefore it doesn't matter.

They didn't have to. He had hundreds of millions, quite a bit of it unregulated and unsourced, to use for "campaign expenses."

Clothing, food, transportation...expenses of a campaign.

[Telefrog]

Did anyone bother to ask how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost after the whole Palin thing? How much was spent dressing up Obama's kids for the camera?

Yes, actually (http://www.celebitchy.com/17384/michelle_obama_talked_about_budget_clothes_shoppin g_well_before_palin_designer_scandal/). She shops on her own dime and her clothing has been traced back to retailers by fashionistas (http://womensfashion.suite101.com/article.cfm/michelle_obama_cindy_mccains_fashion_feud). Sorry to break it to you, they're rather cheap and off-the-rack (http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/10/23/michelle-obama-likes-upscale-clothes-too/).

[KingGorilla]

I forgot to mention, CNN will still have Psychic bullshit artists on Larry King and Geraldo as well.

You can really see a lot about the audience or perceived audience from these shows.

And there is a reason Colbert and John Stewart are the two top news men on the two top news shows, their content is smarter.

[QueQueg]

They didn't have to. He had hundreds of millions, quite a bit of it unregulated and unsourced, to use for "campaign expenses."

Clothing, food, transportation...expenses of a campaign.

Obama's clothes cost literally "hundreds" of dollars. (http://gawker.com/5067474/fancy-obama-clothes-cost-literally-hundreds-of-dollars)

You should quit while you're behind. These are normal people, they didn't spend $150,000 on clothing for Michelle Obama.

[Johan]

Yes, actually (http://www.celebitchy.com/17384/michelle_obama_talked_about_budget_clothes_shoppin g_well_before_palin_designer_scandal/).

That's from an interview. Did anyone bother to investigate? Oh..that's right; it's unnecessary to check out clothing expenses for Democrats!

Here's a breakdown. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638)

More info. here. (http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/10/23/michelle-obama-likes-upscale-clothes-too/)

The point? The media makes an issue of investigating Republicans/conservatives, and fawning over Democrats/liberals, typically and with great abandon!

Obama's clothes cost literally "hundreds" of dollars. (http://gawker.com/5067474/fancy-obama-clothes-cost-literally-hundreds-of-dollars)

See above. Also, how much did Obama spend to win? Hmmm...guess that's not important, is it?

[bapenguin]

Politics is a matter of perception.

Nobody is ever right.

[Telefrog]

That's from an interview. Did anyone bother to investigate? Oh..that's right; it's unnecessary to check out clothing expenses for Democrats!

Here's a breakdown. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638)

More info. here. (http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/10/23/michelle-obama-likes-upscale-clothes-too/)

The point? The media makes an issue of investigating Republicans/conservatives, and fawning over Democrats/liberals, typically and with great abandon!

Did you not read the links? Fashion experts, people that make their living from tracking clothing, traced Barack's, Michelle's, Cindy's, and John's clothing back to their sources. In almost every case, the Republican ticket outspent the Dems on their clothing and accessories. Not that this should be an issue anyway, but Savok brought it up.

See above. Also, how much did Obama spend to win? Hmmm...guess that's not important, is it?

Not really, since it was mostly volunteer contributions.

[Johan]

Did you not read the links? Fashion experts, people that make their living from tracking clothing, traced Barack's, Michelle's, Cindy's, and John's clothing back to their sources. In almost every case, the Republican ticket outspent the Dems on their clothing and accessories.

The entire issue is bullshit, because Obama just spent hundreds of millions of dollars...the most expensive and largest-spending campaign in HISTORY ANYWHERE...and that is apparently perfectly fine?

Seriously...make an issue of the molehill for clothing on one side, and not the mountain of spending and the lack of sourcing on the money on the other? So...volunteer money spent by Obama in the hundreds of millions on food, transportation, advertising, and the like is okay...but $150,000 on clothing spent from volunteer money given to the RNC is not? Cut that shit out.

Ridiculous.

[raymeswh]

And there is a reason Colbert and John Stewart are the two top news men on the two top news shows, their content is smarter.

This man hits to the heart of the issue, with no GWB to emulate for Colbert, and no more republican majority for Stewart to poke fun at, where does that leave 2 of the most entertaining news shows ever?

[Telefrog]

The entire issue is bullshit, because Obama just spent hundreds of millions of dollars...the most expensive and largest-spending campaign in HISTORY ANYWHERE...and that is apparently perfectly fine?

Seriously...make an issue of the molehill for clothing on one side, and not the mountain of spending and the lack of sourcing on the money on the other?

Ridiculous.

Why is it bullshit? I acknowledge he spent more money overall on his campaign. So what? Where did the money come from? Your pocket? Nope. He got most of his money from supporters in small donations.

As I said, the clothing expenditure isn't an issue to me, but Savok brought it up like it was some kind of indictment against the Democratic media bias, when it clearly was not.

[QueQueg]

Politics is a matter of perception.

Nobody is ever right.

This just in... (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_60_million_people_youd)

[Johan]

Why is it bullshit?

Because Obama spent $140,000 on a fucking podium with Greek columns, and 5.3 MILLION for construction at Invesco ALONE. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/140000_spent_on_for_dncc_podiu_1.asp)

Anyone want to compare ridiculousness in spending? It's a bullshit issue with no winner; only losers. Obama may not have blown $150,000 to look pretty in his clothes, but he DID blow MORE than that to look pretty on stage. The entire issue should be dropped. It's bullshit.

[Generation ABXY]

The entire issue is bullshit, because Obama just spent hundreds of millions of dollars...the most expensive and largest-spending campaign in HISTORY ANYWHERE...and that is apparently perfectly fine?

Seriously...make an issue of the molehill for clothing on one side, and not the mountain of spending and the lack of sourcing on the money on the other? So...volunteer money spent by Obama in the hundreds of millions on food, transportation, advertising, and the like is okay...but $150,000 on clothing spent from volunteer money given to the RNC is not? Cut that shit out.

Ridiculous.

What bothers me tue most is that he did have all that money, was seeming to go through it like water and he still only barely beat McCain in the popular vote.

People like to point out that he ran a wonderful campaign, but, while that is mostly true, he did it at a tremendous cost; I'm afraid to see how far he might sink the country trying to deliver some of his campaign promises.

[digitalErich]

This man hits to the heart of the issue, with no GWB to emulate for Colbert, and no more republican majority for Stewart to poke fun at, where does that leave 2 of the most entertaining news shows ever?
First, Colbert's a caricature of O'Reilly, not Bush, and something tells me O'Reilly is going to be more insane than ever. And if you think the Daily Show is going to pull any punches you haven't been watching the show as long as I have.

[Raen]

Because Obama spent $140,000 on a fucking podium with Greek columns, and 5.3 MILLION for construction at Invesco ALONE. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/140000_spent_on_for_dncc_podiu_1.asp)

Anyone want to compare ridiculousness in spending? It's a bullshit issue with no winner; only losers.

I oddly agree with Johan for once. If you look through the campaign finances of either party I'm sure you could find some pretty crazy expenses.

[KingGorilla]

Most of Obama's finding came from citizens, not lobbyists, or corporate advocates. He was given unprecedented donations to campaign and to win.

What was he supposed to do?

[Johan]

...something tells me O'Reilly is going to be more insane than ever.

That would be fun!

I don't have cable. Or satellite. Or the desire to watch him. Or fun when I do.

So...it wouldn't be fun! :D

What was he supposed to do?

Honor his pledge to take public financing? Spend less on Greek columns and a stage?

Seriously...who the fuck cares? He spent money...they spent money...it's OVER. The money is spent. It's not coming back, and nobody cares. Move on, please!

[digitalErich]

Well, I'd rather have a candidate spending more money that was donated mostly by private, individual citizens than a candidate who spends less money, but where that money comes primarily from corporations and special interest groups.

I have no idea if this was the case with Obama compared to, say, Bush but I highly suspect it.

[Telefrog]

Because Obama spent $140,000 on a fucking podium with Greek columns, and 5.3 MILLION for construction at Invesco ALONE. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/140000_spent_on_for_dncc_podiu_1.asp)

Anyone want to compare ridiculousness in spending? It's a bullshit issue with no winner; only losers.

Didn't I just say I don't care? WTF? Why are you harping on this with me at all? :confused:

Here, I'll say it again, more clearly:

I, Telefrog, in no way care how or why a political candidate spends his or her donated money to get elected for public office. That candidate may spend it however they wish in whatever way they think is the best way to secure the votes they need as long as it does not violate any laws.

Is that clear enough?

[KingGorilla]

Most of Obama's finding came from citizens, not lobbyists, or corporate advocates. He was given unprecedented donations to campaign and to win.

What was he supposed to do? Say thanks but no thanks?

[Johan]

Is that clear enough?

I'm not getting it. What? :D

Just because your name is in the quote tags above what I post doesn't mean that the entirety of my post is directed at you. Here's an example:

"I would like a new bicycle for Christmas this year."

[Telefrog]

"I would like a new bicycle for Christmas this year."

Oh, Hell, Johan. Now, it's on!!! :mad:

No one's getting any new bikes while I'm around! :D

[Mdot]

This just in... (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_60_million_people_youd)

That article is great.

[Purple Santa]

Fox has been a propaganda tool of the Bush administration since 2000. Now that they won't have daily talking points to parrot, what will they do?

Discuss.

I don't know...do what they did when they first went on air in 1996? Do the news? And Bill Clinton, a democrat was in office. And they somehow began in existence despite propaganda to promote.

I don't like Fox news so I don't say this as a rabid fan. But seriously. This is a flame baiting thread. This is why we don't have a P&R forum. Discuss? What exactly other than the very leading question.

[Generation ABXY]

First, Colbert's a caricature of O'Reilly, not Bush, and something tells me O'Reilly is going to be more insane than ever. And if you think the Daily Show is going to pull any punches you haven't been watching the show as long as I have.

A little off topic, but until yesterday, I thought it was pretty obvious that The Colbert Report was satire. But, while I was waiting in line to vote, I met a group of Dems who wouldn't watch him because they thought he was serious. :eek:

I'm hoping this is like an isolated incident, but has anybody else run into someone, either left or right, who didn't know the whole thing was a parody?

[Johan]

Oh, Hell, Johan. Now, it's on!!! :mad:

No one's getting any new bikes while I'm around! :D

Give me one without a seat; you'll have your revenge. On a daily basis. ;)

[Telefrog]

A little off topic, but until yesterday, I thought it was pretty obvious that The Colbert Report was satire. But, while I was waiting in line to vote, I met a group of Dems who wouldn't watch him because they thought he was serious. :eek:

I'm hoping this is like an isolated incident, but has anybody else run into someone, either left or right, who didn't know the whole thing was a parody?

I have met people on both sides of the political spectrum that believed Colbert was for real.

Yes, it's futile trying to explain the joke to them.

[raymeswh]

First, Colbert's a caricature of O'Reilly, not Bush, and something tells me O'Reilly is going to be more insane than ever. And if you think the Daily Show is going to pull any punches you haven't been watching the show as long as I have.

i watch on and off, theyre both hilarious. i hope they get funnier

[KingGorilla]

Do not under estimate the ability of isolated ignorance to confound and annoy rational thinkers.

[ShivaX]

Most of Obama's finding came from citizens, not lobbyists, or corporate advocates. He was given unprecedented donations to campaign and to win.

What was he supposed to do? Say thanks but no thanks?

What he should do is push through campaign finance reform. I like that his campaign was almost exclusively small donations from private citizens, but its pretty much the only example in history of that being the case.

If nothing else I'd like to see a limit of $50-100 for an individual and some way found to prevent corporations and the like donating on behalf of their employees.

[National Kato]

The first news piece I saw on FOX this morning had them focused on a video they took among the celebrations in front of the White House. Someone had held up a flag with the hammer and sickle on it...so they focused on what that says about the Obama presidency.

Essentially, FOX will continue to miss the point and act like idiots.

[Johan]

What he should do is push through campaign finance reform.

Double-irony.

He turned down public financing (a bedrock of campaign finance reform) to spend more than anyone in HISTORY, and he beat the biggest campaign finance reformer in government.

Kinda funny! Not holding my breath.

[Mot Wakorb]

I do agree with Johan on one thing, the "fairness doctrine" is complete and utter bullshit. If I want to listen to a conservative station, I'll turn that on, same goes for liberal. That's like saying you have to play country on a rap station - it won't fly.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I do agree with Johan on one thing, the "fairness doctrine" is complete and utter bullshit. If I want to listen to a conservative station, I'll turn that on, same goes for liberal. That's like saying you have to play country on a rap station - it won't fly.

It's also incredibly foolish - do I have to have EXACTLY the opposite opinions of the other guy? There's no way to regulate it other than defining your show as "conservative" and "liberal". So Rush Limbaugh is on as a conservative, followed by liberal Sean Hannity, because he SAID he's liberal!

[Cyndair]

I think the issue that most people take with Fox News is that, instead of just embracing the fact that they are a right wing news source and moving on, they continually preach the "fair and balanced" line. It makes people feel like their intelligence is being insulted.

[Johan]

I think the issue that most people take with Fox News is that, instead of just embracing the fact that they are a right wing news source and moving on, they continually preach the "fair and balanced" line. It makes people feel like their intelligence is being insulted.

This is totally true. Just be honest...we can smell what flavor of stink we're exposed to on the different news stations. :)

[Sl1pstream]

Did anyone bother to ask how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost after the whole Palin thing? How much was spent dressing up Obama's kids for the camera?

Didn't the republicans start that crap when they started crying about John Edwards' haircuts?

[Widgetcraft]

The overall media outside of Fox News is overwhelmingly democrat-voting, and I don't believe that a human being can actually remove their personal biases from their reporting, at least not fully.

Pfft, CNN is biased, but it's biased in both directions... Their idea of "reporting" is having a news blurb followed by ten minutes of Republican and Democrat cock puppets snipping at each other before moving on to the next blurb.

[ShivaX]

Didn't the republicans start that crap when they started crying about John Edwards' haircuts?

Well they also said that Hillary didn't get a free pass or things easy just cause she was a woman. Then when Palin got on the ticket any criticism of her became sexist. They did a metric shitton of hypcrisy this time around. If Obama picks a bad VP it calls into question his judgement. When McCain does it, the media is being unfair. Ad nauseum.

[KingGorilla]

Biden was a bad VP? Honestly, of all the candidates involved, I found him to the the best candidate for president. Family man, lived a life or hardship, self achievement, not afraid to work, bi-partisan efforts, speaks his mind.

[ShivaX]

Biden was a bad VP? Honestly, of all the candidates involved, I found him to the the best candidate for president. Family man, lived a life or hardship, self achievement, not afraid to work, bi-partisan efforts, speaks his mind.

No they were saying that before he picked Biden. That if he picked someone not ready to be President on day one, it was a failure of judgement. When McCain did that exact thing, they praised him for it.

[Widgetcraft]

No they were saying that before he picked Biden. That if he picked someone not ready to be President on day one, it was a failure of judgement. When McCain did that exact thing, they praised him for it.

To be fair, I doubt it was McCain that picked Palin :p But that was the whole problem with his campaign: The McCain we knew from 2000 didn't seem to be making any decisions, but had actually handed over the keys (entirely) to someone else.

[KingGorilla]

Is there anyone who doubts McCain's choice for VP was Joe Lieberman?

[n3rdXcore]

...cock puppets...

Typo? Haha.

Anyways, I think Fox News will just start ragging on how terrible the president is, blah blah blah, same thing they always do to democrats. I don't think they're going to change anytime soon.

[King3567]

All of the media is biased. It's practically impossible to show no bias in this business. The thing is, FOX's bias is completely ridiculous in how over the top it is. I actually watch it to laugh at politics when the Daily Show and Colbert Report aren't on.

[Widgetcraft]

Typo? Haha.

Nope, that was quite intentional.

[King3567]

To be fair, I doubt it was McCain that picked Palin :p But that was the whole problem with his campaign: The McCain we knew from 2000 didn't seem to be making any decisions, but had actually handed over the keys (entirely) to someone else.

Agreed. Had McCain actually been his old (more) competent self, this race could've been a lot more interesting. Instead, it was met with a series of huge wtf moments, Sarah Palin included.

Anyone else think that the Republican party will either cease to exist or split apart after this? I mean, there seems to be a huge divide right now and Bush and company may have done irreversible damage to the party that I don't think America will be ready to go back to for a LONG time.

[n3rdXcore]

Agreed. Had McCain actually been his old (more) competent self, this race could've been a lot more interesting. Instead, it was met with a series of huge wtf moments, Sarah Palin included.

Anyone else think that the Republican party will either cease to exist or split apart after this? I mean, there seems to be a huge divide right now and Bush and company may have done irreversible damage to the party that I don't think America will be ready to go back to for a LONG time.

As long as there's a strong conservative value system in America, I highly doubt the Republican party is going anywhere. There are so many people who hold "traditional values" and would rather stick with them than slide to the left.

[GunnyMo]

What I found hilarious is that around 2pm this afternoon I went and hit up the sites of the usual gang of "correspondents" for Fox News. You know, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. Not one. Not one single one had anything...anything...on their sites about Obama winning. :D

Personally, I can't wait to see Coulter go apoplectic over this. I'm really hoping her head explodes.

[King3567]

What I found hilarious is that around 2pm this afternoon I went and hit up the sites of the usual gang of "correspondents" for Fox News. You know, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. Not one. Not one single one had anything...anything...on their sites about Obama winning. :D

Personally, I can't wait to see Coulter go apoplectic over this. I'm really hoping her head explodes.

Yeah, they are really downplaying this. Trying to pretend it didn't happen, I guess.

[ShivaX]

Agreed. Had McCain actually been his old (more) competent self, this race could've been a lot more interesting. Instead, it was met with a series of huge wtf moments, Sarah Palin included.

Anyone else think that the Republican party will either cease to exist or split apart after this? I mean, there seems to be a huge divide right now and Bush and company may have done irreversible damage to the party that I don't think America will be ready to go back to for a LONG time.

They were just discussing this on CNN. The general consensus from everyone (Rep/Ind/Dem) was that the GOP was screwed. They need to change thier message to account for how America has changed.

Ed Rollins (Rep chairman for the Mike Huckabee campaign) said it best when he said: "Rove said he wanted to realign the country, unfortunately he realigned it for the Democrats." Hes also said the GOP can't exist as a Southern, white party any more and the electoral map shows thats exactly what its become.

Hispanic, black and young voters decided this election and the GOP has historically ignored those groups. It was going to happen eventually and this just happens to be the year it occured.

[GunnyMo]

Hes also said the GOP can't exist as a Southern, white party any more and the electoral map shows thats exactly what its become.

Hispanic, black and young voters decided this election and the GOP has historically ignored those groups. It was going to happen eventually and this just happens to be the year it occured.

So freakin' true. It will be so nice, sometime in the future, when you can't tell who's Republican and who's Democrat unless you ask. These days it's so easy it's not funny.

Watching Fox News with their high contrast and colors along with all of the white people in suits is like a 24 hour, Day-Glo church network. Ugh.

At least the next couple years will be a laugh a minute on Fox as they live with a Democratic government.

[Scaryfaced]

What I found hilarious is that around 2pm this afternoon I went and hit up the sites of the usual gang of "correspondents" for Fox News. You know, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. Not one. Not one single one had anything...anything...on their sites about Obama winning. :D

Personally, I can't wait to see Coulter go apoplectic over this. I'm really hoping her head explodes.

I can see the same thing happening to Pat and Bay Buchanan. Oh, what a joyous day that would be.
________
Lesbian Strapon (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/743/strapon/videos/1)

[GunnyMo]

I can see the same thing happening to Pat and Bay Buchanan. Oh, what a joyous day that would be.

I have to say that I actually enjoy Pat Buchanan on MSNBC. When he and Olberman or Madow get into it always has a ring of genuine, respectful debate to it. Buchanan seems to have mellowed somewhat with age. It's surprising.

Maybe it's just when he's on MSNBC. lol

[GunnyMo]

I missed it last night but just saw this bit on Olberman.

Karl Rove was using an interactive map and talking about how if Obama did win Ohio, unlike Bush who won it in 2000, then he would fall below the 270 electoral votes needed to be president. Brit Hume steps up, interrupts Rove and says, "We've just received word that Obama has won Ohio." The look on Rove's face and his stunned silence were priceless! When Olberman's voice over chimed in with "Oh snap!" I damn near fell over laughing. :D

It was a good moment.

[Vanifae]

I never liked Fox News even less so after the Sex Box fiasco with Mass Effect.

Presidential Election nonsense aside.

[ShivaX]

I never liked Fox News even less so after the Sex Box fiasco with Mass Effect.


They have a tendency to run with whatever supports their ideology without doing much research.

Theres a few good journalists on the network, but they get overshadowed by the crappy ones with agendas.

[jeffbax]

I find it humorous how many people complain about MSNBC. Please, while they have liberal opinion shows (Olberman and that chick), their actual news coverage is far more moderate than Fox could ever dream of being. They aren't even in the same league. Fox is absolute right where as MSNBC is at most "left leaning"

[GunnyMo]

(Olberman and that chick)

Rachel Maddow, you sexist homophobe. :p

[Lance Uppercut]

I missed it last night but just saw this bit on Olberman.

Karl Rove was using an interactive map and talking about how if Obama did win Ohio, unlike Bush who won it in 2000, then he would fall below the 270 electoral votes needed to be president. Brit Hume steps up, interrupts Rove and says, "We've just received word that Obama has won Ohio." The look on Rove's face and his stunned silence were priceless! When Olberman's voice over chimed in with "Oh snap!" I damn near fell over laughing. :D

It was a good moment.

Video, please.

[GunnyMo]

Here's the link. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27563663)

It's not on YouTube yet.

That link should take you to story #1, "Obama's Historic Journey". The Rove bit starts at 2:15 in. The "oh snap" from Olbermann was in the preview of the show at the beginning of the entire edition so it's not in this link. But Rove and Hume are flippin' priceless anyway. :D

I came across this on the Tube, though. Sort of simple but still enjoyable.

wzkq_EcTx3g

[GunnyMo]

Wow, if you really want to see what the whackos on the far right think head on over to Michelle Malkin's site and scroll all the way down the main page to the reader comments. Woo-eee! Cah-razy folks.

[Generation ABXY]

Wow, if you really want to see what the whackos on the far right think head on over to Michelle Malkin's site and scroll all the way down the main page to the reader comments. Woo-eee! Cah-razy folks.

Yeah, they tickle me almost as much as the far left crazies...almost. :p

[Crowe]

Hillaryis44 is satire right? It's one kooky site.

[GunnyMo]

Yeah, they tickle me almost as much as the far left crazies...almost. :p

Yeah, that's because lefties are always willing to tickle you and have some fun! Righties are too stuffy for that. :D

[Telefrog]

Hillaryis44 is satire right? It's one kooky site.

For laughs, check Fox News Forums (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/youdecide_11042/), Free Republic (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2126960/posts#comment), PumaPac (http://pumapac.org/2008/11/04/hang-tight/), and Hillaryis44 (http://www.hillaryis44.org/). It's like a vortex of stupid.

[muddi900]

I have met people on both sides of the political spectrum that believed Colbert was for real.

Yes, it's futile trying to explain the joke to them.

This only means that stupidity(or intelligence) is intrinsic to a person and independent of their background.

To be fair, I doubt it was McCain that picked Palin :p But that was the whole problem with his campaign: The McCain we knew from 2000 didn't seem to be making any decisions, but had actually handed over the keys (entirely) to someone else.

2000 McCain lost to George W. Bush.

Most of you are acting like this election was really a landslide. Please look at the popular vote comparison of both candidates. You are acting like the same way Republicans were when they won in 2004.

[rifter]

I still love how the BIG LIE of Foxnews being "so far" right wing is kept going. Have a look at the "balance" of the other news networks... This board is over-whelming left wing. What that menas, is if you take all the opinions here, and apply them to most of the alphabet soup news channels, your views line right up. that doesn't make the most of you, nor the news channels, any less left wing. Because Foxnews is to the RIGHT of a left-leaning organization, doesn't make it a right-wing tool, or terribly unbalanced. To the right of most news channels, is the middle. Fox just happens to start at the middle.

[Primus]

I still love how the BIG LIE of Foxnews being "so far" right wing is kept going. Have a look at the "balance" of the other news networks... This board is over-whelming left wing. What that menas, is if you take all the opinions here, and apply them to most of the alphabet soup news channels, your views line right up. that doesn't make the most of you, nor the news channels, any less left wing. Because Foxnews is to the RIGHT of a left-leaning organization, doesn't make it a right-wing tool, or terribly unbalanced. To the right of most news channels, is the middle. Fox just happens to start at the middle.

You'd also think they would bash MSNBC occasionally. Like you said, I believe the majority of the people on here left leaning.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I still love how the BIG LIE of Foxnews being "so far" right wing is kept going. Have a look at the "balance" of the other news networks... This board is over-whelming left wing. What that menas, is if you take all the opinions here, and apply them to most of the alphabet soup news channels, your views line right up. that doesn't make the most of you, nor the news channels, any less left wing. Because Foxnews is to the RIGHT of a left-leaning organization, doesn't make it a right-wing tool, or terribly unbalanced. To the right of most news channels, is the middle. Fox just happens to start at the middle.

As a heavy conservative, Fox is pretty freaking right wing.

[Widgetcraft]

I still love how the BIG LIE of Foxnews being "so far" right wing is kept going. Have a look at the "balance" of the other news networks... This board is over-whelming left wing. What that menas, is if you take all the opinions here, and apply them to most of the alphabet soup news channels, your views line right up. that doesn't make the most of you, nor the news channels, any less left wing. Because Foxnews is to the RIGHT of a left-leaning organization, doesn't make it a right-wing tool, or terribly unbalanced. To the right of most news channels, is the middle. Fox just happens to start at the middle.

This post is lulz.

[Scaryfaced]

I understand calling MSNBC left wing, it's pretty obvious where the majority of their pundits plant their flag. Still, why would anyone consider CNN leftist? They go out of their way to stack their news shows with an even mix of Reps and Dems, giving them plenty of time to bicker about EVERY subject, then move on to the next to bicker some more. How's that left wing?

Fox likes republicans, MSNBC likes democrats, and CNN seems to stay pretty much in the center. I just think people are upset they didn't see the Jeremiah Wright or William Ayres stuff aired towards the end of the campaign. Just like every other news story, after enough air time, no buddy cares anymore. It may be important to some, but the intesely negative side of the campaign was turning the majority of people completely off. Airing the same stories from a few months wasn't going to change a thing other than turn more people off to the McCain camp.
________
HOTELS IN MEXICO (http://mexicohoteles.org)

[QueQueg]

Perhaps not a landslide, but I think folks are just happy that it was a large-enough victory to guarantee no post-election lawsuits.

[QueQueg]

I still love how the BIG LIE of Foxnews being "so far" right wing is kept going. Have a look at the "balance" of the other news networks... This board is over-whelming left wing. What that menas, is if you take all the opinions here, and apply them to most of the alphabet soup news channels, your views line right up. that doesn't make the most of you, nor the news channels, any less left wing. Because Foxnews is to the RIGHT of a left-leaning organization, doesn't make it a right-wing tool, or terribly unbalanced. To the right of most news channels, is the middle. Fox just happens to start at the middle.

I didn't know Colbert posted on CoG.

[rifter]

I didn't know Colbert posted on CoG.

Vapid response, without any substance.

You fail.

[muddi900]

Vapid response, without any substance.

You fail.

I don't know much about American politics, but we do get Colbert Report here, and you sounded exactly like him.

[ShivaX]

I still love how the BIG LIE of Foxnews being "so far" right wing is kept going. Have a look at the "balance" of the other news networks... This board is over-whelming left wing. What that menas, is if you take all the opinions here, and apply them to most of the alphabet soup news channels, your views line right up. that doesn't make the most of you, nor the news channels, any less left wing. Because Foxnews is to the RIGHT of a left-leaning organization, doesn't make it a right-wing tool, or terribly unbalanced. To the right of most news channels, is the middle. Fox just happens to start at the middle.

Its not a big lie. Fox is extremely far right. They have a few actual reporters who are fairly middle of the road, but they openly ignore fact to support their agenda. MSNBC does it to some extent, but its mostly folks like Olbermann. On Fox its almost everyone, they have maybe 2-3 shows that aren't under the influence.

Most news channels are actually in the middle. The further you get in the spectrum the more everything is to the right or left of you. CNN is extremely well balanced. Just because reality doesn't support your beliefs or doesn't do what you want it to doesn't make the media leftwing. It makes those beliefs wrong.

Having been on the right in my life I can see it very well. I moderated a bit, but watched Fox News every night. I knew then it leaned heavily right, but I enjoyed the discussion of people like O'Reilly. Since then the channel has gone far more to the right and doesn't even pretend to be balanced. O'Reilly is actively ignoring reality to make political talking points.

In many ways Fox News is a barometer for the Republican party. It used to lean right, but was fairly reasonable about things. Now its a bastion of ignorance and denial thats so far to the right that its lost touch with reality. Just like the GOP under Bush.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'll say it again, though - something like 80%+ of all journalists identify themselves as democrats - how likely do you think it is that none of their personal prejudices ever make it onto the airwaves? Two people can report the exact same words and have totally different meanings, as something like 70%+ of all communication is nonverbal - if you feel disgusted by someone else's position, can you hide your tone of voice?

[ShivaX]

I'll say it again, though - something like 80%+ of all journalists identify themselves as democrats - how likely do you think it is that none of their personal prejudices ever make it onto the airwaves? Two people can report the exact same words and have totally different meanings, as something like 70%+ of all communication is nonverbal - if you feel disgusted by someone else's position, can you hide your tone of voice?

Oh theres definately influence, but the whole "liberal elite media" chant from the far right is just an attempt to make people ignore reality. If someone other than Fox News reports it, its not true and its the LEM showing bias. Meanwhile they have no bias and everything they report is truth.

Theres truth on both sides, which is why you should try to find someplace that presents lots of viewpoints and opinions.

[QueQueg]

I'll say it again, though - something like 80%+ of all journalists identify themselves as democrats - how likely do you think it is that none of their personal prejudices ever make it onto the airwaves? Two people can report the exact same words and have totally different meanings, as something like 70%+ of all communication is nonverbal - if you feel disgusted by someone else's position, can you hide your tone of voice?

Yes. Listen to the journalists on the BBC report the news. Every news report is spoken with the same cadence and inflection, and they draw no conclusions. This is the essence and definition of journalism. If you don't believe it exists, it's because you're stuck on 24-hour (non)news networks.

BBC reports the news, and they don't attempt to tell the viewer how to feel about the news. I have never EVER seen a Faux News report where they weren't covertly or overtly drawing conclusions in their presentation of "news."

[rifter]

Oh theres definately influence, but the whole "liberal elite media" chant from the far right is just an attempt to make people ignore reality. If someone other than Fox News reports it, its not true and its the LEM showing bias. Meanwhile they have no bias and everything they report is truth.

Hmmm, I work at a PBS station. I KNOW the people here TRY to remain neutral, on-air, but there are pro-obama stickers all over the parking lot. A lot of times, they cover what they WANT... which means, more left-leaning items get "on the air", whether they TRY to, or not. And I work with people that genuinly try to be non-biased, but I see it, becaues I am biased the opposite way.

Sorry, I don't buy your argument that YOU say fox is way right... and CNN is middle... so it is true. Hell, my favorite program on Fox, has Hannity AND Combes... you know, LEFT AND RIGHT... which is pretty balanced. Just because you say you are right, Shiva, doesn't mean you are.

[National Kato]

Hell, my favorite program on Fox, has Hannity AND Combes... you know, LEFT AND RIGHT... which is pretty balanced. Just because you say you are right, Shiva, doesn't mean you are.

Colmes is a pushover. Hannity controls that show and most people know it. Whenever Colmes has a point, he's given time to make it and then the next 5-10 minutes is Hannity and his conservative guest walking all over him. I'm surprised he's never shut Colmes' mic off. :p

This happened most recently when Ann Coulter was on. Colmes is only on that show so FOX can point to it and say, "See? We have liberal commentators!" This is the same reason CNN has Glenn Beck and MSNBC has Tucker Carlson.

[MagGnome]

Wait no. I'm not going there. :p

[n3rdXcore]

I didn't know Colbert posted on CoG.

After reading that post with Colbert's voice in my head, I lol'd a little.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Oh theres definately influence, but the whole "liberal elite media" chant from the far right is just an attempt to make people ignore reality. If someone other than Fox News reports it, its not true and its the LEM showing bias. Meanwhile they have no bias and everything they report is truth.

Theres truth on both sides, which is why you should try to find someplace that presents lots of viewpoints and opinions.

I actually would prefer if all anchors/pundits/whatever admitted their personal biases beforehand, so I can weight what they say fairly.

[rifter]

Here you go (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/214673.html), Chris Matthews showing is colors. It's his job to make the Obama presidency a success? Shouldn't his job had ALSO been making the Bush presidency a success?

I was pleasently surprised by the hosts, though.

[cassiusregicide]

What bothers me tue most is that he did have all that money, was seeming to go through it like water and he still only barely beat McCain in the popular vote.


Let's put that in perspective (popular votes):

Obama 64,336,982 Mcain 56,683,477
Bush 62,040,610 Kerry 59,028,444
Bush 50,456,002 Gore 50,999,897
Clinton 47,402,357 Dole 39,198,755
Clinton 44,909,806 Bush 39,104,500
Bush 48,886,597 Dukakis 41,809,476

A win by 9 million vote is pretty good for presidential elections. It's not a game of Madden where if you beat the compter 40 - 0, then you didn't do very godd.:D

[Generation ABXY]

Let's put that in perspective (popular votes):

Obama 64,336,982 Mcain 56,683,477
Bush 62,040,610 Kerry 59,028,444
Bush 50,456,002 Gore 50,999,897
Clinton 47,402,357 Dole 39,198,755
Clinton 44,909,806 Bush 39,104,500
Bush 48,886,597 Dukakis 41,809,476

A win by 9 million vote is pretty good for presidential elections. It's not a game of Madden where if you beat the compter 40 - 0, then you didn't do very godd.:D

I'd have to find numbers for how much each of those campaigns earned before I read too much into that; we are talking about $600 million versus $84 million here.

[n3rdXcore]

I'd have to find numbers for how much each of those campaigns earned before I read too much into that; we are talking about $600 million versus $84 million here.

Does that really matter though? I don't see why how much money the candidates are able to raise is an issue. I think a bigger contributing factor to the popular vote is how the country was run the last eight years. That probably got a hell of a lot more people out to vote than some ads on TV.

[Generation ABXY]

Does that really matter though? I don't see why how much money the candidates are able to raise is an issue. I think a bigger contributing factor to the popular vote is how the country was run the last eight years. That probably got a hell of a lot more people out to vote than some ads on TV.

As spending was the original point of my comment (there was more to it than what the person above quoted), yes, it very much matters to me. In fact, your comment even makes it worse; by the sound of it, you're saying he had the "Bush factor" behind him and still had to spend a heck of lot more than McCain to get a slight lead in the popular vote. Do you find that comforting?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Y'know, I can't help but feel sad that McCain got the nomination now, instead of 8 years ago. He was a fine candidate, he just got to run in a race that was all about Obama.

[cassiusregicide]

I'd have to find numbers for how much each of those campaigns earned before I read too much into that; we are talking about $600 million versus $84 million here.

I understand that Obama spent a staggering amount of money, especially when compared to what McCain spent. My point is that the results we see from this isn't really that close. A 9 million person difference is a pretty big margin for a presidential election. Not every president gets a win like Nixon did in 1972.

[National Kato]

Y'know, I can't help but feel sad that McCain got the nomination now, instead of 8 years ago. He was a fine candidate, he just got to run in a race that was all about Obama.

Well, he was a fine candidate 8 years ago. This year? No. He was too far defined by the GOP party around him. I don't think he would've won against Clinton either. The country, as a whole, is moving away from the GOP as it now exists.

You can't just look at Obama. Seats in both houses went to the Democrats this year in the second wave of losses by the GOP.

[Generation ABXY]

I understand that Obama spent a staggering amount of money, especially when compared to what McCain spent. My point is that the results we see from this isn't really that close. A 9 million person difference is a pretty big margin for a presidential election. Not every president gets a win like Nixon did in 1972.

Perhaps. I just feel with as much as he had going for him, on top of his crazy ass spending, it should have been a clear landslide in the popular vote. We can agree to disagree on that, though; hopefully we won't disagree on the idea that his spending is something to watch when he gets in office.

[cassiusregicide]

Perhaps. I just feel with as much as he had going for him, on top of his crazy ass spending, it should have been a clear landslide in the popular vote. We can agree to disagree on that, though; hopefully we won't disagree on the idea that his spending is something to watch when he gets in office.

I definitely agree he used way more money than was necessary, but hind sight is twenty-twenty. If I was in the same position, I'm not sure I wouldn't have over-killed as well with the presidency at stake. I feel he went past the point of diminishing returns. There are only so many people that you can convince to vote for you based on commercials.

[ShivaX]

I actually would prefer if all anchors/pundits/whatever admitted their personal biases beforehand, so I can weight what they say fairly.

Thats why I actually like some of the guys CNN has on. You know the old Clinton guys are leaning left and the old Huckabee/Reagan guys lean right. Very few people they bring on claim to be neutral on everything. The few that do actively work to be so (and openly admit that they're human and try not to draw many conclusions on things). Blitzer, Cooper and the chick whos name escapes me come to mind as being pretty good at staying neutral.

Then theres guys like Larry King who just float in the direction of whoever they have on, but I wouldn't call them journalists.

[MagGnome]

The chick?

I assume you mean Campbell Brown? :p

[GunnyMo]

The chick?

I assume you mean Campbell Brown? :p

He's talking MSNBC not CNN. I know you don't like chicks but let's not start saying they all look alike. :p

[Widgetcraft]

He's talking MSNBC not CNN. I know you don't like chicks but let's not start saying they all look alike. :p

No, he's talking about CNN; I believe he is talking about Campbell Brown, who is both hot and a good anchor.

[GunnyMo]

No, he's talking about CNN; I believe he is talking about Campbell Brown, who is both hot and a good anchor.

Ah, my bad. Since Mags didn't do the quotey thing I thought he was referring to a previous version of "that chick" early in the thread.

[ShivaX]

No, he's talking about CNN; I believe he is talking about Campbell Brown, who is both hot and a good anchor.

Thats the one.

I don't watch MSNBC really, other than as a laugh when Olbermann is on.

[Generation ABXY]

Thats the one.

I don't watch MSNBC really, other than as a laugh when Olbermann is on.

Did you see the SNL spoof of him? One of the few times the show has been actually funny (though they have indeed been much better this year). :D

[cassiusregicide]

Did you see the SNL spoof of him? One of the few times the show has been actually funny (though they have indeed been much better this year). :D

Yeah, Ben Affleck was spot on with that impersonation. I watched that right after having finshed Countdown, and was almost in tears.