Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[Hepth]

Today's email from the Obama 2012 campaign stated (my bold)

"Now that each and every Senate Republican has vowed to block measures that would create jobs, President Obama is not going to wait for them to rebuild the economy and bring financial security back to the middle class."

Has the President been waiting for Republicans to rebuild the economy?

Is this a joke or is does your viewpoint actually skew how you read things so much that you interpreted that statement to mean he has been waiting for "republicans to rebuild the economy" rather than "waiting for republicans" to then, with them, go rebuild the economy.

When I wait for my friend to go to a concert, I'm not waiting for him to tell me about it the next day, but rather to meet with him so I can then go and do the said action.

This is a good reason for people to not read this thread.

 

[mege]

Is this a joke or is does your viewpoint actually skew how you read things so much that you interpreted that statement to mean he has been waiting for "republicans to rebuild the economy" rather than "waiting for republicans" to then, with them, go rebuild the economy.

When I wait for my friend to go to a concert, I'm not waiting for him to tell me about it the next day, but rather to meet with him so I can then go and do the said action.

This is a good reason for people to not read this thread.

I think WhoWee is pointing out the overt political motivations in the Presidents every word.

It's interesting to think: what did the President and the Democrat controlled congress do for their two years of near total power, but now that Republicans are gaining steam again - everything that has happened is their fault per the President. Not a very good atmosphere to be working hand-in-hand.

Lastly, there is an intrinsic idictment of politicians that they have to react to a crisis. I applaud this 'do nothing' congress - why do we need more tax money spent, regulations leveled, and failed policies? It's unfortunate that 'doing nothing' is considered such a horrible negative, and I feel is part of our overall political decline. Maybe all of the action that the government has taken in reaction IS part of the problem.

edit - Either way you look at it, though, the President has been waiting - so the statement is pure posturing. He's not afraid to maverick policies, as he's said in his own words, so why stop? (A: he wants to hold this over the Republicans as long as possible)

 

[daveb]

It's interesting to think: what did the President and the Democrat controlled congress do for their two years of near total power...

Near total power? I would hardly call even a 60-40 split in the senate near total power - all it takes is one democrat not voting party line to keep a filibuster going).

 

[turbo]

Right now, Obama is playing rope-a-dope with the Republicans. By laying out his jobs proposal in smaller bits, he's exposing the GOP's ruthlessness and lack of compassion for average working people. The Senate GOP killed his infrastructure proposal which would have provided thousands of badly-needed jobs rebuilding roads and bridges. These jobs would not only have been in highway departments and their contractors, but in suppliers of asphalt, concrete, steel, etc.

The reason for killing the infrastructure bill? Opposition to a 0.7% surcharge on incomes over $1M. The GOP wants to keep the economy in the ditch until the 2012 election, to try to get rid of Obama, but they are miscalculating. A year from now, the Democrats can hammer the Republicans for their refusal to pass a badly-needed jobs bill, and how many voters will have much sympathy for people making more than $1M/year that the Republicans needed to protect from that onerous 0.7% tax increase?

Grover Norquist will severely damage the Republican party, and by next year's election, we'll see how badly.

You can label this whole post IMO, just to fend off the inevitable.

 

[WhoWee]

Right now, Obama is playing rope-a-dope with the Republicans. By laying out his jobs proposal in smaller bits, he's exposing the GOP's ruthlessness and lack of compassion for average working people. The Senate GOP killed his infrastructure proposal which would have provided thousands of badly-needed jobs rebuilding roads and bridges. These jobs would not only have been in highway departments and their contractors, but in suppliers of asphalt, concrete, steel, etc.

The reason for killing the infrastructure bill? Opposition to a 0.7% surcharge on incomes over $1M. The GOP wants to keep the economy in the ditch until the 2012 election, to try to get rid of Obama, but they are miscalculating. A year from now, the Democrats can hammer the Republicans for their refusal to pass a badly-needed jobs bill, and how many voters will have much sympathy for people making more than $1M/year that the Republicans needed to protect from that onerous 0.7% tax increase?

Grover Norquist will severely damage the Republican party, and by next year's election, we'll see how badly.

You can label this whole post IMO, just to fend off the inevitable.

Turbo - the first stimulus - passed by a Democrat majority - was supposed to do all of these things - wasn't it? Also, the Republicans control the House - not the Senate - where Harry Reid is blocks the majority of their initiatives.

 

[WhoWee]

Near total power? I would hardly call even a 60-40 split in the senate near total power - all it takes is one democrat not voting party line to keep a filibuster going).

All it takes is 1 Democrat - Harry Reid - to obstruct holding a vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/reid-blocks-vote-jobs-bill-while-obama-blasts-193308476.html

"Moments after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, blocked a Republican motion in the Senate to vote on President Obama's jobs bill, the president's re-election campaign sent out an e-mail blasting House Republicans for not voting on the proposal.

Friend --
President Obama is in Dallas today urging Americans who support the American Jobs Act to demand that Congress pass it already.
Though it's been nearly a month since he laid out this plan, House Republicans haven't acted to pass it. And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is out there actually bragging that they won't even put the jobs package up for a vote -- ever.
It's not clear which part of the bill they now object to: building roads, hiring teachers, getting veterans back to work. They're willing to block the American Jobs Act -- and they think you won't do anything about it."

When turbo stated "Right now, Obama is playing rope-a-dope with the Republicans. By laying out his jobs proposal in smaller bits, he's exposing the GOP's ruthlessness and lack of compassion for average working people. The Senate GOP killed his infrastructure proposal which would have provided thousands of badly-needed jobs rebuilding roads and bridges. These jobs would not only have been in highway departments and their contractors, but in suppliers of asphalt, concrete, steel, etc. " he forgot to mention this - or didn't know it happened?

 

[Lapidus]

WhoWee, what exactly do you want the President to do?

What would the economy get going again?

 

[russ_watters]

This isn't a thread for discussion of how to fix the economy (there are several open or you can start one), it is a thread for discussion of issues that may effect Obama's campaign.

 

[daveb]

You forgot the statement from your link (my bold)

Meanwhile, the White House has refused to say whether it supports the China bill Mr. Reid has prioritized ahead of the jobs measure.

Reid didn't kill it, he delayed it. Yes, Obama's campaign probably shouldn't have chided the Republicans, if that's your point.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, what exactly do you want the President to do?

What would the economy get going again?

As Russ indicated - there are better threads for this discussion and the answer is complicated.

Personally, I think President Obama relied too much on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to lead during the first part of his term. They funded the entire Democrat wish list - and it's failed. The healthcare Bill was pushed through by Reid and Pelosi without allowing time for the final version to be read. President Obama made promises about the healthcare legislation process that they ignored - and he did nothing to control them - did he?

Since Pelosi lost the House, President Obama has resorted to blaming House Republicans for all our problems - he's been in campaign mode since the 2010 elections, basically making promises and demonizing Republicans. Given his background as a community organizer it makes sense - it's his strength. Likewise, President Obama entered office with no business or administrative experience. His partial Senate term can be summarized as voting present - when present - IMO of course.

Now, the economy is stalled due to uncertainty. The healthcare legislation may or may not stand - companies don't know what to do? Taxes may increase greatly - or not change at all - businesses and investors don't know what to do? The President's "green" initiatives are going bankrupt, not creating jobs and driving the economy as promised.

Republicans want to control Government spending and he claims they are for dirty air and water. President Obama first demonized "rich people" who earn $250k per year - then changed the focus to millionaires and billionaires - the top 1%. Actually, it could be argued President Obama owns the Occupy Wall Street movement given their adoption of the 1% theme - even though he received more donations from Wall Street than most candidates.

The President needs to focus less on sales and more on operations. The country is borrowing $.40 of every $1.00 spent - and he wants to increase spending (IMO) to secure votes. Leaders lead and community organizers give speeches and engage in rhetoric - again IMO.

 

[daveb]

Personally, I think President Obama relied too much on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to lead during the first part of his term.

Jimmy Carter would probably agree with you. I saw an interview where he mentioned that any time he wanted some piece of legislation, he would have the White House write it, then give it to someone in Congress to introduce. He claimed Obama should have done the same thing with Health Care (yet some people still insist on calling it ObamaCare?)

They funded the entire Democrat wish list - and it's failed. The healthcare Bill was pushed through by Reid and Pelosi without allowing time for the final version to be read. President Obama made promises about the healthcare legislation process that they ignored - and he did nothing to control them - did he?

I'm guessing he (wrongfully) assumed Congress would do its job, rather than trying to browbeat Congress into submission.

Since Pelosi lost the House, President Obama has resorted to blaming House Republicans for all our problems - he's been in campaign mode since the 2010 elections, basically making promises and demonizing Republicans. Given his background as a community organizer it makes sense - it's his strength.

I also think that, now that he is trying to browbeat Congress, and Pelosi and Reid are (somewhat) following his lead, the only ones left to blame (in his eyes) are the Republicans. It's easy to

 

[Lapidus]

This isn't a thread for discussion of how to fix the economy (there are several open or you can start one), it is a thread for discussion of issues that may effect Obama's campaign.

I make the bold statement that fixing or improving the economy is Obama's main strategy for his reelection 2012.

 

[WhoWee]

I think President Obama is going to be dealing with more than the economy in this election. There are bound to be some questions about Solyndra and other failed initiatives and I'm sure this will come up in a debate:

my bolds
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...zine-jersey-guv/story?id=8969319#.TrP27vQoExw

"Nov. 1, 2009
President Obama swept into New Jersey today, headlining two campaign rallies for Gov. Jon Corzine in an eleventh-hour attempt to help the embattled Democrat pull out a once-unthinkable victory in the state's closely watched governor's race.

Obama spoke in the Democratic bastions of Camden and Newark, trying to convince voters who turned out for him in droves in 2008 to do the same for Corzine on Election Day this Tuesday.

"He's one of the best partners I have in the White House. We work together," Obama told a rally of 3,500 people in Camden. "We know our work is far from over."

Corzine reinforced the theme, calling Obama "our friend, our partner," and added, "I'm here to ask you a simple question: Are you ready to keep it going? ... Today I am standing with President Obama. That tells you everything you need to know.""

This was only 24 months ago - now Corzine is back in the headlines:

"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-sunlight-foundation/corzine-mf-global-fed-investigation_b_1074231.html?ref=business"[/I]

"Late last year MF Global -- the failed investment firm headed by Democratic heavyweight Jon S. Corzine that can't account for as much as $900 million of its clients' money -- urged a federal agency to allow futures firms to invest funds from their customer segregated accounts in foreign sovereign debt.

In a December 2010 comment letter to the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC), MF Global, along with another firm, Newedge, argued that the agency's proposal to disallow such investments "is unnecessary, and will eliminate a liquid, secure, profitable and necessary category of investment... no foreign country that actually defaulted on its debt resulted in any [futures commission merchant] being unable to return funds to its customers upon request."

MF Global filed for bankruptcy earlier this week after its exposure to the European debt crisis pushed it over the edge of solvency. The firm is also now the subject of investigations by several federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which among other things are investigating whether or not the firm misused customer money.

In its proposed rule, the CFTC had noted "recent global financial volatility" caused the agency to reevaluate its policy of allowing certain investments in foreign sovereign debt. "The financial crisis has highlighted the fact that certain countries' debt can exceed an acceptable level of risk." The agency extended the comment period for this regulation through June and has not yet issued a final rule.

MF Global to CFTC: proposal to restrict investment in foreign sovereign debt is "unnecessary, and will eliminate a liquid, secure, profitable and necessary category of investment."
MF Global's comment letter is just one of numerous communications the firm had with federal agencies over implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, according to meeting logs maintained by federal agencies combined and posted on the Sunlight Foundation's Dodd-Frank Meeting Log tracker. Corzine, a leading Wall Street fundraiser for President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign, met personally with agency staff on at least four occasions, one of those a conference call that included CFTC chairman Gary Gensler. Overall, MF Global staff, including Corzine, met with agency officials ten times, all but one of those meetings with the CFTC.

Among the topics discussed at these meetings were Dodd-Frank provisions on "segregation and bankruptcy," which seek to protect customer funds in the event of a bankruptcy."


The close relationship between President Obama, the timeline of events, and the discussions of Dodd-Frank are going to come under great scrutiny - IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

I make the bold statement that fixing or improving the economy is Obama's main strategy for his reelection 2012.

Do you believe the voters will conclude he's succeeded at that? I believe that Obama has failed at that in the eyes of most voters ad he knows it and will have a hard time coming up with a coherent strategy to deal with that.

He's in a very sticky situation and it will be interesting to see how (if) he characterizes the past 4 years of his record.

 

[Lapidus]

As Russ indicated - there are better threads for this discussion and the answer is complicated.

Personally, I think President Obama relied too much on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to lead during the first part of his term. They funded the entire Democrat wish list - and it's failed. ...

Ok, I ask you what should Obama do to get the economy going. Getting the economy back on its feet should be Obama's best strategy for reelection. Actually his only one, because if the economy stays the way it is right now and the Republican don't blow it completely he will lose the election.

As I read and understand your post, he needs to create more certainty so that companies will be again more eager to invest.

Now, the economy is stalled due to uncertainty. The healthcare legislation may or may not stand - companies don't know what to do? Taxes may increase greatly - or not change at all - businesses and investors don't know what to do? The President's "green" initiatives are going bankrupt, not creating jobs and driving the economy as promised.

How should he exactly remove this uncertainty? Do you really believe that the sluggish economy is because of uncertainty of future tax increases?

Also, you claim he needs to demonize less rich people and should spend less.

President Obama first demonized "rich people" who earn $250k per year - then changed the focus to millionaires and billionaires - the top 1%.

How and where has he demonized rich people? How would that tax which would be spent on building infrastructure hurt the economy?

The rest of your post was the community-organizer-no experience-Nany Pelosy-blaming-Republicans-he is Jimmy-Carter blah-blah-blah..

Unfortunately no further hints how to solve the recession, the high unemployment and the high defict with a Congress at hand that opposes everything the Obama proposes.

Again the question, what must Obama do to get the economy growing again and the unemployment figures to drop so he can increase his chances for reelection in 2012?

 

[WhoWee]

How and where has he demonized rich people?

Are you serious?

 

[Vanadium 50]

WhoWee, you have posted many small speedbumps the administration has run into in this thread. I don't think this is going to change anyone's mind about who to vote for, nor that it will play a big role in the re-election strategy. I see that the president has three major problems he needs to get past:

1. The economy. It's bad, he was hired in part to fix it, and he promised that his policies would keep unemployment below 9%. They didn't.
2. He's a terrible speaker. This goes against the mainstream narrative, but ask yourself: who has been convinced to change his or her mind by a speech of his? His speeches don't sway opinions - they merely energize those who already have opinions. Worse, if the opinion was negative to begin with, they inflame rather than persuade.
3. His friends. When Nancy Pelosi all but calls him a liar and when Harry Reid says that the private sector is doing just fine - we need to help the public sector - he surely reaches for a bottle of aspirin. (Warren G. Harding would understand)

Now, in every election, there are four groups that matter:

1. Your base.
2. Independents who voted for you last time.
3. Independents who didn't vote for you last time.
4. Your opponent's base.

Group 4 is hopeless. Group 3 is often overlooked. It does exist, otherwise people would never get more votes in their second term than their first. The Obama campaign and administration did their best to alienate these people right away: the "Yes we did" signs and bumper stickers, the famous "I won; get over it" (which isn't an exact quote, but sometimes the meme is stronger than the reality), calling the Right "enemies". In retrospect it would have been much smarter in the 1st 100 days for the President to reinforce the idea "Even if you didn't vote for me, I'm your President, and I am working for you to make this country better. We both want the same thing, even though we disagree about how to do it". Instead he called them enemies, and now he need their votes.

Support in Group 2 and in Group 1 are both waning, and this is a big problem, because its for different reasons. Both groups agree that the economic plan isn't working, but Group 2 is largely defecting because they think the administration is going too far and Group 1 is largely defecting because they think the administration is not going far enough. Getting them both on board together will be difficult. One strategy is to go very negative and campaign with the message, "I am not perfect, but my opponent is far, far worse", but this will collect only some of Group 2 (many who supported him in 2008 because of the hope of post partisanship) and will repel some of Group 3.

He will have a difficult time balancing all these competing interests in such a way as to gain a majority.

I hate to say it, because the man repels me, but Mr. Obama needs someone like Karl Rove. For all Rove's faults, of which there are many, he did one thing extraordinarily well: for each policy position, he knew how many votes it would gain and how many it would lose. In that regard, he served Mr. Bush very, very well.

 

[Lapidus]

Nice post, Vanadium.

One of Obama main problems is indeed that group 1 thinks he has gone not far enough and group 2 thinks he went too far. For some he is no better than Bush, paid by Wall Street, a Republican light and someone who gives in on everything. For others he is a socialist, unamerican, a far-left liberal and someone who tries to divide the country wherever he can.

Also, I think group 4 will go to the polls and vote Republican no matter what. Even vote for Romney, though most conservatives can't stand him. They just can't accept a Democratic president.

Whereas group 1 always needs to be more convinced to vote a Democratic president, because many of group 1 often do not see the difference between a Democratic and a Republican president, or do not bother.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, you have posted many small speedbumps the administration has run into in this thread. I don't think this is going to change anyone's mind about who to vote for, nor that it will play a big role in the re-election strategy. I see that the president has three major problems he needs to get past:

1. The economy. It's bad, he was hired in part to fix it, and he promised that his policies would keep unemployment below 9%. They didn't.
2. He's a terrible speaker. This goes against the mainstream narrative, but ask yourself: who has been convinced to change his or her mind by a speech of his? His speeches don't sway opinions - they merely energize those who already have opinions. Worse, if the opinion was negative to begin with, they inflame rather than persuade.
3. His friends. When Nancy Pelosi all but calls him a liar and when Harry Reid says that the private sector is doing just fine - we need to help the public sector - he surely reaches for a bottle of aspirin. (Warren G. Harding would understand)

Now, in every election, there are four groups that matter:

1. Your base.
2. Independents who voted for you last time.
3. Independents who didn't vote for you last time.
4. Your opponent's base.

Group 4 is hopeless. Group 3 is often overlooked. It does exist, otherwise people would never get more votes in their second term than their first. The Obama campaign and administration did their best to alienate these people right away: the "Yes we did" signs and bumper stickers, the famous "I won; get over it" (which isn't an exact quote, but sometimes the meme is stronger than the reality), calling the Right "enemies". In retrospect it would have been much smarter in the 1st 100 days for the President to reinforce the idea "Even if you didn't vote for me, I'm your President, and I am working for you to make this country better. We both want the same thing, even though we disagree about how to do it". Instead he called them enemies, and now he need their votes.

Support in Group 2 and in Group 1 are both waning, and this is a big problem, because its for different reasons. Both groups agree that the economic plan isn't working, but Group 2 is largely defecting because they think the administration is going too far and Group 1 is largely defecting because they think the administration is not going far enough. Getting them both on board together will be difficult. One strategy is to go very negative and campaign with the message, "I am not perfect, but my opponent is far, far worse", but this will collect only some of Group 2 (many who supported him in 2008 because of the hope of post partisanship) and will repel some of Group 3.

He will have a difficult time balancing all these competing interests in such a way as to gain a majority.

I hate to say it, because the man repels me, but Mr. Obama needs someone like Karl Rove. For all Rove's faults, of which there are many, he did one thing extraordinarily well: for each policy position, he knew how many votes it would gain and how many it would lose. In that regard, he served Mr. Bush very, very well.

my bold
I think the "speedbumps" are the real problem for President Obama - as long as they are factual and can't be glossed over with a cute slogan or deflection. These speedbumps should be the gravity for all debates.

For instance> Yes President Obama, under your watch Bin Laden WAS eliminated (great effort by the SEALS) - but what happened with Pakistan that they let the Chinese inspect our downed aircraft? Now let's talk about "Fast and Furious" and your Attorney General, etc. Yes, Mr. President the former President Bush had the "wide receiver" program but it was controlled and no US agents were killed with the weapons involved - unlike your "Fast and Furious" operation where a US agent was murdered with a gun that got away from you - now let's talk about your Attorney General's testimony in front of Congress - didn't you promise transparency?

The Republican that keeps all of the little speedbumps on the table will take his offensive game away. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have this ability - not sure about Cain and Perry. I don't think anyone listens to Bachmann anymore?

As for his speaking abilities - I understand your points. However, I think you left something out - Obama is the President of the United States (not just his base) and whether he likes business owners or professional managers, or any Republicans (at all?) - he is our elected leader and WE ALL WANT TO BELIEVE HIM. He has the advantage, but I think he's losing credibility every time he goes in front of Congress or talks about the obstructionists in Congress. The Republicans have controlled a majority in the House for only 1/3 of his term - Harry Reid has controlled the Senate the entire time.

 

[WhoWee]

How might President Obama explain this peek behind the curtain?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html

"The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders' microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public."


Jewish support was already on the decline.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ets-poll-shows-grumpy-takes-wars-economy.html
"Jewish support for Obama plummets as poll reveals gloom on wars and economy"

 

[ThinkToday]

How might President Obama explain this peek behind the curtain?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html

"The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders' microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public."


Jewish support was already on the decline.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ets-poll-shows-grumpy-takes-wars-economy.html
"Jewish support for Obama plummets as poll reveals gloom on wars and economy"

Liberal media will never report anything like this. Remember Quail taking a beating for years over spelling potato(e), but not a word about Obama talking about the 57 States. And no, I didn’t see one word about the open mic talk on “main stream media”.

Obama strat in 2012 is to use the liberal media to overwhelm the truth with predictions of rose colored skies. The Israelis know Obama's rose colored sky is the remnants of nukes dropping on their homeland. As Joe Biden would say "This is a big F...ing deal"

 

[WhoWee]

Liberal media will never report anything like this."

Actually, the New York Times picked this up - a response might be expected - one more speed bump IMO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/w...-sarkozy-calls-benjamin-netanyahu-a-liar.html

"“You are fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” Mr. Obama replied, according to reports that have been flooding the main Israeli news sites on Tuesday."

The direct quote is slightly varied - translation inconsistency?

 

[Char. Limit]

Liberal media will never report anything like this. Remember Quail taking a beating for years over spelling potato(e), but not a word about Obama talking about the 57 States. And no, I didn’t see one word about the open mic talk on “main stream media”.

Obama strat in 2012 is to use the liberal media to overwhelm the truth with predictions of rose colored skies. The Israelis know Obama's rose colored sky is the remnants of nukes dropping on their homeland. As Joe Biden would say "This is a big F...ing deal"

I like this guy. He makes WhoWee seem liberal.

 

[WhoWee]

I like this guy. He makes WhoWee seem liberal.

Easy there...

 

[daveb]

I like this guy. He makes WhoWee seem liberal.

I see WhoWee more Libertarian than conservative (at least so far), but...yeah.

 

[Char. Limit]

I see WhoWee more Libertarian than conservative (at least so far), but...yeah.

I didn't say "non-conservative", though. I said liberal. My joke still stands.

 

[WhoWee]

I didn't say "non-conservative", though. I said liberal. My joke still stands.

WhoWee is an unrepresented angry independent small business moderate conservative - a husband and father of 4 kids, 2 pups, and a cat named Whalebone - if you really want to know?

 

[lisab]

Liberal media will never report anything like this. Remember Quail taking a beating for years over spelling potato(e), but not a word about Obama talking about the 57 States. And no, I didn’t see one word about the open mic talk on “main stream media”.

Here, let me google that for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/world/europe/france-sarkozy-netanyahu/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45203101#.TrncwEMUq7s

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/sarkozy-netanyahu-liar_n_1081385.html

Please make sure your statements are accurate before posting them.

 

[ThinkToday]

WhoWee is an unrepresented angry independent small business moderate conservative - a husband and father of 4 kids, 2 pups, and a cat named Whalebone - if you really want to know?

Former Democrat, little bit Libertarian, mostly conservative, very slightly liberal on a couple issues, family man with 2 kids, one corgi, that's been working steady since I got a workers permit at age 15 forty years ago. I believe in personal responsibility, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, depend on yourself and take care of your family, and the best thing government can do is get out of the way.

 

[ThinkToday]

Here, let me google that for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/world/europe/france-sarkozy-netanyahu/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45203101#.TrncwEMUq7s

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/sarkozy-netanyahu-liar_n_1081385.html

Please make sure your statements are accurate before posting them.

Yep, I missed those posts.

Yes, my comment was accurate, because I did comment on the news I saw. I do watch all the major networks and Huffington I don't care about. For example, do you really think bashing Quail repeatedly over months for a spelling error is comparable coverage to mentioning Obama's slip hardly once. I bet more people would put an "e" on potato than say there were 57 states. That's what it seems like to me. For example, the scale of the negative coverage of the Tea Party is far greater than the negative coverage of OWS, even though OWS protests have been far more violent, costly and disruptive (e.g. Port shutdown). Do you really think the "news" media is balanced? In the old days you had "news" and commentary, and now its news commentary. Do you really think Palin’s and Obama’s experience was equally compared? I saw Palin’s time in local government and as governor treated as a joke. Obama’s time as Senator, largely spent in campaign mode with zero significant legislation authored was portrayed positively.