Not possible. The idelogical Left is far worse than the ideological
Right (which is pretty bad) in abandoning reason and honor in the
neverending quest for power... i.e., There is neither reason nor
intelligence being brought to bear from the Left (though both
certainly appear on an individual level) when it comes to political
matters. They just want to win at any cost.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm actually thinking more on the level of "the common man"... average
people that normally might not be that interested in politics or
current events, and wouldn't be considered ideologically extreme.
Among many otherwise regular people, there is the belief that GW (and
those around him) are both profoundly evil and/or profoundly stupid,
and that GW is personally the root cause of just about any happening
they believe to be "bad". For those "regular people", I don't think
it's about a quest for power. Actually I'd think a bit of "mob
mentality" might have something to do with it.
Interesting question - to tie it back to Jimmy Carter, I'm not sure either
really deserves their infamy.
I think the reaction to GW comes from the fact that he's the "Face man." As
such he gets to bask in the limelight of the astoungly effective Republican
PR machine. (Gets guaranteed standing ovations, mostly speaks only to
carefully picked audiences, almost never answers questions that aren't
vetted first, etc.) On the down side, that role makes him the lightning rod
for criticism every time someone in his administration does something wrong.
The lightning rod effect is probably magnified due to the efforts to make
him seem so heroic. Go around telling people how good or perfect you are
and you'll experience a similar increase in criticism.
The average person on the street probably doesn't follow politics much, but
in their eyes politicians over time tend to suffer from the death of a
thousand cuts as scandals and negatives start to stick. The key to
long-term success is to keep the positives outweighing the negatives. GW's
positives are pretty weak right now. Current opinion polls show a majority
of Americans don't approve of his handling of foreign or domestic issues.
And as for negatives, unless a person gets their news exclusively from a
Rupurt Murdoch owned outlet (FAUX news anyone?) there have been plenty of
negatives reported in the last five years:
There's loyalty oaths that had to be signed to see him during 2004,
responding slowly and poorly to the Katrina disaster, torturing POWs, secret
CIA prisons overseas, a screwed up invasion of Iraq, failure to bring Bin
Laden to justice, mass firings of people who disagree with GW, huge
deficits, jobs and capital going overseas in record amounts, and corruption
in congress. And now the NSA is spying on American citizens.
Bush isn't directly responsible for many of those things, but as 'CEO' and
face man he sets the tone for the administration, and the buck does stop at
Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you? If
you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all of
the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP
(hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim
from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact
that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on
staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant that
AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely
different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US I was
amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show.
Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY ATTENTION
NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my experiences
say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during 2004 it seemed like
every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the other channels did.
Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal, and seems to be aimed
purely at getting people angry. And their hosts make me nervous - Bill
O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by raging at and intimidating
people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't much more open minded.
As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at least I think they're
jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't agree with her. The
other news channels report bad things happening in Iraq and Fox prefers to
report how happy people are there. There's this bizarre circus atmosphere
to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're #1 I believe. Personally
I think it's a deer in the headlights phenomenon. Get people's hearts
pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and they'll keep watching.
After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I realize
that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since Americans
report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops invade
Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their homes." It's
just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same story as "US
Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued success."
There's a lot of spin in that headline.
Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from more than
just one source.
Last night, Forest Gump's 'Nam scenes showed up on my SIL's TV set as we
came in. Weird movie for Christmas Eve, but...who knows with teenagers.
Anyway, I thought during that part of the show that if today's reporters
were allowed to show the action in Iraq as the 'Nam reporters showed the
action back then, we'd already be out of Iraq.
But, hey, the media is biased. We can't ALLOW them to show real action that
results in real deaths and maiming because then...oh, right. Because then
parents and brothers and sisters and wives and children might insist on
better reasons for the bloodshed.
Merry Christmas all.
And for the nitwit who thinks I wouldn't have supported Roosevelt's actions
in WWII, learn something about people, life and the English language.
Mark--show some cites for some of your claims, and while you're doing that,
understand that being great and being perfect are two very, very different
Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is closer
to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS
Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the study
says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to
the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including
the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat
in Congress than the center."
Sure are, Timmy boy. Her statements like, "It might be fun to nuke Iran"
contain a major number of big words.
Any person in the public eye who makes that kind of statement consistently
is just going for shock value. She should get together with your buddy,
Howard Stern, maybe? Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
of ruling the world.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.