I must say, I find most of the talk about "change" and "hope" rather inane. Luntz keeps establishing that everyone's "for change" and then presses them on which candidate, for them, most embodies change. Toward the end of the clip, he asks which "messsage" — "hope" or "experience" — works better, and when "hope" wins, he asks whether it's fair to question whether Obama can "make hope happen." The question seems to defy the whole nature of "hope." Obama has already inspired hope. If you want more than that, you want something other than hope. If hope is enough, Obama is transcendently perfect.
ADDED: I think this video illustrates what people were reacting to. Note that the content is fine, but the way she looks and sounds sets off an emotional response in the human animal:
AND: The Anchoress surveys the reaction to Hillary and opines:
I watched the video and didn’t think she came off too shrewish. A little incoherent, desperate sounding and clearly angry - she must so ticked off that she is finding herself in this position when she was pretty sure she was gliding to a coronation - and I think I read somewhere a while back that her claims about insuring National Guardsmen are a stretch, but stretching is what Clinton’s do, so no one will care. Perhaps it played worse in the context of the whole debate, but to me this video does not seem like the “moment of implosion” which many are waiting for. I think she’s going to get a lot angrier before that happens.
Waiting for the woman to blow up. Is that wrong?
Posts
71 comments:
What's hope? All by itself, as an open-ended self-standing concept, what is hope? That's why people have religious beliefs, is it not? It just goes to show how the left conceptualizes itself and government ...
"Hope is not a plan." This is sometimes referred to as a 'reality statement', and reality is a bitch. Three degrees of separation. Works every time.
All this Obama-love just indicates the level of revulsion with the status quo, that so many people have placed such faith in someone so relatively inexperienced.
The resistance to Hillary Clinton in this focus group was astounding.
We used to breed horses and there was always such excitement and optimism about the possibilities of the foal. So, when I see all the enthusiam that Obama generates simply by being, I jokingly refer to him as "the foal". He's a repository for hopes and dreams and isn't so far along that you have to admit this creation isn't going to pan out like you'd hoped.
As shrill as Hillary seems in this clip, it's hard to fault the content of what she says.
Obama = colt
Edwards = gelding
Clinton = unrideable mare
Hillary combines the worst qualities of Nurse Ratched and Richard Nixon and a mean school principal. Seemingly everyone displays this visceral reaction to her.
I think the right strategy for Hillary is to distribute Obama dolls which smile broadly and then with a concealed spring mechanism bite you hard whenever you pick them up.
That should kill off the hope.
[T]he way she looks and sounds sets off an emotional response in the human animal.
Speaking of human animals, in that video clip she sounds like a hectoring chicken!
It’s one thing to get bent out of shape while defending someone else or while defending a principle. But it’s quite another thing to lose one’s cool defending one’s self.
Not a whole lot of people are looking to follow a leader who smells like fear.
Again and again and again, Hillary keeps harping about her thirty five years of public service and being a change agent. We have no proof of this and no record. No one has looked to verify any of it.
As to Hope. We tried that already. Some guy named Bill who was from Hope. He lives in New York because Hope does not want him back.
Ha, ha - Frank Luntz!
Lady, you so funny!!!
Guess the New Year's resolution to lay off the booze is over, huh?
Ha, ha - Frank Luntz!
Lady, you so funny!!!
Guess the New Year's resolution to lay off the booze is over, huh?
Luntz is an extremely committed right-wing political activist, devoted to advancing the conservative agenda and undermining Democrats. He uses his platform to support his agenda.
So Luntz is helping Obama... why?
Pull your theory together, Verso, so we can examine it.
Hillary looks like an exasperated parent scolding a petulant child and Edwards looks like a petulant child.
The more I see of Hillary, the more I see her as a Big Girl rather than a Woman. She has used her husband to get where she is today, lacking the principles and passion to claim a place in the public arena on her own. She just doesn't have the right stuff. That's okay, not everybody does, but I don't want a PTA president as the US president.
She bats her eyelashes and asks for pity in a president debate! Sweet Jesus! Bill calls her and Chelsea his girls. Bill's right.
Well, I watched the video -- with the sound off, because her voice annoys the hell out of me.
Going purely on body language, gestures, and expressions, my reaction was that she comes across much as Rudy Giuliani did in his response to Ron Paul's inane "Islamics" attack in the video Ann posted last night. She seems determined, animated, angry in places (but not overly so) -- nothing particularly bad at all. Maybe people are reacting to her voice?
Are we watching the final chapters of the Clinton soap opera?
"Hmm...our ratings are dropping. What can we do? Let's put the co-star in a leading role! Our viewers will love it!"
Eventually, every soap opera goes off the air because the viewers get tired of the characters, the show's ratings drop, and the sponsors find something better to spend their money on.
Ann,
I don't know if he is trying to help Obama. My real point is that Luntz is a conservative political activist, and for that reason, I don't trust him or his work product. I have been watching Luntz since he worked for Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" campaign in 1992 -- the one that rocked George HW Bush and helped to energize the social conservative base of the Republican party. That's when I got my first taste of his deeply held conservative viewpoints. He has been active in every election since, so my opinion of Luntz is based on a lot of exposure over a long period of time.
In his current Fox News incarnation, Luntz plays a neutral "scientist" role, but he's still a devoted conservative activist. (You can catch him with some frequency on C-SPAN, where he makes no secret of his political orientation.)
I can only speculate about how he uses his position to manipulate the outcome of his focus groups. There are a lot of things he could do that would be difficult or impossible to prove -- e.g., strategically putting the most passionately anti-Hillary people in the front row, then allowing them to dominate the dialogue.
Finally, I would just add that Luntz has twice been condemned by professional organizations in his field. He was censured by the National Council on Public Polls in 2000 for distorting the views of focus groups. He was previously reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research in 1997.
Bob said...
"Hillary combines the worst qualities of Nurse Ratched and Richard Nixon and a mean school principal. Seemingly everyone displays this visceral reaction to her."
I know a lot of people get that, but I don't understand why. She seems fine to me. Perhaps it's because I understand her frustration - her two opponents are running on claims that are largely spray cream, more air than substance, and she's frustrated that she can actually deliver what these two idiots are blathering about, they can't and won't, yet everyone seems to have fallen under Obama's spell (really it's about Obama; Edwards is there as window dressing and will disappear are he's irrelevant in New Hampshire).
On the other hand, that doesn't mean I support her. I share what I take to be Ann's reaction that recitation of "change" is vacuous and meaningless - it has no coherent content. "Change" by itself doesn't mean anything, so when candidates use that phrase, they hope their supporters hear "I'm for whatever changes YOU think are good" without committing themselves. It's disingenuous, and that goes for all three of them. Here's a parallel problem: When I fill out opinion polls, I hate the question "do you think America's going in the wrong direction," because if I answer it honestly and say "yes," I have a suspicion that the statistic itself - which is meaningless, because "change" is a velocity not a trajectory - will be taken to mean "this person's for the Democratic party's agenda" which is far from true. I'm all in favor of change. Some of the changes I want are, for example, to eliminate all federal entitlement spending, take universal healthcare off the table (at least at the federal level), replace the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court with judges who understand and respect the function of the federal judiciary in our system of government, and with regard to immigration, liberalize the immigration rules while cracking down on illegals and their employers (why should the amnesty supporters get to hog the term "comprehensive"?). If I'm for change, but those are the changes I want, is Hillary my candidate? Is Obama? Until you identify what changes you want to make, it's meaningless to ask which candidate can best deliver change.
On this tape, Hillary is a tad bit excited and more than a little strident.
Towards the end, she seemed to realize she was over the top and toned it down a bit.
Also, a commenter said "smells like death"? That is a good one!
Verso said...
"That's when I got my first taste of his deeply held conservative viewpoints."
Oh no - not deeply held viewpoints! As opposed to Obama's and Hillary's deeply held liberal viewpoints? As opposed to your deeply held viewpoints or mine?
Unlike Vesco I don't dislike Lutz or find any hidden agenda.
However, I do dislike "focus groups" in general just as I dislike exit "opinion polls" and questions from "undecided voters". It's all just the news media trying to influence what we think about the debates or the election.
I saw this constantly in the 1980s where ABC/NBC/CBS would come on after a Reagan victory and proclaim (based on some "exit opinion poll") that people were NOT endorsing Reagan's conservative policies, and Reagan did NOT have a mandate but blah blah.
Oh no - not deeply held viewpoints!
Oh, you're clevel, Simon, pretending that my problem is with "deeply held viewpoints" themselves.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not look to a committed partisan for supposedly objective, factual and scientific poll and focus group data.
As opposed to your deeply held viewpoints or mine?
I celebrate your right to hold your deeply held views, Simon, but I would never trust you to provide an objective analysis of anything.
You know at "the Corner" KLo published an opinion of a reader that said something to the effect-she'll lose the male vote because they've seen that look from their wives.
Welll that's kinda sexist isn't it?
Crap that look scared me 'cause I've seen it from my Mom.
I think it was an equal oppurtunity reaction getter.
I don't want her to "make change." I want her to make sense.
She doesn't have "35 years of change" behind her.
Her husband only has about 24 years of experience in elected office (1976-2000)!
I think there must be some kind of sexism underlying the reaction to Hillary. I heard Elenor Clift several years ago talking about the challenges women face when they appear on television debate programs. She said that when voices rise and everyone starts screaming, the women are at a disadvantage because a screaming man is being masculine and assertive -- manly. But when a woman does the same thing, she's a crazy bitch, hectoring, shrill.
Oh well. I suppose if those are the constraints -- fair or not -- a good candidate will acknowledge it (as Clift did), and adjust her presentation accordingly.
Let me also add-
I'm really not worried about all of these mannerisms of Hillary that go to the Nurse Ratchet aspect, or whatever.
I vote Republican all the way ( well except during primaries I vote for the most pro-military Democrat-I'ze outta luck this year)- and I have never hated Hillary.
I loathe the "hate" politics on both sides. Seems like Rudy and Hillary are catching some of the lightening of that "hate politics" that is always in the air.
So... the one thing during last night's debate that told me all those "characteristics" of a Nurse Ratchet type whatever can't be too all encompassing...
Did you see the way her daughter Chelsea looked at her?
That was a beautiful girl, a beautiful smile and that daughter loves her mother.
Hillary Clinton can't be all she's been characterized to be.
When I hit the arrow on the video, the white dots came spiralling out of Hillary's mouth.
Verso, now you know how we conservatives have felt about the MSM and academia (hostess excluded) for decades.
You avoided Ann's question: why would Luntz help Obama? Divide Democrats more than they are?
I have to agree about the sexism comment. Hillary doesn't look too angry to me; she looks not angry enough. What does this woman believe in, why is she running? Except for some archaic '60s-feminist "turn taking" careerism, I haven't a clue.
It's all the eyes. Her eyes are dead even when she's 'angry'.
Hillary, blow your stack, make us believe you believe in something!
So, if I am following the logic, Luntz is a right wing flunky, and as such whatever he was doing should be ignored, because he likely was trying to do something that was underhanded.
Even though no one can come up with a plausible idea as to what would be his rationale or his mission.
That sum it up?
You avoided Ann's question: why would Luntz help Obama? Divide Democrats more than they are?
I didn't avoid Ann's question. I said, "I don't know if he is trying to help Obama." I could speculate, but what would be the point of that? Here, I'll give you an example of me speculating: Maybe Luntz feels that Hillary would be the most formidable Democrat to run in the general election, so he rigs his focus groups to damage her as much as possible.
Let me know if you want me to speculate some more.
So, if I am following the logic, Luntz is a right wing flunky, and as such whatever he was doing should be ignored, because he likely was trying to do something that was underhanded.
Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of how I feel about Luntz. This conversation reminds me of the conservatives who get angry when it is pointed out that Fox News has a conservative bias. They hoot and holler at this observation, but there must be some reason why the conservatives like Fox so much. Likewise, Luntz has a conservative audience for a reason.
Even though no one can come up with a plausible idea as to what would be his rationale or his mission.
I can come up with a plausible idea about his rationale and mission: To advance the far-right agenda to which he is committed. He's devoted himself to Republican Party politics since he graduated from college. It's his life's work. He's not an objective political scientist. I'd trust him about as much as I suspect you'd trust James Carville doing the same work.
I heard Eleanor Clift
Poor you. Her raised voice is the most obnoxious sound on TV. McLaughlin must know that and chose her for that reason.
Hillary's problem is those Chicago vowels. Can't someone train her out of those?
Shrill, paranoid, and fighting dirty are all okay if in support of my issues. While I am in total disagreement with Hillary Clinton's domestic agenda, I don't believe she can accomplish much in that arena as president anyhow with a congress unable to act. (Or enact) I do trust her more on the foreign affairs front than either Edwards or Obama, so I will probably vote for her in the primary. As for the general election, I don't know yet.
I would add another thought: A lot of people (like me) can't stand the sound of George W. Bush's voice. It's because we detest the man and just about everything he stands for. If he wasn't George W. Bush, I don't think we would mind the sound of his voice so much. But the two are closely connected. I know quite a few people who cannot watch him on TV simply because they can't stand looking at him or listening to him.
Likewise with Hillary: there are a lot of people who have a deep and abiding dislike for her that is so complete and encompassing that it includes everything about her: her voice, her face, everything.
It's total antipathy.
Has anyone ever seen that old Danny DeVito movie, Ruthless People? DeVito plays Sam Stone, who hates his wife, and is trying to arrange to have her killed.
This bit of dialogue illustrates the point that when you hate someone (e.g., Hillary, Bush), then you hate everything about them:
------------------------------
Sam Stone: I had to live with that squealing, corpulent little toad all these years. God, I hate that woman. I - I - I hate the way she licks stamps! I hate her furniture! And I hate that little sound she makes when she sleeps.
[Sam imitates a whining nasal sound]
Sam Stone: Ugh! And that filthy little shitbag dog of hers...”Muffy"!
Carol: Aren't you scared?
Sam Stone: Scared? Hell, no. I'm looking FORWARD to it. My only regret, Carol, is that the plan isn't more violent.
------------------------------
I suppose the Hillary haters want us to believe that there is something inherently offensive about Hillary's voice, but when I hear those complaints, I am usually not surprised to find that they are committed Republicans who are politically opposed to the Clintons. For many people, there's a connection between how her voice sounds and their political viewpoint.
Change is not an empty slogan. It means actually getting done what Democrats want this electoral cycle. For example, universal health care.
The implication is that Clinton will not get things done -- or change anything -- because she is a corrupt insider in a broken Washington machine.
Her reply is, "You can't believe people promising change, because the only way you get change is by having a great resume." Except her resume isn't as great as she claims it is. Not to mention she only started using change rhetoric once Obama began crushing her.
Edwards has been running on economic populism, claiming that he wants to take on corporate greed that's killing our children, or whatever. But he too claims that he can change the status quo by acheiving certain goals. For example, universal health care.
So change is not an empty slogan. It's a way of saying "Hillary is a corrupt insider in a broken, elitist Washington system who gladly takes lobbyist money and who won't acheive any of the goals you want acheived -- like universal health care -- because it isn't in her interest to do so, and, if she tells you she will change the status quo, she's lying and obfuscating her positions."
That's why Hillary has to prove she has actually made some change in the past. Because if she hasn't done it before, there is no reason to believe she will do it in the future. Hillary is totally on the defensive, and the real problem is that few believe she wants to be President for any reason but to have the power. Not to give you universal health care, but just to have power. And her protestations to the contrary ring hollow and false.
In both speeches and debates, Obama and Edwards have explicitly stated, "I will shut down Guantanmo Bay as President." Hillary has not. That's a change they have promised that she has not. Implication: she won't do it. That's what this is about. Hillary refuses to commit to doing what Democratic voters actually want, Edwards and Obama have. Screaming about things just makes Hillary look even more power-mad.
I'm not sure she's gonna get out of this rhetorical box, because it ain't just rhetoric. No one really believes she wants to be President to help children, and she refuses to say what she wants to do in office other than have power and be female.
Some Bush supporters don't like to listen to him either, waiting for the next flubbed word in a passable speech, or a completely muffed and nonsensical extemporaneous comment (not enough attack dog). Four years (5, with the campaign) is enough for any politician to be in the national limelight.
Bill C's policies didn't grate on me too much--it was the utter banality of his speeches and their length, and his narcistic delight in giving them.
Hillary does not look like an exasperated parent scolding a petulant child.
Hillary is an exasperated parent who scolds a petulant child. His name is Bill.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not look to a committed partisan for supposedly objective, factual and scientific poll and focus group data.
This is a crock on so many levels. It shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the left. What you're basically defending is the ad hominem argument, which is logically fallacious no matter who does it.
Are you saying it is not possible for a professional researcher to separate his or her partisan leanings from what he or she does when on the job? Do you feel the same way about judges? Should I assume that any judge appointed by a Democrat is still working to carry out a Democratic agenda? How about doctors? If you found out your brain surgeon was a Republican, would you assume he's works harder to save Republican patients than Democrats?
You also show no understanding of what a good researcher needs to provide his or her clients. If they aren't objective, they don't have a career. Luntz' survey methodology was said to have greatly aided the GOP in the 90s. If it did, it's not because he told them what they wanted to hear. It's because he told them the truth as he was able to ascertain it.
You'd have more credibility and sound like less of a partisan hack if you could point to a specific thing Luntz did that you believe skewed the results.
Instead, you're babbling about what his motive might be, without any foundation. Luntz is no prophet. He doesn't know which of the Democratic candidates would be "stronger" in November, because he doesn't know who the Republican candidate is going to be. So, even if he did sandbag Hillary, how would he know now that doing so helps the Republicans?
Sorry to go on for so long, but nothing irritates me more than sweeping judgments backed up by incoherent thinking. Why not just say you don't like Luntz' focus groups because he looks like a dork? At least you'd have some foundation for that assertion.
I actually like Hillary BETTER after that debate retort. Too bad I wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. Well, under any circumstances other than Huckabee being the Republican candidate....
What is UP with all these inane, fatuous people objecting to "negative" comments (by which they mean candidates pointing out the wrong policies of other candidates)?
John you end with nothing irritates me more than sweeping judgments backed up by incoherent thinking
Before you wrote that, did it occur to you to look at your first paragraph: This is a crock on so many levels. It shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the left
Hypocrisy or self-irritation. I tire of the blanket statements of one group or another, starting with tightspotkilo's "Just goes to show how the left conceptualizes itself and government..."
Must you two be so lazy to lower to the generalizations that are based in nothing other than your own disaffection with people who don't share your ideology?
Boring.
Rossi,
Touche, I guess.
But I used to be on the left, and when I looked at the intellectual bank account and found it empty, I got upset. I comment on Althouse fairly often, and if you read any of them, you'll know nothing bugs me more than ad hominem arguments. It's so disappointing because you think you're in for an interesting exchange of views and then you run into the name-calling.
Look, my sentimental attachment to the Democratic party and the liberal side of the fence is still strong enough to where I badly want to vote for Obama. I want to believe he'll succeed as president where others have failed in modernizing our social safety net, particularly with regard to health care and education. But I'm constantly questioning if there's anything to him besides a gift for making speeches. I want to look in that vault and see some solid, fresh thinking on the left again.
The right's vault is running low, too, no doubt about it. But where the GOP debate was better was in its sobriety (for the most part). They take the world for what it is (except with regard to immigration, where their base is pushing them to adopt stupid policies).
To buy into the Democratic candidates' foreign & defense policies is sort of like the old Steve Martin routine about how to make a million dollars and not pay any taxes. "First, get a million dollars," the joke starts.
Verso: Would you trust a deeply committed Democratic partisan to provide an objective analysis of anything?
(I do think Luntz does have some particular issues--see your reference to to the '97 reprimand.)
Are you saying that ONLY those with either no deep commitments and/or no party affiliation can be trusted to provide an objective analysis of anything?
Because it seems to me that these things sort of need to follow, if you yourself are trying to--using the parameters you appear to be setting up--objectively analyze the analysts.
If you catch my drift, so to speak.
Full disclosure. I don't care for the public persona of Senator Clinton. My dislike goes way back to the co-presidency.
That said, last night she looked tired and angry most of the time. Completely understandable under the circumstances. I saw the debate live and didn't think her "melt-down" amounted to much. My guess is that Bill has weathered much, much worse.
Although I disagree with her politics, I think she did reasonably well, but she needed more of a break out to counter Senator Obama's big mo. She didn't come close in my view, but she didn't implode either--far from it.
All in all, both debates were instructive. ABC did a very good job. The debate, in my mind, drew surprisingly clear distinctions between almost all the candidates.
Hillary's presentation, including her voice etc., mostly doesn't bother me in the way I know it does other people. I "get" it in turns of what is turning off others, but it's not how I say it. (For example, I have some experience with "shrill," and I think she's bush league in that department. I do think this is primarily a "when a female does it" thing, unconsciously.)
In this PARTICULAR clip, I'd hazard to guess it's all that finger pointing and jabbing, as much as anything else, that's problematic. I wonder if, had she just refrained from that bit of repeated gesturing, this particular interlude would have been as strikingly off-putting to people as it certainly appears to be.
I wonder: Speaking solely in terms of presentation and the notion of hectoring, lecturing and shrillness, do the same people who find Hillary off-putting also find Ron Paul so? (Again, I'm speaking strictly of presentation.)
I "get" it in turns [terms] of what is turning off others, but it's not how I say [see] it.
Damn it, I CANNOT multi-task anymore. I should give it up and accept reality. A New Year's resolution in the making, perhaps?
Hillary should just concede "change" to Obama and Edwards. She can't position herself as anything other than an older and wiser Clinton Administration II.
But, she could argue, an older and wiser Clinton Administration II, combined with a Democratic Congress, is more likely to accomplish two or three major things in her first term.
All she's got to do is tell us what those two or three things will be.
John Stodder said:
This is a crock ... intellectual bankruptcy ... the left. ... ad hominem argument ... logically fallacious ... You also show no understanding ... You'd have more credibility and sound like less of a partisan hack ... you're babbling ... without any foundation. ... sweeping judgments backed up by incoherent thinking.
Thanks for the civil discourse! I'm sorry you are so angry. I trust Luntz to provide objective analysis as much as I suspect you'd trust James Carville in the same role.
I don't dispute that Luntz is good at what he does.
Would you trust a deeply committed Democratic partisan to provide an objective analysis of anything?
Anything? Sure, I'd trust them provide an objective analysis of the weather, or maybe the pros and cons of different brands of digital cameras. I would take their recommendations for good restaurants.
Would it be appropriate, in my opinion, to appoint a clearly committed political activist in charge of focus groups and polling? Never. How could you expect the audience to trust him?*
I think we all know that the right would never trust a liberal partisan in the same role. In fact, the right routinely casts far worse aspersions on journalists who are far less partisan. When the partisanship works to their advantage, they are less concerned.
This is like those Fox News enthusiasts who for some reason insist that Fox is "fair and balanced." They are attracted to it because it is explicitly conservative, but then for some inexplicable reason feel that they need to deny it.
*Ooops, I removed the point I had attached to the asterisk, but forgot to remove the aterisk.
Originally, the asterisk was going to say, "especially one who has twice been reprimanded by professional organizations for misconduct," or words to that effect, but I left it out because (a) it's not central to my point, and (b) I don't really know the details of Luntz's alleged misconduct except for what was reported in a couple of news articles.
Thanks for the civil discourse!
I guess I'm in a bad mood.
I would, however, trust James Carville implicitly to provide top-notch political analysis, so long as he wasn't being paid by a candidate in said campaign.
But Carville is not an apt comparison. He's not an opinion researcher. His expertise arises from his partisanship. A better comparison would be Peter Hart. He's a researcher like Luntz (although a lot older and more established), whose entire career has been involved with Democratic campaigns. The NBC/WSJ poll uses him, however, and I find him to be completely credible.
I guess I see researchers as different from other campaign workers. A good researcher should be able to tell his candidate the unvarnished truth, and I figure Luntz owes his success to being credible in that way.
Toward the end of the clip, he asks which "messsage" — "hope" or "experience" — works better, and when "hope" wins, he asks whether it's fair to question whether Obama can "make hope happen"
"Give Peace A Chance" was already taken?
Obama and Hillary only focus on these meaningless platitudes so they can distract with talk of "experience" and "hope"... instead of presenting a coherent foreign policy plan. Very convenient for them.
Whats the Democrat plan to fight radical Islam again? "Redeploy" to Pakistan? How's that idea looking these days?
Some Bush supporters don't like to listen to him either
I'm one of them. I also got tired of watching all his speech writers jump off the roof of my building.
Verso: I think we all know that the right would never trust a liberal partisan in the same role. In fact, the right routinely casts far worse aspersions on journalists who are far less partisan.
Telling line. I'll bet you see all kinds of bias with FOX, but nothing even close on ABC/CBS/NBC/AP/CNN etc.
This is like those Fox News enthusiasts who for some reason insist that Fox is "fair and balanced."
"Fair and balanced" means FOX allows both sides of the issue to be vigorously advocated. Unlike the rest of the MSM, where conservative responses are either censored by ommission, distorted, or presented by feeble has-been's like Buchanan.
They are attracted to it because it is explicitly conservative, but then for some inexplicable reason feel that they need to deny it.
No, I *was* attracted to it because it presented sides to stories that the MSM was covering up, keeping from the public [see CNN & Saddam's rape rooms, MSM not reporting on surge successes, etc].
But for a long time now [since Florida recount?] FOX has been devolving into an entertainment channel. Its worthless, so I don't understand why you are harping about it.
Verso - why should we trust you, then? You seem to make no bones about your left partisanship, therefore by your standards you cannot be objective...except maybe about your taste in cars or wines...which could be influenced by your politics in turn (e.g. GM vs Ford labor relations, French antiwar vs Australian prowar stance wrt vintners).
Furthermore, paradox 2:
if you can't trust Luntz, can a conservative? If I can't trust you, can some leftist troll like hdhouse? Is there a code so you, or I, know when our guy is lying and when not?
You are a creature of your passions and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you have a tropism to say whatever you think best for your own interests. Which itself is risky. What if Obama (Platonically, 'objectively') is in fact the best candidate? And you support Hillary b/c you don't trust Luntz? Maybe he's using reverse psychology on you!
Furthermore:
One attack on Pres. Bush is his campaign credo of 'humility' and non-nation-building. Briefly, I would say that 9/11 changed his outlook.
What if Obama, or HRC or whoever, gets in, and suddenly doesn't do what you want, or said that he or she would do, whether due to circumstance or to being a damned liar?
I know you'll suck it up externally, but will it hurt inside? Or will you just rationalize it away?
Excuse me - you'd, would, would. Hypotheticals require conditional tense.
Telling line. I'll bet you see all kinds of bias with FOX, but nothing even close on ABC/CBS/NBC/AP/CNN etc.
You're right. I see enormous bias on Fox News -- it's effectively part of the Republican Party. And it will get a lot worse between now and election day; it always does in election years.
And you're also right that I don't think the other networks are even close, although they do have a small handful of liberals, like Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams, and Anderson Cooper. I would contend that the difference is that Fox News is both malicious and dishonest, while the aforementioned liberals are partisan, but not dishonest. (I will grant that Olbermann is malicious.)
"Fair and balanced" means FOX allows both sides of the issue to be vigorously advocated.
Suffice it to say that I totally disagree.
Unlike the rest of the MSM, where conservative responses are either censored by ommission, distorted, or presented by feeble has-been's like Buchanan.
Basically what you have in Fox News is the Rush Limbaugh show for television. It wasn't long after the success of the Rush Limbaugh show that the Republican Party decided to launch a news network based on the same far-right formula.
No, I *was* attracted to it because it presented sides to stories that the MSM was covering up, keeping from the public [see CNN & Saddam's rape rooms, MSM not reporting on surge successes, etc].
From what I understand, during the period of the surge, Fox News covered the war less than any other television media. I will grant that when Fox News covers the war it does so in the fashion you would prefer, however.
But for a long time now [since Florida recount?] FOX has been devolving into an entertainment channel. Its worthless, so I don't understand why you are harping about it.
Fascinating. Are you just disgusted with it, or have you actually stopped watching it?
Because of course you will never be offended or betrayed by "your own."
Again, right partisans are dishonest, and mean, but left partisans are NOT dishonest. Occasionally mean.
Can't you smell yourself?
Verso - why should we trust you, then? You seem to make no bones about your left partisanship, therefore by your standards you cannot be objective...except maybe about your taste in cars or wines...
First: When did I ask you to trust me?
Second: I don't think you would trust anything I said, for the very reason that I am a liberal.
if you can't trust Luntz, can a conservative?
It depends whether he's being honest or not. If John Stodder is correct, then yes, conservatives can trust him. If my gut is correct and Luntz is shilling, then no, conservatives should not trust him.
What if Obama, or HRC or whoever, gets in, and suddenly doesn't do what you want, or said that he or she would do, whether due to circumstance or to being a damned liar? I know you'll suck it up externally, but will it hurt inside? Or will you just rationalize it away?
I love questions like this, which are, in effect, an elaborate form of "how stupid are you, anyway?"
What do you mean, will I "suck it up externally"?
I don't think you're actually interested in my answer, but here it is: People I have voted for HAVE done things I've disagreed with, and I do not hesitate to complain about it.
Because of course you will never be offended or betrayed by "your own."
What are you talking about?
I think Mort's comment above nails it. Exactly what had Ms. Clinton done? About as much as Senator Obama--which is to say: squat.
There is no substance to Ms Clinton--she hasnt done "35 years of making change;" she is married to the narcissistic, aging roue, who has managed to make her campaign about him. Ms. Clinton has also facilitated President Clinton's adventures.
Obama, lack of experience notwithstanding, at least articulates a vision--Platitudes? sure, but they resonate. Ms. Clinton does none of that.
Why am I beginning to think both republican and democratic conventions are going to end up as brokered conventions a la the 1950s. I dont see the primaries doing much except clouding the field. Of course, my earlier prediction was dismally wrong....
Verso said...
Because of course you will never be offended or betrayed by "your own."
What are you talking about?
5:57 PM
If I told you, would you believe me?
But I will tell you; obviously it continues my prior post, which ended in a discussion of how the how-stupid-are-you (ha) question was hypothetical.
I see enormous bias on Fox News
So you watch it a lot?
I agree with Fen, the old real news show is Brit's. O'R is only tolerable in small doses. I don't care about dead white girls.
The rest of their motto only appears on conservative TVs:
"Fair and Balanced ... by the rest of the media".
Verso: You're right. I see enormous bias on Fox News... And you're also right that I don't think the other networks are even close
Have you ever considered that its you? You're farther out in Left field than you would admit to.
the other networks...do have a small handful of liberals
What hysterical bias. No Verso, the correct statement is: the other networks do have a small handful of conservatives.
Basically what you have in Fox News is the Rush Limbaugh show for television. It wasn't long after the success of the Rush Limbaugh show that the Republican Party decided to launch a news network based on the same far-right formula.
You really dom't understand what you're talking about. Your notorious "far-right" formula is this: the MSM's conservative audience grew tired of being shut out and having their ideas censored. So, to exercise their Freedom of Expression, they started a parallel venue in AM radio, where they could exchange ideas and hear more honest discussion about issues that interested them.
Its hystercial that the "bias" of FOX news bothers you. Lets go over it again: CNN covers up Saddam's atrocities, censors them from you because they might cause you to agitate for the liberation of Iraq. And still you swallow whatever propganda they spoonfeed you. CBS deliberately use forged docs to help a Dem candidate who's falling in the polls, and still you trust them as your information broker. Can't you see the mote?
Fascinating. Are you just disgusted with it, or have you actually stopped watching it?
I stopped watching it shortly after the 2000 recount. The only show I try to follow is Brit Hume's [with Mara Liason of the far right-wing NPR...]
The rest is all about the celebrity underwear-sniffing rubberneck: "Chandra and Gary Conduit have some kind of S&M thing going, Greta interviews Natalie's cousin's maid, Britney's no-panty follies". Its junk.
Short version: bash FOX news all you want, your perspective is about 6 years out of date.
Fen,
I can tell you are confident in your arguments because you lace them with insults. Less confident people would likely just stick to the discussion and forgo the personal attacks.
Also, please provide a link to your evidence for the claim that CNN's motive was to prevent people from agitating for the liberation of Iraq. I'm sure you'll be able to prove that one easily.
Also, when you get a chance, please attempt to back up your claim that I am far "out in Left field." I'm dying to see the substance you can bring to bear to prove that point.
I can tell you are confident in your arguments because you lace them with insults
I haven't insulted you.
Also, please provide a link to your evidence for the claim that CNN's motive was to prevent people from agitating for the liberation of Iraq.
CNN never admitted to motive. Their spin was they were afraid of losing "access" to Saddam. You swallowed that?
Also, when you get a chance, please attempt to back up your claim that I am far "out in Left field." I'm dying to see the substance you can bring to bear to prove that point.
Your own arguments here provide the substance - its never crossed your mind that CNN et al are more biased and farther from the center than FOX. The concept is anathema to you. You've been so coccooned from conservative thought by a Monopoly of Misinformation that your entire perspective is skewed.
But prove me wrong: do you even understand conservative issues enough to fairly represent them, even its only while playing Devil's advocate? Take the war - if the MSM has presented a fair reporting of the war, you should be able to muster the arguments in support of it. Can you?
How interesting -- a challenge.
Yes, I could easily repeat the arguments in favor of the war.
I have limited time as I work for a living, and this is Monday morning, but first let me tell you that I am absolutely saturated with right-wing media. I have listened to right-wing talk radio for years, on a daily basis. I have watched Fox News extensively. I have watched extensive coverage of the Republican presidential candidates on Fox News. I live in a small, extremely conservative town in a Congressional District that votes 70% Republican. Virtually every person in my town is a Republican -- especially where I work, where the 30% of Democrats are apparently afraid to stick their necks out and reveal themselves, much the way conservatives in urban centers learn to keep their feelings to themselves.
The most compelling reason in favor of continuation of the war is that leaving Iraq would be heralded by Al Qaeda as a defeat for America, and would encourage them to redouble their efforts against us.
The most commonly offered reason in the last six months: We're winning.
Other reasons: (1) Leaving Iraq would be a betrayal of those Iraqis who've helped us. (2) Leaving Iraq would unleash mass slaughter like the Cambodia genocide that followed the liberal Democrat retreat from Vietnam. (3) Leaving Iraq would betray the sacrifice of our fighting men and women. (4) Leaving Iraq would allow Iran to dominate the region and could threaten our oil supply.
How'd I do?
I have watched extensive coverage of the Republican presidential candidates on Fox News.
Oops, I meant to say "on C-SPAN."
Post a Comment