OCinBuffalo Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Taking a "use case" approach to the media's handling of Obama: Case 1: You liked him, and thought he was not only competent, but, uniquely smart, exciting and transformational, etc...in which case the the media has been the enfeebler-in-chief. This past debate tells you all you need to know about the media not doing its job, rooting, and forgiving every Obama mistake. He hasn't had a tough interview in years...not months. The antiquated media hasn't kept Obama in fighting shape, and he got whipped. How happy are you with your media outlets right now? And, it's not just the old media: Any Case 1 people wanna go read huffingtonpost/salon, and hear the 50 different ways in which Obama will crush Romney in the next debate? MSNBC was saying "we have this debate every night". No you don't, Chris Tingle. What you have is the spawning point for "Obama failed at this today...and instead of addressing that...we are going to repeat: 'Republicans hate(group/race/gender here)'"...and distract the entire Democratic party from its latest failure(um, 2010? Wisconsin? anyone? Beuller?), holding itself responsible, and learning from it. And, you wonder why you can't even beat Guliani in a debate, even after he misspeaks twice during it? Guliani was laughing at you, and he was right to, because scorn is all your "channel of debate" currently deserves. Guliani: "Wanna try another?" ROFL Case 2: You hated him, and not only had real concerns about his experience and governing ability, but thought you smelled phony, etc...in which case the media has been the enabler-in-chief. Who doesn't understand the damage caused by enablers...however well-meaning or wishful? Obama, even after the 2010 whipping, has been coddled to believe that no consequence matters, and as long as he keeps getting his "fix" from the media, he keeps doing the things that case 2 people were afraid he would. Do any case 2 people believe that, had the media been responsible starting in 2007, we wouldn't have seen the likes of Obamacare, Solyndra, and what is happening in Libya right now? If there had been consequences in the media, like there were for Clinton....would we have seen the same behavior from Obama? What if Obama had been held accountable for the "Russian Reset Button" debacle? Wouldn't the shame of that, had it been enforced, informed his current foreign policy? Perhaps you guys can come up with another case? Romney was the intellectual tonight. Romney was the guy who was first a good listener....and then deconstructed Obama. Obama...minus teleprompter, Bill Maher's applause machine, and human-prompter interview questions...was lost. Does anyone still think the media's full support of all things Obama since 2007, has no blame for these results? This is a bipartisan issue: hey, Democrats, are these the kind of results you want going forward? I don't. We need honest debate. Do you want to be coddled into believing things are going better for you and your guy than they are? Or, that your guy is better than he really is? Or, that F'ing up with Russia now '= F'ing up in the Middle East later? Republicans wouldn't want this media. I'm just as sure of that as this: Republicans are happy to have you continue to live in your bubble of affirmation, while they go out and win election after election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I have been saying all along that the debate would be incredibly important for Romney because he'll finally be shown on the MSM uncut and unfiltered and that it was up to him to take advantage of it. Boy did he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think both of them failed miserably. This is the best this counry can offer? I got the feeling that neither one gives a **** about the middle class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Heard an apt new term for ABC/NBC/Fox/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/Washington Post/etc: The Legacy Media Edited October 4, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think both of them failed miserably. This is the best this counry can offer? I got the feeling that neither one gives a **** about the middle class. blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think both of them failed miserably. This is the best this counry can offer? I've seen this sentiment expressed many, many times. It is completely absurd (in my opinion, of course). On the one hand: 1- Harvard Business School/Harvard Law School -- very well-educated. 2- Excellent Private Sector experience with small business, as well as executive experience in running a large organization. 3- Turned around a failing Olympics. 4- Successful Former Governor of a state with 80%+ legislature of the other party. On the other hand: 1- Columbia undergrad/Harvard Law School -- extremely well-educated. 2- Constitutional Law Professor at a very well respected school. 3- Former State Senator 4- Former United States Senator 5- Current President I mean, 4 years ago, I could see -- you've got a choice between 2 Senators, for all intents and purposes, while 12 years ago, you had the choice between a Senator and what would (charitably) be described as an unremarkable businessman and the Governor of a state where 'Governor' is largely a figurehead. I can see why you might be unhappy with that. This year, though? What else can you possibly ask for from a Presidential campaign? You've got two people who are tremendously qualified, in very different ways. What more do you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think both of them failed miserably. This is the best this counry can offer? I got the feeling that neither one gives a **** about the middle class. I'm glad you're here because it's always good to get new voices in the mix at PPP, but you should open every post with one of those soap opera qualifiers: "The role of Adam, the down-the-middle political poster who can see both sides and always find them equally wrong or equally right, will be played today by Westside." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I got the feeling that neither one gives a **** about the middle class. Who cares? Not their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I'm glad you're here because it's always good to get new voices in the mix at PPP, but you should open every post with one of those soap opera qualifiers: "The role of Adam, the down-the-middle political poster who can see both sides and always find them equally wrong or equally right, will be played today by Westside." No I think it should be "the part of Alaska Darin who really, really, really hates both parties and will take any chance to remind us of that, will be played by Westside. And played terribly by the way." BTW where the hell had Darin been?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) I've seen this sentiment expressed many, many times. It is completely absurd (in my opinion, of course). On the one hand: 1- Harvard Business School/Harvard Law School -- very well-educated. 2- Excellent Private Sector experience with small business, as well as executive experience in running a large organization. 3- Turned around a failing Olympics. 4- Successful Former Governor of a state with 80%+ legislature of the other party. On the other hand: 1- Columbia undergrad/Harvard Law School -- extremely well-educated. Really? Let's see his transcripts. 2- Constitutional Law Professor at a very well respected school. Really? Did he publish anything? Just a glorified TA? 3- Former State Senator Got the other candidates petitions disqualified. Won the primary unopposed. Voted "present"129 times. 4- Former United States Senator Half a term, half of that campaigning full-time 5- Current President Total failure, including last night I mean, 4 years ago, I could see -- you've got a choice between 2 Senators, for all intents and purposes, while 12 years ago, you had the choice between a Senator and what would (charitably) be described as an unremarkable businessman and the Governor of a state where 'Governor' is largely a figurehead. I can see why you might be unhappy with that. This year, though? What else can you possibly ask for from a Presidential campaign? You've got two people who are tremendously qualified, in very different ways. What more do you want? Edited October 4, 2012 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts