on the contrary, i will watch cable news up until they start yelling at each other, then i change the channel. i've seen very opposed people have very intelligent and interesting debates without retreating into their ideological corners and shouting.

There are a few, but they're only marginally popular and nobody remembers them until they're dead/retired. Then they go on about how awesome they were.

It used to be called CNN, but then Fox News came along convinced a bunch of morons that reporting facts was somehow a sign of liberal bias and it all went to hell from there.

I'd much rather see two intelligent people with differing opinions have a well-informed, rational debate than see some bland "centrist" spew platitudes and agree with every one just for the sake of agreeing.

The latter happens much more often on TV than the former.

i find it amusing that there are still claims of 'liberal bias' in television news when it pretty much stacks up like this:

left: olbermann
right: hannity, o'reilly, beck, scarborough, ingraham, hume, gibson,
center: matthews, blitzer, cooper

Whenever I go to a political protest, I carry my The other guy has a point sign.

FlashHarry: i find it amusing that there are still claims of 'liberal bias' in television news when it pretty much stacks up like this:

left: olbermann
right: hannity, o'reilly, beck, scarborough, ingraham, hume, gibson,
center: matthews, blitzer, cooper

Here is the problem though.

Everyone on the right considers anyone NOT on the right "Leftist", even if they are basically a "centrist".

Although as noted in the article, most people who could even be considered "centrist" are somewhat left of center, because probably much of their "centrist" views is not caring that gay people are gay, and not wanting an absolute ban on abortions, etc.

Which of course to the right makes you a pinko commie.

nobody will watch a show called "I sort of agree with both of you"

I would, however, watch a show called "You're All Terrible", hosted by Cliff Yablonski.

/Would also watch a show called "Big Fat Guy"

Pragmatism is so far out and radical that it will soon merge with fantasy and science fiction and then it will get exciting again.

FTFA: Jon Stewart might be the best example of a centrist on television. Yes, he obviously more left than right. But that doesn't keep him from taking shots at liberals that are just as harsh as the ones he throws in the direction of the right. He has an equal suspicion of both sides, and that is a trademark of centrist politics.

This is why I have this farker quote in my profile:
onomatopoetic (about funny conservatives): Dennis Miller is an interesting test case. He got considerably less funny when he went right wing. It's like the terrorists flew a plane into his sense of humor.

We don't think Miller got unfunny because he was "totally on the left" and then went right wing. He was basically a centrist as well back in the 90s, giving it to both sides. Then he got all caught up in this post 9-11 "fear tactics" escapade, or at least felt like that is where the money is at.

24 hour news is one of the worst things to ever happen to this country. It creates nonexistent controversies and peddles scare mongering crap.

Someone should write a book about that..........

Because the centrists claim they're 'independents', but they're some of the most bitter people on TV (ie Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck).

My husband doesn't know muchabout American politics and watched the McLaughlin group the other day for about 5 minutes. He turned to me and said "They're arguing so much I can't even figure out what they're arguing about. Who are these people and what is wrong with them?"

Cagey B:
I would, however, watch a show called "You're All Terrible", hosted by Cliff Yablonski.

/Would also watch a show called "Big Fat Guy"

Lou Dobbs

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people are so full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

/not really a centrist quote, but close enough

burndtdan: on the contrary, i will watch cable news up until they start yelling at each other, then i change the channel. i've seen very opposed people have very intelligent and interesting debates without retreating into their ideological corners and shouting.

That's why I like the News Hour. David Brooks and that Other guy that go "head to head" have a very civil and serious debate that never gets to yelling.

By the way, subby, if you define a centrist as some one who "sort of agrees" with both "liberals" and "conservatives", then your centrists are idiots who think they can get potpourri from averaging two piles of shiat.

There are plenty of good reasons to agree with "liberals" on some issues and "conservatives" on others, but to do so just for the sake of being in the middle is idiocy.

Churchill2004: I'd much rather see two intelligent people with differing opinions have a well-informed, rational debate than see some bland "centrist" spew platitudes and agree with every one just for the sake of agreeing.

The latter happens much more often on TV than the former.

God, what I wouldn't give to watch a new generation of William F. Buckleys and Noam Chomskys (or Gore Vidals) debate the issues.

What the hell happened to this country?
Did we get a national frontal lobotomy?

Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck are centrists? Really? Glenn Beck? I think that's a pretty good example of calling a turd a rose and expecting it to smell better.

Jon Stewart is sort of a centrist, I could see that. Colbert is definitely more left.

We need a Hunter S. Thompson style pundit on TV. Drugs, guns, sex, and a government that stays out of your business. I don't really agree with all that, but it would be an interesting and needed counterpoint to a lot of the bullshiat on TV.

I got an idea....how about just an anchor person reporting what happened that day??? No "experts. No pundits. No shills.

Why do we need "experts" telling us "what this means" for the dems/reps?

"Today in DC Rep Smith was caught raping a puppy. Now for the weather..."

Instead of "today rep smith ate a baby...now lets go to his opponet and someone who works for him to break this down and find out what it all means..."

The Obvious tag lynched the Sad tag with a hardware store noose.

I would watch it if they were naked and agreeing.

here's the real reason:
one day the guy is agreeing with the left, so all the olbermann fans run over to watch his show and then he's agreeing with the right so they get pissed off and he already pissed off the orly fans, so now nobody is watching.
show canceled.

dletter: Although as noted in the article, most people who could even be considered "centrist" are somewhat left of center, because probably much of their "centrist" views is not caring that gay people are gay, and not wanting an absolute ban on abortions, etc.

The facts have a left bias.

Random Reality Check: God, what I wouldn't give to watch a new generation of William F. Buckleys and Noam Chomskys (or Gore Vidals) debate the issues

I'd give a lot more to see us break out of the left-right paradigm, but I agree with the sentiment.

The intelligent folks are still out there if you go looking for them. They're just "policy wonks" now who don't ever get on TV, though.

Churchill2004: I'd give a lot more to see us break out of the left-right paradigm

Yes. Its farking retarded when so many of us in the middle/poor classes have so many shared concerns.

Random Reality Check: What the hell happened to this country?

1. We forgot all about Nixon and the lessons of Watergate because the Republicans were smart enough to let Carter reap the wind they sewn.

2. Bill Hicks died, and not enough people listened to him.

3. Bill Clinton was successfully portrayed as a leftist when he was probably a little right of center, thus redefining the political spectrum to be even more right wing biased.

4. Hunter S. Thompson killed himself.

5. Evangelicals got a lot of political power (When Jimmy Carter said the most important thing in his life was Jesus Christ in the 1970s this was considered a very strange thing for a politician to say).

6. Even-handed apathy and lack of discrimination among opinions were enshrined as the "intelligent" political views to take. Sure, your belief may have years of scientific support behind it, but it's just, like, your opinion man!

Adjective Bird Whiskey: There are a few, but they're only marginally popular and nobody remembers them until they're dead/retired. Then they go on about how awesome they were.

Hi there.

RemyDuron: 5. Evangelicals got a lot of political power

Meh. These guys really don't have their shiat together. Biblical references are getting thrown out of public spaces left and right; women can still get abortions; and now another state is letting "the gheys" get married.

Party Boy: Yes. Its farking retarded when so many of us in the middle/poor classes have so many shared concerns

Well, I wouldn't want to see it just replaced with "rich vs. poor", either.

I'd agree that most American's primary concerns about the government run in the same direction more than they're inherently opposed to each other, though.

It's all a matter of your personal perspective.

*Everyone significantly to the left of you is a liberal.
*Everyone significantly to the right of you is a right-wing nut.
*Everyone that matches up with you has risen above partisan hackery.

Churchill2004: I'd give a lot more to see us break out of the left-right paradigm, but I agree with the sentiment.

I don't see that as happening, it's easier to win elections when you can vilify the other guy.

Churchill2004: The intelligent folks are still out there if you go looking for them. They're just "policy wonks" now who don't ever get on TV, though.

Can you blame them? They would be crucified by the people who watch TV. I can hear the screams of "elitism" now.

Churchill2004: Well, I wouldn't want to see it just replaced with "rich vs. poor", either.

this would also be silly. Its a dimension that needs to be looked at.

Lets take sports for example. Your semi avid football fan doesn't just look at the runningback vs the d line. When someone points out the importance of a wide reciever in a west coast offense to the line backers/db's, he doesnt loose sight of the first picture.

Somehow politics seem to be filled with these weird facile false dichotomies. When another angle is brought up, its seen as conflicting rather than showing an important slice of a whole.

/I also like looking at Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative

loose = lose

Party Boy: Churchill2004: I'd give a lot more to see us break out of the left-right paradigm

Yes. Its farking retarded when so many of us in the middle/poor classes have so many shared concerns.

Ah, but they have been convinced that they don't share the same concerns and that's the beauty of the system.

The people in the trailer parks want to see fair taxation, not realizing that this would hand them a larger tax bill, which they would then blame on the tax and spend liberals.

The problem as I see it is the abuse of the freedom of speech we hold dear in this country. As long as it is okay for someone to knowingly spread bad information we are going to be screwed.

And that from a proponent of free speech.

Available for comment, in fact on TV, but strangely never commenting.

I am a moderate, I think. I support the death penalty and abortion. I am against illegal immigration (non-xenophobic reasons, mostly because they get free rides at the tax payer's expenses), against the war and I am an Atheist. I think that we should have universal health care, but it should only cover citizens.


How come moderates never run for president? The conservatives do a good amount of shiat that I don't like. While the democrats I agree with 70% of the time, but the other 30% is usually some sort of major screw-up.

The closest thing that even comes to a centrist IMO is Bill Maher, which says a lot because he isn't a centrist. I agree with about 70% of the things he says.

Just my little rant.

Maybe just report the facts and stop trying to "interpret" and "analyze" everything?

/opinion = news

Random Reality Check: Ah, but they have been convinced that they don't share the same concerns and that's the beauty of the system.

I cant argue against this point.

Frankly, of all the political discussions, this one is really the easiest one for me to talk about. Everyone from the secretary who thinks Obama is a secret Muslim to the Right wing, left wing, chicken wing, has no problem with this.

I'm going to apologize, up front, because I was going to gloss over this but I reread it and I think there is a lot of wisdom here. Nice work.

RemyDuron: Random Reality Check: What the hell happened to this country?

1. We forgot all about Nixon and the lessons of Watergate because the Republicans were smart enough to let Carter reap the wind they sewn.

Something about people who do not learn from history comes to mind even though I find it amusing in a bizarre sort of way that many of the players of this disaster played in the last one.

RemyDuron: 2. Bill Hicks died, and not enough people listened to him.

Let's find another one. I felt the same way about Lenny Bruce.

RemyDuron: 3. Bill Clinton was successfully portrayed as a leftist when he was probably a little right of center, thus redefining the political spectrum to be even more right wing biased.

Absolutely - try telling that to some of our more "right-inclined" friends.

RemyDuron: 4. Hunter S. Thompson killed himself.

There are always more. Hunter did what he could while he was alive and someone else will be inspired by him and maybe even surpass him - if we don't arrest him, incarcerate him or lock him up in a psych ward first.

RemyDuron: 5. Evangelicals got a lot of political power (When Jimmy Carter said the most important thing in his life was Jesus Christ in the 1970s this was considered a very strange thing for a politician to say).

I have mixed feeling about this but rather than pulling a threadjack, I'll agree to your sentiments with a few reservations.

RemyDuron: 6. Even-handed apathy and lack of discrimination among opinions were enshrined as the "intelligent" political views to take. Sure, your belief may have years of scientific support behind it, but it's just, like, your opinion man!

This last point hit me like a truck.

You have succinctly hit the nail square on the head.

Kudos.

I think they should have hot chicks having sex with each other while slightly disagreeing on political issues.

I'd watch that.

(May 2008) Rich/Poor Income Gap Widening To Chasm

Party Boy: Random Reality Check: Ah, but they have been convinced that they don't share the same concerns and that's the beauty of the system.

I cant argue against this point.

Frankly, of all the political discussions, this one is really the easiest one for me to talk about. Everyone from the secretary who thinks Obama is a secret Muslim to the Right wing, left wing, chicken wing, has no problem with this.

We both know that politics has always been a dirty industry but the modernization of this, coupled with pervasive mass media delivery, has raised the penetration to the most vulnerable to an entirely new height.

Once the thought is planted and takes root there is no "correction" that will ever remove it. (How many Americans still think Saddam was involved/behind 911 - even though the administration never said that, you know.)

This is how the game is played now and the reality is it is only going to get worse as the techniques improve and we have ubiquitous two way communications to every single hovel in the country.

And we just handed the Telecom industry a free ride to push it right up our asses.

Random Reality Check: What the hell happened to this country?
Did we get a national frontal lobotomy?

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

Two things happened.

Jack Kennedy was sharp enough to see that racism had no future. So he put his foot down and said he wouldn't tolerate it. (Bear with me.)

So the Repubs said Ok we'll take the Dixicrats. It seemed like a good deal at the time.

But Kennedy was right. Progressive social values are winning the day. The Republicans have lost every urban center outside the Southeast, and most there as well. They cannot win without the solid South. They have had to resort to increasingly sharp "wedge" politics and are increasingly dependent on racist values like jesus freakery and the brand new fetish of gun fellation. So politics has gotten nuttier and nuttier.

The second thing is that TV turns out to be a piss poor way to distribute news because the signal noise ratio is so low. The internet is better.

/Joke counter post *Disclaimer*




Whatever comrade, go goose step your ass back in the bread line. Say hi to the economic failure that is your butt-buddy lenin in the USSR failed communist state of Яussia.
LOL.

ilambiquated: RTwo things happened.

Jack Kennedy was sharp enough to see that racism had no future. So he put his foot down and said he wouldn't tolerate it. (Bear with me.)

So the Repubs said Ok we'll take the Dixicrats. It seemed like a good deal at the time.

Okay, I lived through that time so I understand what you're talking about.

ilambiquated: But Kennedy was right. Progressive social values are winning the day. The Republicans have lost every urban center outside the Southeast, and most there as well. They cannot win without the solid South. They have had to resort to increasingly sharp "wedge" politics and are increasingly dependent on racist values like jesus freakery and the brand new fetish of gun fellation. So politics has gotten nuttier and nuttier.

Yes, the dynamics have changed but a number of these tactics are actually very effective, as demonstrated in the "Republican Revolution" during the Clinton Administration as well as George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. I do believe that 2006 would have been a moderate Democrat gain in congress but Foley pushed that into a bloodbath.

ilambiquated: The second thing is that TV turns out to be a piss poor way to distribute news because the signal noise ratio is so low. The internet is better.

And that, my friend, is something you have better start worrying about. It now becomes possible for the Free Republic to be the only political web site while others could become so slow that they are unusable. There is also the ability to create untold push information here that would sway people who don't have any understanding - and there's a lot of them.

We are moving the wrong way and I am beyond distraught to now believe that the one person I though might be able to start making a difference just handed the evil empire everything they wanted on a silver platter. The potential for net neutrality to act as a censor that is unstoppable is overwhelming and we liberals are on the wrong side of the people who own the pipes.