Captain's Quarters -

The GOP ought to make a campaign ad, and air it a million times between now and next November -

They're afraid of FOX news, how in the heck are they gonna stand up to America's enemies?

But to them, FOX News and the GOP ARE the real enemy.

This is going to prove to be a bad decision for my Party, in my opinion.

It’s true that Fox leans Right, but the other networks lean left and it’s actually good to have one network that supports the other view.

Here’s why I think it’s a bad idea for the Democrats to refuse to go on Fox. Fox has, by far, the highest ratings of all the network news outlets.

I watched the Republican debate that appeared on Fox, and I have to give them credit. They were very professional, asking tough questions, and I thought, purposefully non-partisan. That was what I viewed. I also watched a Democratic debate that was on CNBC, or MSNBC (can’t remember,) and I thought it was such a farce. The CNN youtube thing was also a joke – made them look bad, and un-professional (which they are not.)

Fox did a far better job and they should get recognition for that fact. I watch Fox and I don’t agree with everything, but it’s the only network that I can stomach (for news.)

I think that the Democratic Candidates are mistaken if they think there are no Democrats watching Fox. And now, who will be speaking to those Democrats? Republicans only.

One question: Will the Democrats be attending the left-handed Unitarian freckle-faced Dwarf debate? Because I plan to be at that one.

Ok, I joke. But what's with all these special identity groups hosting debates and demanding the Dems attend? Are there that many issues unique only to these groups --Native Americans, Gays, Union workers-- that they must have their own personal face time with the candidates? I don't blame the Dems for bailing on some of these. There's only so much pandering you can do, and yeah I know, I'm talking about politicians here.

The Democratic candidates know that they can insult and ignore African-Americans because in the end, African-Americans will vote for the leading Democratic candidates (the apparent winner) no matter what.

This is what happens when your identity group does not split their votes or contribute large sums of money to the party. They are the doormats of the Democratic party, because they will always vote Democrat. Why bother?

Chris Matthews may be against the war, but he is hardly a typical liberal. He spends most of Hardball every night talking about how he hates Hillary and how Bill is still running around on her. (I"m paraphrasing, but basically that is his schtick.) He has a huge man-crush on Guiliani and promotes him all the time. Matthews (commonly referred to as "Tweety Bird" for his over-sized head) is despised by lefty bloggers. He brings crazies like Melanie Morgan and Ann Coulter on the show frequently. I hardly think the Republicans risked anything by appearing with him.

You may percieve bias on the part of the MSM, but it is incredibly obvious on FOX. They start the morning with the obnoxious morning crew who insulting the Dem candidates. Every night they have Hannity, O'Reilly, etc... calling Democrats facists and nazis and traitors. Britt Hume balances out the "all star" panel with people like Nina Easton posing as a "liberal" point of view despite the fact that her husband works for the McCain campaign. Why should the Democrats legitimize FOX?

"There's only so much pandering you can do, and yeah I know, I'm talking about politicians here". They don't have time to pander to the working class American of any class or race, they are too busy pandering to the terrorists who are trying to kill us, and yes they will kill the democrats to. Democrats are sucking millions of dollars from the terrorist in the middle east and no way they will give that up. I read a comment tonight that said some people in the United States had better be prepared to see thousands of people (democrats and their Islamic pardners) hanging in trees across this country. I agree with the comment and know a lot of people that are fed up and ready to start the hangings at any moment. All they lack is a national leader to stand up and tell them to start. They (and I) think this will be required to ever get back to the real America. The democrats have divided the country but they ended up on the Silky haired Fairy, weak kneed side of the divide.

Wow Scrapiron, you are unbelievable. You are ready to KILL fellow Americans who disagree with you? You might not be aware of this, but 51% of Republicans in Iowa want us to withdraw from Iraq right away. I guess you want to kill them too.

It might start to occur to you that threatening to kill your fellow citizens and calling them traitors for not agreeing with your politics is not a great way to win elections or convince them to agree with you.

Teresa wrote: "Why should the Democrats legitimize FOX?"

I don't think Fox needs the Democrats to legimitize it. I think the marketplace has already done that.

Scrapiron wrote: "I read a comment tonight that said some people in the United States had better be prepared to see thousands of people (democrats and their Islamic pardners) hanging in trees across this country. I agree with the comment and know a lot of people that are fed up and ready to start the hangings at any moment."

I hope this is hyperbole. Because the environmentalists aren't going to like trees being used this way at all.

I'd like to be the first to welcome Teresa, in what is apparently her first visit to our lovely planet!

So the Dems rush to the KosKonvention, but shun Fox because it's "extreme." Okay, glad we cleared that up. I suppose Ted Kennedy represents the center of the Democrat Party.

It would be like the GOP having a political debate at the NCAAP conference or at the Greenpeace Conference. Let me know when that happens. Or Rush Limbaugh hosting on his show.

Just to add my 2 cents... The fact that Democrats do not have the guts to show up on Fox makes me wonder when they would grow the spine to stand up to Dimmijad in Iran or the N. Korean lunatic!

Just proves that they do NOT have a serous thought in their tiny pointed heads other than getting elected. At that grim time in our history, they will promptly get amnesia regarding ANY promises they made in the heat of campaigning, take the money and give the rest of us the finger!

Cap'n,

I'll try to be charitible here, but I have observed that you blog is a tedious amalgamation of mindless bullshit which appears to cater specifically to a audience of bottom feeding knuckle-draggers. About the best thing that one could possibly say about it is that nobody, not one blessed individual on the freaking planet, appears to give a shit. My advice to you is to give up the blogging gig while you have a shred of dignity remaining.

Good luck, and have a great day!

Ha! This is like cancelling a party backstage at a vaudeville venue. The audience has long since left the theater. All your guests are ghosts.

Let alone, do we need another debate?

You can rehash all the ones we had so far, ya know? Including the polls that show Ron Paul and Mike Gavel, "leading the pack."

Pack of what?

Beats me. I keep staying home.

Besides, ALL the candidates (except Ron Paul and Mike Gavel, I suppose?) Are only interested in collecting money.

There's about a year and a half left, before Bush is replaced. And, as I said, ALL THE CANDIDATES WANT IS MO' MONEY. As much as they can collect, as they run from one place to another. And, if you want to see them "on this chicken circuit" it's gonna costs ya. Heck, all $150 would by ya is standing room only. BALONEY, to all of them.

While the press runs around, hoping one of the major players will "make a mistake."

While Guiliani hopes to do what the Texas Rangers did last night: Bang 30 homers out of the ball park. Nobody asks "how the other team feels," ya know?

Like you, Teresa, I think Hillary is not "loved" by the press; and lots of them would love to see her fail.

However, she's a hard bird to take out with a direct shot.

I dunno whose gonna get chosen. Though we have our favorites. But I do see Hillary as the weakest candidate that's electable, in the lot. For her to win, Ron Paul has to win the GOP nomination.

I also think lots of the time we're all tuning into these "developments," we're watching to see where the missteps occur.

And, I think the longer Hillary stays there, the harder it's gonna be to get her to move off the stage.

Debates aren't going to be the "problem solver."

If I had to guess? Further down the line, when the conventions are held, it may be that no one goes in with a "sure" nomination; and we revert back to politics the old-fashioned way. Why not? Lincoln didn't hold the winning cards going into Decatur, in 1860. Go ahead, I pulled Decatur out of a hat. You could prove me wrong.

But Lincoln knew enough about politics, that he had his team working "behind the scenes," to pull out a victory, when he had entered the Wigwam in 4th place. (And, without much on-the-job resume experience.)

I sure do love Lincoln's lore. It gives me confidence that we've got a working system in this country.

The decision is based on simple physics. Why expend energy to get what you already have (The Black vote), and risk losing what you don't have (The moonbat/KOS/DU/Diaper-Wearer vote). When the CBC is the moderate wing of the Democratic party... the times are a changin'.

I'm Black, so I can be honest on the topic. Most liberals pity Blacks, but in a way you would pity a homeless begger. You give the person a dollar, scream "what about the poor?", but call the police if you see a homeless beggar in front of your toney, intown duplex. In other words, liberals don't see Blacks are equals, and deep down think most Blacks are of inferior intelligence.

This is buttressed by the fact that White liberals often forego campaigning in predominantly Black forums until the last few weeks before an election. At that time, the campaign at a Black church (Where the pastor or church has received a substantial gift offering), where the topics are "I support civil rights", "I care about the poor", and "We need to raise taxes on the rich to feed Black babies and penalize gun manufacturers to address all of the Blacks killed in the inner city."

Nevermind the fact that 75% of the Black community are not poor. Nevermind with the increase of Blacks starting their own businesses or getting advanced degrees, and investing in the capital markets, Blacks are moving into the middle/upper class pretty rapidly.

Why not talk about tax cuts or financial empowerment? But alas, people like KOS, DU and the like know they hold clout in the primaries. This is who calls the shots through Jan-Feb. They not only provide money (Which the Black community does not by and large), but they shape public issues on substantive matters to the point that the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader will come and kiss their rings (Cancelled due to schedule conflict ;) which the Black community does not do outside of those issues already incapsulated within the liberal talking points (Typical White Liberal to eager to help Black: "Thanks, but we've got that covered. And Remember, if a Republican gets into office, you'll be slaves within a month"). Our pitiful, poor faces validate the liberal agenda. However, further dialogue on substantivee issues are disregarded or minimized with "See, my Black friend agrees with us."

Phil,

I think I speak for all the knuckledraggers and bottom feeders here when I say, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

Prick.

Why are there two Scrapiron postings, one criticizing the other? Oh, and for those who are HORRIFIED that one scrapiron wants to hang people who "don't agree with him", I recall certain libs talking openly about secession after losing the '04 elections. Extremism, it seems, is not limited to one side of the aisle.

Bennett wrote (August 23, 2007 7:09 PM)

But what's with all these special identity groups hosting debates and demanding the Dems attend? Are there that many issues unique only to these groups --Native Americans, Gays, Union workers-- that they must have their own personal face time with the candidates?

That's the exact problem: the democrat party is nothing but an amalgamation of special interest / "victim" groups held together by socialist tendencies and a fierce hatred of conservatives in general and George Bush in particular. I'm not trying to claim that the Republican Party is some monolithic organization, but the dems have made an art of identity / victim politics over the years, and the price they pay is having to pander to every "group" under the sun. See, "They Care"(TM) about the plight of... well, everybody who has a plight, real or imagined.

Chris G wrote (August 23, 2007 8:31 PM)

Most liberals pity Blacks, but in a way you would pity a homeless begger. You give the person a dollar, scream "what about the poor?", but call the police if you see a homeless beggar in front of your toney, intown duplex. In other words, liberals don't see Blacks are equals, and deep down think most Blacks are of inferior intelligence.

OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark...

The second Scrapiron post is from me -- I don't know how it got Scrapiron's name on it. Either I typed it in by mistake or the comment section is still buggy.

Doc Jim, if you can't tell the difference between people threatening to move to Canada and people threatening to KILL other people because of their political views, well I hope you're not a medical doc. I'd hate to have you take out my gall bladder instead of my appendix.

Candidates have the right to appear where they want. I doubt anyone who watches Fox on a regular basis is going to vote for a Democrat anyway so why waste their time? Republicans were invited to the Gay/Lesbian debate and chose not to attend -- some would not even send a response declining the invitation. Are they scared of gay people? Gosh, if they can't face Melissa Etheridge I guess they can't face Kim Jong Il. Ridiculous.

Phil wrote:

"I'll try to be charitible here, but I have observed that you blog is a tedious amalgamation of mindless bullshit which APPEARS TO CATER SPECIFICALLY TO A AUDIENCE OF BOTTOM FEEDING KNUCKLE-DRAGGERS. About the best thing that one could possibly say about it is that NOBODY, NOT ONE BLESSED INDIVIDUAL ON THE FREAKING PLANET APPEARS TO GIVE A SHIT." (emphasis added)

Well, we bottom feeding knuckle-draggers care, we care a lot. We might even get our own commercial some day. Maybe our own TV show, too. (GEICO reference for the television impaired) Although my knuckles don't exactly drag, more like they bounce off the pavement as I walk.

And apparently Phil cares too, at least enough to show up and comment. Thank you Phil. I enjoyed your insightful remarks.

Chris G., I'm white. And, I don't think there's a single cookie cutter out there that speaks for any one "type" of person. Because all of us are full of varieties. And, understandings. Otherwise? My freckles would count.

On the other hand, since I was also once a person who grew up in New York City. And, spent my family time around a lot of people voting the democratic tickets. If not the Liberal Party's column, where democrats had their names appearing, again ... I think I can state this one fairly: THE OLD NEIGHBORHOOD JUST ISN'T THE SAME!

Ya try to go back. But what was there is gone, now.

Sure, I began voting in 1960. And, of course, I voted for John F. Kennedy. My parents, and all of their friends, had been wildly enthused by Adeli Stevenson. Guy didn't win.

Politics, here in America, is ONE HUGE COUNTRY TO COVER. And, there's lots of places where people, when they grew up, were growing up far away from New York City. But I do remember one thing about Harry Truman. Did you know it was said (and you can check this out with Norman Rockwell's paintings.) Harry Truman was the kind of guy you'd find in almost every American town; going out for his haircut on Saturdays. Sitting around the barber shop. And, gossiping. Not college educated. (Truman wasn't, either.) But the backbone of communities.

While if you wanted to find republicans, you had to be rich. And, your family spent lots of time complaining about income taxes. And, leisure time at the country clubs.

FDR had a very long run. Even Will Rogers once said, giving how many programs FDR put into action, some of them were actually good ones.

The GOP langished. And, 1948 was a terrible blow. That's why they went out of the party, to find Eisenhower; who was actually being courted by both parties.

Today's democratic party, in my book, is now all affirmative action. A group of elites, (not by skin color, or genitalia, either), have congregated together, because over the past few decades they grabbed powers, they are very reluctant to lose.

But some losers are like Dan Rather. They can't admit to any mistakes; but the tread marks are on the highway, where they left the lane. Never to return to fame, again.

That Hillary is a front runner? Wow. It shows ya, that just like hollywood can't seem to find its footing, anymore. Where the current crop of "stars" are nowhere near the powerhouses of stars that once filmed on that firmament; leads me to suspect that those who inherit wealth, tend to squander it.

While the Internet is expressing itself.

But I'm not guessing outcomes, yet.

Except as I said, all the politicians running, are running to get money from strangers. I'm just not in a giving mood.

I also don't know the "costs" involved in something so public, so early; where a lot of people have tuned out. That's why I wouldn't get surprised, if down the line, the actual decisions of whose gonna get nominated, become a "last minute" thing. It's gonna take good health, and a lot of money, to run this very long race.

But Lincoln spent two years of his life, from 1858 (where he lost his senate seat bid), to 1860, doing nothing BUT campaign for the presidency.

And, he was very smart. (Well, that's a given!) He took to publishing the Lincoln/Douglas Debates; because at that time, the populace was talking about this stuff wherever they gossiped. He also gave a major speech in New York City; The Cooper Union Address. Where a lot of people came on board his train.

What we call "debates" are a PIKER comparison to the real deal.

Have people changed so much that they couldn't handle Lincoln's speeches, now? What? He'd be considered "too long winded?" His voice too high pitched.

He had grey eyes. But dark skin, ya know?

Let's be understanding here until Nurse Ratched finds her "charitable" runaway patient and steers him back to moveon.org.

Phil probably sacrificed a full five minutes of masturbating to type his post. For the children.

Why did the Congressional Black Caucus decide to partner with FoxNews in the first place?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that the deal they struck was this- Fox operated the cameras and set the stage. The CBC got to pick the moderator(s), the format, and 100% of the questions that were going to be asked.
So, what were the Democrats afraid of? This was going to be a Democrat debate run by Democrats with a right-wing news channel doing nothing more than providing live coverage.
Also: Why wouldn't any other network make the same deal with the CBC? What are CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and, for that matter, the BET afraid of?
This whole thing reeks. I'm not black, but I want answers. Come on candidates, news networks, what are you guys really afraid of?

Well Elroy, the Republican Party of Florida was co-sponsoring the YouTube debate on CNN. What were Republicans scared of?

It's sad that this has to be repeated, but seeing as how leftists refuse to grasp the point, here we go again.

We knuckle-draggers don't object to the existence of left wing talking points in the mainstream media.

We merely ask that leftist media drop the pretense of neutrality and objectivity and opt for a model where political sides are overtly acknowledged. That's what Fox News Channel does.

Leftists don't seem to want ideological transparency from the people who give us the news. They want leftist propaganda to be received as pure, objective truth itself. They have a good scam going, and you can't blame them for wanting to keep it up. But we are winning, and they're losing, and that's a good thing.

Phil says:
Cap'n,
I'll try to be charitible here, but I have observed that you blog is a tedious amalgamation of mindless bullshit which appears to cater specifically to a audience of bottom feeding knuckle-draggers. About the best thing that one could possibly say about it is that nobody, not one blessed individual on the freaking planet, appears to give a shit. My advice to you is to give up the blogging gig while you have a shred of dignity remaining.
Good luck, and have a great day!

Eric says:
Phil,
I’ll try to be quite literal and poignant in my response to your post. You misspelled charitable in a post that was designed to insult the intelligence of the posters on this BLOG. In fact, you misused the word as well – it was not your intention to be charitable. Also, it should be “an audience, not a audience.” I have found the posters on this site, as well as the Principle of the site, Captain Ed, to be of very high intelligence. I have an advanced degree and have been tested to show an I.Q. of 145. That’s not “knuckle dragging.” It’s not “Rocket Scientist” either, but at any rate, thanks for wishing us luck and a great day. You too.

Teresa,

You did a fairly thorough job of running down the list of biased personalities and reporters on Fox News that are blatantly biased to the Right.

I was wondering, in the sense of fairness, if you could take a few minutes here and do the same analysis of MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and if you've had an extra cup of coffee, I'd love to see your thoughts concerning the Washington Times versus the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times and Reuters.

C'mon, be a sport. Show how perceptive you REALLY are, k?

Darn it, Teresa, I had another question and I completely forgot to ask it of you!

Why are you here?

I mean, you are a passionate Liberal. Your Democrat Party controls the House and the Senate. Most people expect those majorities to grow after the 2008 elections. The majority of Americans are against the Iraq War. Several Democrat candidates for President have pointed out what a shambles the economy is in. We don't have national health insurance. Let's see...what else...oh, yes - Karl Rove!!

So, again, my question is...why are you here? Certainly you have to consider the 2008 Presidential election to be in the bag for the Democrats, don't you? I mean, how could you even think a Rudy Giuliani or a Fred Thompson or a Mitt Romney could ever win?

So, I find it odd that you are here. Or are you just trying to set us all up for one huge "I Told You So!" next year?

Well I think Fox does lean to the right and I have to admit that Hannity and Malkin and sometimes even John Gibson drive me nuts, but what the hell? All of these newsies are out there trying to make money, playing to an audience, working on a larger market share...it is what they do and anyone running for President will have to deal with them. All of them.

fight4right:

What do you care why Teresa here? It is a free internet is it not?

Newspapers are traditionally partisan, and so are US news channels. In fact go further - the entire US media machine is driven by money and so is politics so when the two combine, it is for more drive, more dough and more clout.

But a political party that subjugates itself to the whim of the media is as stupid as Britney on a bad day. Elections are about defining the best chance for leadership. Democracy is about the population being able to say "no" to totalitarianism as well as trying to find the best chance for leadership.

The problem with Fox is that nobody inside the US sees it as comedy, they take it so deadly seriously, but when I listen to Bill O'Reilly - well I find him about as funny as Colbert.

It is hard to take Fox seriously. The most popular newspaper in the UK is another Rupert Murdoch vehicle - The Sun. They are perhaps more likely to splash the Queen's knickers on the front page for circulation, than any real news.

viking01

Please, that's not dignified to even say things like that.

viking01

Please, that's not dignified to even say things like that.

Nicholas,

Well said.

You're right, Newspapers have always had an "editorial" viewpoint.

Here's the problem that I see. I think the editorial page has drifted into the news page, and the same for television other media units. That's a problem.

With BLOGS, it's well understood that they are comment and editorial driven so it's not a problem, but with MSM, it still thought to be journalistically driven and when they fail to be what is expected, it a problem. If ABC, or NBC, or Fox came out tomorrow and said we are an editorial driven new source -- reader/ viewer beware -- then it's not a problem. They have not done that.

Eric wrote:

"viking01

Please, that's not dignified to even say things like that."

But it was kind of funny. I also liked your "thanks for wishing us luck and a great day. You too."

We're a clever bunch here at CQ. Smart, unpretentious, often funny and occasionally a little crude. But then we're Americans.

Posted by bulbasaur | August 23, 2007 9:35 PM

It's sad that this has to be repeated, but seeing as how leftists refuse to grasp the point, here we go again.

We knuckle-draggers don't object to the existence of left wing talking points in the mainstream media.

We merely ask that leftist media drop the pretense of neutrality and objectivity and opt for a model where political sides are overtly acknowledged. That's what Fox News Channel does.

Leftists don't seem to want ideological transparency from the people who give us the news. They want leftist propaganda to be received as pure, objective truth itself. They have a good scam going, and you can't blame them for wanting to keep it up. But we are winning, and they're losing, and that's a good thing.

Eric says:
Yeah. That's how I feel also.

Nicholas, that was once an advantage!

And, when I was growing up, no one in public life dared step on Walter Winchell's toes.

Oh, and all candidates for high office, would truck themselves over to the New yuk Times, and go through an "exhibit," where they were peppered with questions by the editorial staff writers. Only to discover that they weren't "approved." That the "backing" went to the other candidate.

Don't ask me which side the New Yuk Times fell on, when it came to picking between Eisenhower and Stevenson. The New York audience that read that paper, much preferred Stevenson. Still, HE. DID. NOT. WIN.

So, "even in the best of times," you could still lose.

In today's Internet world, however, there are huge holes in the pundits' machinery. And, I think they know it.

Well, Detroit learned "just adding chrome" didn't sell cars. And, once you lose the customer? What can I say? They don't come back.

(And, at one time in America, you could spot a Ford owner, just as you could an owner of a GM car. Do you know why? Their fathers drove those automobiles. Back in the days when Brand Loyalty meant sales.)

Since Kennedy got shot, all I expect are dirty tricks. And, while I feel very tired, it could be because I'm old. But it could also be that the lies are no longer interesting. And, if I've taken my aged fingers, and toodled away from "the old base," what's it like for the kids? They've gotten all they know in this electronic age. And, asking the pundits isn't something most of them do.

Hillary wants to be the candidate.

What's in her old kit bag?

What are you gonna tolerate, when it comes down the pike?

And, yes, at least the Internet is here. People will be coming over, from all over the map. Some hope to "turn the tides." And, I think those posts are the least effective.

Free?

There might exist a right to purchase access to the internet but it like most things in life is hardly "free." Somebody eventually pays for things whether through advertising or purchases or generosity or mooching handouts off of taxpayers. Just like fictional "free health care" there will always be those who have to pay the ride for those unwilling to do so for themselves.

FoxNews may lean to the right yet so does the national audience once one gets out into the heartland and away from the dependency and naive touchy-feely bureaucracy of inner city decay. Much of what makes FoxNews appear conservative to the Left is simply their being used to decades of socialist stepandfetchits like the New York Times, PBS, NPR and the old alphabet networks merely parroting the DNC party line. Word for word.

FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh have unparalleled success because they tapped an audience of those self-sufficient (and with spending money) which the obsolete Liberal media ignored or vilified. Compared to the Airhead America show the FoxNews and Limbaugh audiences purchase actual products advertisers market which brings in more advertisers so those broadcast venues thrive. By contrast, Franken's other bad joke had to loot the Gloria Wise Children's Foundation to stay afloat until that pilferage also ran out.

Bennett,

You're right, I should have just kept quiet. I just hate to see thing go into the locker-room because I feel like it harms our viewpoint. I fight the urge because I have a pretty raunchy sense of humor...

Come to think of it...it was funny.

I feel old too Carol, sometimes my very soul is tired.

Well the whole thing just seems like theater to me sometimes and I wonder how Presidents got elected before there was TV news. Somehow the Republic muddled through election after election.

I am on the internet everyday, but I wonder sometimes what its effect will be as well. I like to think it will be positive and there will be balance of some kind. But it seems to me that all of us have lost some civility because of the anonymity of the internet. People are driven too much to extremes and are too quick to judge others.

We all do it. And I think that cable news, 24/7 exacerbates that sense of urgency that seems to drive debate today.

I can remember a time when people did not feel the need to know what was going on all the damn time.

I also think this has something to do with why both parties are at historical lows in terms of party identification and why more and more people are calling themselves Independents.

I think the extremes are driving people away. Most Americans are wary of extremes, in either direction and right now I think they would like more solutions and less ideology. They are tired too.

So know one really watches the debates but the partisans, no one else wants to hear it, not now anyway.

Fight4Right -- You asked a good question about why I -- a liberal, though I'm not sure about the "passionate" part -- would engage folks on this blog. My answer is that I'm fairly disgusted with the name calling and rigid thinking on both sides of the aisle. I want to understand how people on the right percieve things. I think Captain Ed thinks outside the box more than on other blogs and that most of the conservative posters on here are smart, articulate, thinking people unlike those on some sites that seem to be primarily concerned with immigrant bashing and calling Democrats "traitors" etc... (Folks like Scrapiron who want to kill me are the exception, not the rule here.)

I'm not at all sure that Democrats will win the next election and I like some of what the Republican party stands for. (I might even be able to bring myself to vote for Huckabee if he had any chance at all of being your nominee. He seems like a decent, thoughtful, caring person.)

Maybe I feel a need to understand Republicans more because I live in a deeply Republican state (South Carolina) and most of my friends are hard core Republicans. (We just avoid talking politics at the dinner table :)!)

I don't want to sound all "kumbya" (sp?) about it, but I'm pretty sick of everyone being nasty to one another. We are in a pretty deep hole in Iraq -- no matter how we got there -- and we need to get out. I don't think there are any easy answers and I think there are compelling arguments to be made on both sides of the aisle. I hope that somehow reasonable people can find some sane middle ground. If we all just keep getting our news from blogs that we already agree with, I think that we end up with a myopic perception of the world.

Teresa,
That is comparing apples and oranges. I doubt CNN would turn over all controls of moderators and content to the Florida Repubs. Fox was willing to allow the CBC to, in effect, own the program for 60-120 minutes. Not bad for a "fascist" network.
The YouTube debate is not dead in the water. They are rescheduling after considering the silliness of their objections, anyway.
Democrats and the MSM are scared of the CBC. I can't think of any other reason why this debate won't happen in its current form. After all, the dirty little secret is- Bill Clinton did nothing for black people while he was in office. The anointed one (Hilary!) might have to answer a question along those lines.

Carol says:
And, yes, at least the Internet is here. People will be coming over, from all over the map. Some hope to "turn the tides." And, I think those posts are the least effective.

Eric says:
I've finally learned how to read your post. Ignor everything but the last sentance. The last sentance contains truth. At least this one, and lots of truth at that.

Viking-01, you're mixing apples and oranges.

Because all audiences who have the "spare time" to read; aslo had the "spare time" to learn to read and write. And, it changes the politics. In areas where illiteracy rules people are shown symbols, in order to vote. And, they usually get despots. Who do the best jobs at keeping the poor, down.

Of course, there's no income tax, there. So what?

That the market's segmented? Known by all who sell goods to the public. And, if it's your job to stock the shelves, (so you can make a living), picking poorly leaves the stock up on your shelves. And, the banks usually come in and foreclose. Ignorance and stupidity don't have higher prices than the misfortunes brought about by not recognizing trends. And, then ignoring what you know.

The Internet world is not only "free" to users; it's also FAST.

So that's another thing affecting the old media folks. The speed at which a story turns.

They also can't bury them.

Stories re-appear here. As if the will of the people to talk about things; keeps bringing them up.

I love Lincoln stories in general. And, in particular, because the media in his time was biased, one way. Or the other. He grabbed in copies of ALL the newspapers that were reporting on his debates with Douglas. There were no stenographers, for him, in the audience. Just the reporters; some of whom could write very, very fast. And, the NEW TECHNOLOGY of that time: The TELEGRAPH.

Lincoln, once he compiled the debates, went to Douglas, himself. And, gave him the manuscript. IT PASSED INSPECTION.

In other words, Lincoln was smart enough to know that BOTH SIDES WERE REPORTING the story. And, he didn't have to ignore their slants, tilts, and garbles. By taking it all in; he was able to recreate the debates, themselves.

Douglas, by the way, died in July 1861. But before he died, he had become a very big fan of Lincoln's. And, at Lincoln's innauguration, he was on the dias. And, Lincoln asked him to hold his hat.

By the end of his days, Douglas was not an enemy to Lincoln.

WITH MALICE TOWARDS NONE. Lincoln lived this one!

And, there are old lessons out there that still shine through to us, now.

I don't know how 2008 is gonna turn out. We all hope for the best.

And, as long as people are HERE, and not watching TV; or taking their "news" from The New Republic, they'll at least see the range of feelings that are out there. And, not be stuck on an agenda that TNR, among others, keeps trying to deliver.

FWIW

I tried to phrase that 9:19 PM post as clinically as possible whilst choosing diction friendly Phil would comprehend. Apologies to all, except Phil, whose ears tingled.

Viking:

It was a rhetorical comment. I did not mean free in terms of money anyway.

Fox does lean right and while I have stopped listening to Rush because I am just so burned out on talk radio I am not questioning their popularity. But then again, Jon Stewart is popular too.

I live in the Midwest. I grew up in Oklahoma, but I live in the 8th District in Indiana. The folks in this part of the heartland kicked out the conservative Republican and replaced him with a blue dog Democrat. I voted for Hostettler even though I disagreed with his stance on immigration because {unlike Peggy Noonan and certain other conservatives I can think of} I did NOT think it would be a good idea for the Democrats to win the Congress.

Teresa says:
I am on the internet everyday, but I wonder sometimes what its effect will be as well. I like to think it will be positive and there will be balance of some kind. But it seems to me that all of us have lost some civility because of the anonymity of the internet. People are driven too much to extremes and are too quick to judge others.

Eric says:
You're very right about this and it worries me as well. I am very bothered by the breakdown of civility that I see happening in our society. It is indeed driven by the anonymity of the internet and it is "spilling" into other area of society. Frankly, that's why I chastised the poster who mentioned masturbation. It's not polite speech.

Heck, as hard as I try, I’m guilty as anyone else. And I really do try not to be a part of this problem.

People such as yourself offer the balance you are descibing.

Teresa,
That is comparing apples and oranges. I doubt CNN would turn over all controls of moderators and content to the Florida Repubs. Fox was willing to allow the CBC to, in effect, own the program for 60-120 minutes. Not bad for a "fascist" network.
The YouTube debate is not dead in the water. They are rescheduling after considering the silliness of their objections, anyway.
Democrats and the MSM are scared of the CBC. I can't think of any other reason why this debate won't happen in its current form. After all, the dirty little secret is- Bill Clinton did nothing for black people while he was in office. The anointed one (Hilary!) might have to answer a question along those lines.

Teresa:

I hear ya. I am so sick of the name calling and the hysteria and all the rest of it.

On the left there are the Truthers, on the right there is the North American Union. Paranoia and name calling have become far too common and it is too easy to get caught up in that. But I think it hurts us as a country. I really do.

As far as Fox is concerned I like Brit Hume because I think he is one of the sanest people in news. I like sane.

Terrye,

Did you ask "how did people get elected before TV?"

It was a very visual journey. Let me tell ya! And, Americans from everywhere, would go out to meet the trains. Not just at whistle stops. But along the route.

One thing about American Presidents. They pop up from the People. Okay, I'm taking a little license, here, because I do know about American families who think they "own the joint." But they're not like European aristocrats. They still have to go into the arena, and the ring. And, to fight for their own nominations.)

And, when I go back to my own "yoot" ... and look at some of those old photographs, what strikes me is how "well dressed" everyone appears. Did my dad grow up thinking he couldn't go outdoors without a hat on his head? (Well, he even said you had to toss the straw one away, on Labor Day.)

So, from the clothing, we know things have changed.

With the most drastic changes coming from computers, and all the technology we've been getting since 1980. (I can laugh, now, at Watson, at IBM, saying he wasn't worried about personal computers, because nobody would want to own one.)

And, then? Most surprising to me, is that men type. When did I ever seen men taking typing classes? Even reporters, who typed, the male variety; used to do it with two fingers. Fast. But that's not "typing" according to Hoyle.

And, I laugh, too, when I read how Sandra Day O'Connor, graduating near the top of her class at Stanford, wasn't even offered more than a secretarial job.

So, lots of us have come a long, long way. No wonder we're tuckered out by the journey.

If anything, the Internet has added a level of honesty that wasn't apparent when the media giants were running things. Sure, you could write a letter to the Editor. But what were your chances of seeing it show up in print? And, then, how often would your communication be chosen?

Those arrogant bastards! They thought because they owned the printing presses; and later that they owned those half hours given to "da news," that they could get away with anything.

Not anymore.

I stay on my toes reading what's going on, now.

And, I see others do the same. (Except Eric. He only reads the last line.) Gosh. When the last book on Harry Potter came, I've got to admit, I did that, too. Tensions aren't my best friend. But then, usually, I don't opt for fiction.

Eric:

We all do it, especially with issues like immigration. I know the first time I was a called a traitor, I just saw red. I was ready for a fight.

That kind of thing needs to stop. People should be able to disagree without being enemies. If they can not, I fear for the Republic.

Elroy -- Bill Clinton is beloved in much of the black community. Are you implying that black folks have been "fooled" by him?

I don't think Dems fear the CBC or even having a debate on Fox, it is the thought of appearing on Fox at all when they run down the Dems constantly. Believe me, I watch them sometimes and it is always John Edward's hair, or Obama is secretly a muslim terrorist because he went to school in Indonesia for a few years, etc.. The other morning they were hyping some story about Michelle Obama being a "b" towards Hillary by deliberately taking her words out of context.

Just like many Republicans would have been upset if your candidates appeared at the Gay & Lesbian debate (to which they were invited), many on the left are tired of being endlessly bashed on Fox and see no point in Dem candidates appearing on there.

(And, yes, I think CNN would allow the Florida Republican party to help pick the questions because otherwise the Floridians could raise a big stink about it.)

Teresa,

Thanks for the response and although the reasons you stated for being here really didn't come through in the postings earlier where you seemed a bit less interested in what we had to say or think as much as you did want to point out our "sin" of actually watching or believing or considering Fox News. I was trying to point out that if I, a conservative, got as worked up about the nearly dozen MSM outlets I listed as you do about the ONE you abhor, i'd be in a clinic hooked up to an IV of sedatives!

But that's water under the bridge. Glad you are here, truly. And you are correct. Cap'n Ed runs the best blog on the internet. It's a privilege to post here and each day I learn something new.

Perhaps, Teresa, you and me could switch homes...it sounds like I would be much more comfortable in South Carolina and if you lived here in the People's Republic of Minnesota, well, let's just say there's plenty of tables here you can eat dinner at and talk all the Left side of politics you want!

And Terrye...as for your response to me that said:
"What do you care why Teresa here? It is a free internet is it not? "

I am sorry. I didn't realize my tongue in cheek commentary would zoom right over your head. Unless of course, you're doing the same to me with your comment ! : )

Carol,

I just read the whole thing. It was the best post ever.

You've added real insight in your last post.

Thank you.

Carol:

My Dad had to be drafted into WW2 to learn to use a flush toilet, but he had an old Underwood he typed on. He said when he learned to type he would type now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. That was how they learned.

The man was a oil field roughneck and then an oil tool salesman but he could type.

I think people used to read papers and I suppose the parties were stronger and they voted party. Hence the famous yellow dog Democrat.

And reading about Lincoln reminds us that there is something unique about Americans. It also reminds us that this too shall pass. If the country could survive then, surely it can survive now.

Terrye says:
That kind of thing needs to stop. People should be able to disagree without being enemies. If they can not, I fear for the Republic.

Eric says:
Amen, sister. Amen.

Teresa, Bill Clinton is not his wife. Nor can he run, again. Those are the rules.

That Hillary has an "insider's approach" to the Bonkey nomination? Ya know what? Even if I say "okay," I wouldn't bet a nickel on it!

There are professionals running. Including a few who've lost. Or who never gained the altitude they'd need to win.

Still, it's like going to an auction to buy a horse, when you then say the guy making the sale is trying to pass off a donkey. How do you make decisions in a field like that?

Obama's wife gets coverage. This is important to a candidate running; because NO COVERAGE is a disaster!

Still, there's a field out there that reminds me of some of the clothes you see on a Paris runway. Where the only thing I'm thinking is "NO ONE'S GONNA BUY THAT OUTFIT." People wouldn't be caught dead wearing some of that crap!

Maybe, that's why so many of us wear jeans? And, boy, does that pinch those designers where it hurts.

Maybe, running for president is becoming one of those activities normal people begin to think is just for the nuts? Ya gotta be mentally ill to wake up every day and do what a candidate has to do to stay elected. It's not for everyone.

And, yet, if you think you're qualified, but you "want to stay home," hoping some good fairy will come along, and "you'll get chosen." Well, that doesn't work, either.

So, it must reside out there, somewhere between genius and mental illness. And, once a person starts running, they're gonna be looking for their "edge."

That's why I think this race to "be the first state to hold a primary," so early in the contest, may just lead to breakdowns later; and the conventions will have to solve the problems. In order for politicians, who depend on coattails above carrying them into office, means there are people behind the scenes with clout. (And, we don't know which way they're swinging their bats.)

I also wonder if people lock in early on their choice; something I've done with Guiliani ... How I'd deal with someone else getting the nomination.

I just don't know.

Terrye,

What is a yellow dog Democrat? I've heard of blue dogs. And forgive me, but I'm fascinated...what is your age?

Fight4theRight:

Same here, I too got a little zingy.

But you know, I don't think Teresa is doing anything but trying to talk.

I do not know if you have ever heard of Dennis the Peasant. He has a blog, and he gives everyone hell. But he is funny. He is also an accountant from Ohio who idolized Ronald Reagan. But he can't stand Fox news {or so he says} He seems to think it is tacky. I think sometimes we think that everyone has to like the same things...they don't.

But Dennis is not crazy about liberals either and he can be entertaining. He does not take himself too seriously.

Carol, if you would be so kind...so that I could gain some insight, I would also be interested in knowing your age. It seems as though you and Terra have seen this happen more than a few times. Please don't think me rude for asking.

Fight4 -- I'd gladly change places in Minnesota with you if only because it has been about 105 degrees every day for three weeks. I'd love some cool Minnesota weather!

This won't be of interest to anyone else, but since we are both still up at midnight here goes:

You wanted my perspective of the leanings of MSM folks other than Fox from a lefty perspective:

NBC, CBS, ABC – Got to be honest here. I haven’t watched any of the nightly newscasts in a long time mostly because I have little kids and we are doing homework, soccer, etc.. when they are on. I remember being pretty disgusted with them during the run up to the war with all the “Countdown to War” and thundering music stuff. It seemed to me that they were eager for there to be a war and that they were in many ways pushing it because they thought it would be interesting to cover, good for ratings and over pretty shortly like the first gulf war. I don’t think they did a good job of covering all sides of the issue. Now I think they are tired of it, don't want to do the hard work of actually understanding it, and would be happy if it was all over. That is why they are easily distracted by Anna Nicole, etc...
MSNBC – Nominally liberal bias overall with the exception of Olbermann who even I get tired of because you always know what he is going to say. Counteracted by Joe Scarbourgh for three hours in the morning, Tucker Carlson two hours in the afternoon and the mixed bag which is Chris Matthews. I talked about Matthews in an earlier post but he is generally reviled by the left due to his hatred of Hillary, crushes on “manly men” like Guiliani (think K-lo with blond hair), and general stupidity. At night they seem to be fond of running prison documentaries which is a bit weird.
CNN – Again a mixed bag. The daytime announcers frankly seem kind of dim to me. They seem to get most of the news off of Drudge and generally ask inane questions. Wolf Blitzer was a pretty big hawk on the war, but seems more interested now in politics than facts. Glen Beck is completely nuts and right wing. Larry King should have retired years ago. I’m not sure what Larry’s politics are other than celebrity gossip. Anderson Cooper is pretty liberal in general. (I miss Aaron Brown in that slot who was a lot smarter and never had Paris Hilton on.)

Newspapers – (This is short cause it is late):

Washington Times – Generally hardcore right wing both on its editorial page and in its reporting
NY Times – liberal editorial page with exception of David Brooks. General liberal tilt in reporting, but plenty of reporting hits on John Edwards, Obama etc…
Washington Post – more of a mixed bag in general. Generally hated for its editorial stance in favor of the war by the left. Google Fred Hiatt’s name (their editor) and the word “wanker” and you’ll see a lot of hits on liberal blogs.
Wall Street Journal – Extreme right wing editorial page, middle of the road reporting in general

OK, now you see that I am a complete news junkie. What are your thoughts on the various biases?

Oh, Terrye, that sentence! "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country." It was in use when I was in high school! (The 1950's.) And, I didn't associate that sentence with WW2! But, yes, it was typed adinfinitum. Until I got the hang of it.

And, then I learned the QUERTY type was set up TO SLOW US DOWN! Otherwise, we'd be hitting the keys too fast, so they didn't drop out of the slot fast enough. And, there would be a number of keys caught in the "action."

See? We continue to live and learn.

Thanks, Eric. There's no harms in reading from the bottoms up. Especially on long posts. When something catches your eye, you can then "go for it."

I've noticed that no matter the point of view, Captain Ed attracts people who post from their hearts. And, writing really never gets better than that; when you can read someone and the words are on par with looking them in the eyes.

As to "cleaning up my language." NEVER. I know a good thing when I hear it; and the freedom to scream out "GIVE ME AN "F" ..." while in Central Park, at a FREE CONCERT, still makes me smile.

While people living in their fancy apartments on West End Avenue, shut their windows. Language is the best thing we humans have going for us.

And, I'm reminded that when people learn a "foreign language," the easiest words have to do with love. And, war.

Fight4theRight:

Same here, I too got a little zingy.

But you know, I don't think Teresa is doing anything but trying to talk.

I do not know if you have ever heard of Dennis the Peasant. He has a blog, and he gives everyone hell. But he is funny. He is also an accountant from Ohio who idolized Ronald Reagan. But he can't stand Fox news {or so he says} He seems to think it is tacky. I think sometimes we think that everyone has to like the same things...they don't.

But Dennis is not crazy about liberals either and he can be entertaining. He does not take himself too seriously.

Eric:

They were such loyal Democrats they would vote for a yeller dog if you put it on the ticket.

Carol:

I was born in 1951. Truman, the last man without a college degree to be elected to the White House was the president.

That makes me feel older than dirt.

Eric: Christmas Day, 1939. Now, you can do the math.

From the perspective of one who has worked (many years ago) as a major market news producer the national news market has drastically changed even if one looks beyond the enormous impact of the internet, Matt Drudge and blogs on the industry.

I'll mostly exclude PBS & NPR welfare radio because they get paid in advance whether a passable product or a lousy product results.

ABC, CBS, and NBC news departments once were self sufficient with no other competitors. Today they're kept afloat (barely) by sitcoms and soaps.The Katie Couric decision was to put all CBS salary eggs into one basket to recover from Rather's and Mapes' fax scam. It isn't working.

It follows a pattern. CNN destroyed one of its most viewed programs "Crossfire" by employing Clinton hacks Carville and Begala while imploding news credibility with Tailwind goofs Peter Arnett and Jeff Greenfield. ABC devalued the David Brinkley "This Week" program by hiring Clinton PR man Stephanopoulos. NBC hired former Mario Cuomo PR man Tim Russert to host "Meet the Press." Peanut Carter speechwriter and Tip O'Neil political aide named Chris Matthews ends up working at NBC / MSNBC / CNBC. Ted Koppel got into a huff and refused to cover the 1996 GOP convention which pretty much deflated his credibility and that of his Nightline program (already running on fumes) originally created to cover Peanut Carter's Iranian Hostage Crisis. Nina Totenberg's entrapment of Anita Hill while trying to stick it to Clarence Thomas didn't help matters for Nightline either and she ended up at NPR. The old media's credibility failure is not only self-inflicted it has been in progress for decades. Drudge succeeded not only on outing the scuttling of Newsweek's Isikoff's Monica report he's done well outing plenty of other old print media and old network attempts to whitewash DNC politicians they support. No wonder Matt Drudge now has his own nationally syndicated radio show!

Compare that to FoxNews which faces not only the alternatives of internet, and the decreasingly competitive old media networks, but the huge number of alternate cable / satellite channels viewers can choose. Yet the viewers for news programming are choosing FoxNews which thrives while the Left's old guard of Rather, Jennings (before his death) and Brokaw were quickly phased out after Al Gore lost. FoxNews has taken over that national news market segment and has done so in barely ten years time. Whether one agrees with FoxNews or not one must admit they are a contender and in the catbird seat (Thurber reference).

Rush Limbaugh to a considerable extent resurrected AM radio. During the early to mid 1980s the AM audience was mostly tepid music stations of mediocre rock or dental office music. The remainder had local events shows with sports talk during evenings. Within a year and a half Rush Limbaugh had cornered the AM midday talk radio market. The Left, in panic, went so far as to suggest Rush's major sponsor of that time (Snapple Beverage) of being "anti-semitic" which was news to the Jewish owner of Snapple Beverage company. The Hannitys, O'Reillys, Levins, Larssons (sp), Ingrams, Schnitts, Becks etc. have entered the thriving AM market because there are plenty of ears willing to give them and their advertisers a listen.

You know, I'm a pretty hard core small-L libertarian conservative type and I find both O'Reilly and most of the Fox news crew to be annoying. O'Reilly is one of the more obnoxious hosts out there. Interrupting your guests may be fine (after all, it is his show) but its rude, no matter what side of the aisle you're on (Chris Mathews has thrown some low punches too).

Given the option I'd much rather spend my time on blogs...which, incidentally, is exactly what happens. Between the copy+paste value of the electronic newspaper, Drudge, and the commentary available on blogs, the nightly news is completely irrelevant to me.

Now the news will never be replaced by the blogs. I got into an argument with my dad the other day over the next bit: does it matter?

I mean, a majority of the country doesn't even vote. The real knuckle-draggers are the ones still relying on any old media outlet for their news, particularly if they're relying on one exclusively.

I think (and my father disagrees) that the "New Media" will become more and more influential, as the folks who care enough to vote will care enough to debate, read, write, and think.

Thats the kicker, I think. Remember: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost" (Jefferson) and "The theory of the free press is not that the truth will be presented completely or perfectly in any one instance, but that the truth will emerge from free discussion" (Lippman). Blogs do that.

Carol, thanks. That was a tough year. I was not there. I consider myself to be very different from the "current" generation based on my up-bringing, and I was born only a few years before man landed on the moon.

These kids today....

They have never known a world without internet.

viking:

But first, there was Paul Harvey. It is about meeting the needs of a market, the problem is they may over do it.

Look at the shock jocks. There is a limit to everything.

Hubris can be very damaging. My problem with some of the right wing pundits and talk show people is that all they do is talk, that is ok, it is what they get paid for. But they don't really run things. They don't really make the the decisions and sometimes they seem a tad self important and more interested in promoting themselves than anything else.

Oh, Terrye, you're one of those famous "baby boomers."

It dawned on me, Eric could have figured out my age from the details I have, when I said "I voted for John F. Kennedy." 1961. My first vote, cast.

Back in those days you had to be 21 to vote. But 18 to drink. Then? It seems a few politicians saw the advantages to lower the voting age, while upping the drinking age. What can I say?

One group or the other will be disappointed that 18-year-olds and UP can now vote. Which is why I suspect you're hearing "THE DRAFT" being brought up in "conversation." Maybe, at one time that scared people?

Meanwhile, completely off topic; and at one of the sites I visit regularly; about weddings. Came up with a statistic where I was floored.

Back in my own 'yoot.' (Yute?) Kids were getting engaged in high school. "Going to college" wasn't necessarily the "norm," either. (That's why saying "Truman is the last president that didn't go to college," something of a misnomer. MOST MEN DIDN'T GO. And, it didn't stand in the way of success that came down the pike, after we put the Big Depression behind us.)

Yes, the GI Bill changed that. As the veterans coming back from WW2, were now adults. And, they headed into colleges. They were better students, too. Being a bit older, and having seen the "world," helped.

Anyway, the current statistics, from England, on marriages being made by kids under 20? WOW. In my day? Hundreds of thousands of brides a year were under 20. Today? About 3,000. That's it. And, that's a hefty drop off.

I guess when you're looking at how things change; one of the big changes is how today's kids are not like the kids of yester-year. Not in terms of exposures to technology (OBVIOUSLY!) But in how they view the world.

To be a 17 year old bride took a lot of positive input from society.

So do keep in mind even the old institutions can change on ya.

Eric, I had a Tandy computer in my room. I partially learned to read with Reader Rabbit and an obscure game called (I think) Leaper. One of my earliest memories is my dad playing Command HQ, which started with a "cold war" prep period. And some old-school Tandy monopoly game.

A world without internet is in my memory, but just barely. I vaguely remember Compuserve becoming AOL, and sort of remember original Netscape having a market share. Of course, I'm typing this through Firefox; strange how things come around.

Cap'n Ed, if you happen to read this I have a suggestion: You oughta run late night free-topic threads. Call 'em Scuttlebutt or something.

While I'm dreaming, a forum would be even better!

k2aggie07 -- I agree with your post. I do think it is important to cross check your own thinking by looking at blogs that come from different perspectives than your own.

Liberal blogs I like: Washington Monthly, Talking Points Memo, Tapped
(Believe it or not, I don't like Daily Kos because they are so predictable. One reason I like Obama is that he was asked if read Kos and he said "No, because it rarely surprises me." I thought that was an insightful reply.)

Conservative blogs I like: Captain's Quarters (of course!), NRO's The Corner (although I disagree with them almost always), and Red State (interesting posts, but those guys can't take any kind of disagreement and are always banning commentators. That seems weak to me not to hold your own arguments up for scrutiny.)

Strange sort of conservative/sort of liberal blogs I like: Andrew Sullivan (always has good video clips and time wasters)

Carol:

Yep, a baby boomer. The most self absorbed generation in history. Wait til we get on Social Security, we will want EVERYTHING and by God we will get it too. We always do.

Good night. Time for bed.

My problem, Teresa, is that most of the liberal blogs are predictable. I've also found that the vast majority of liberals are insufferable in a debate...all the really good debaters are regulars or trolls at conservative sites! The rest just engage in their feel-goodery bash Bush fests. It gets old.

Liberalism is emotionalism, and that won't buy you a lot of real estate in the world of written discussion. It just doesn't translate -- thats why the Kos Kidz sound like raving lunatics. Ever read a "diary" out loud? Its embarrassing.

Hey, you should read my blog and argue with me. It does get old talking to an empty room!

Viking01, that was a BRILLIANT PIECE! What a trip down memory lane, of what had once been our great media. Tossed away the way Detroit tossed away the making of great cars!

K2aggi07says:
Eric, I had a Tandy computer in my room. I partially learned to read with Reader Rabbit and an obscure game called (I think) Leaper. One of my earliest memories is my dad playing Command HQ, which started with a "cold war" prep period. And some old-school Tandy monopoly game.

A world without internet is in my memory, but just barely. I vaguely remember Compuserve becoming AOL, and sort of remember original Netscape having a market share. Of course, I'm typing this through Firefox; strange how things come around.

Cap'n Ed, if you happen to read this I have a suggestion: You oughta run late night free-topic threads. Call 'em Scuttlebutt or something.

While I'm dreaming, a forum would be even better!

Eric says:
I learned to program in basic on a TRS 80. We would Lprint our programs in case the tape casset failed to save the program. My first Computer was an Atari 800 with a printer. I subscribed to Compuserve in 1996 at which time, the account numbers were 5 digits. 5 digits. I still have one of the early invoices.

If I still had my Atari 800, I would write some programs. You can't find basic anymore and the MS version that is out there right now C+++ is not the same. I would love to find an old comuter with basic intact.

As far as todays media... I say...

0 CLS

Do you remember?

Terrye:

Yet Limbaugh (opinion) and FoxNews (breaking news) are successful at what they do and they attract a major audience once controlled by their political opposites. Howard Stern and Imus marginalized themselves into a sector, uh, comedy market by their own choices and mis-steps just as Dan Rather finished himself off as a faux reporter pretending to be objective.

Three other factors also helped to deflate old network news credibility:

The coverage of Oliver North testimony which backfired on his media detractors.

The coverage of the Reagan funeral where alphabet network reporters couldn't grasp how a man they openly detested could be so loved and respected by the political opposition and by plenty of Reagan Democrats, too.

The calling of an Al Gore "projected winner" before the polls had closed in nearly the entire Western half of the nation.

FoxNews and Limbaugh and company must be having a greater political impact than some would admit or Pelosi, Reid, and other usual suspects wouldn't be playing the Fairness Doctrine tune to regain what media grip they're now realizing they've now lost.

1986 not 1996

Haha, no way man. My memory begins with DOS. Autoexec.bat and fixing memory overlaps between peripherals.

My memory: the Tandy (8088 perhaps?) a 486, a Pentium 120 (both Compaq!) then the rest I built -- a PII 300, then a PII 450, a PIII 800, a PIV 2.4GHz and now my AMD 2.2GHz. I used Windows back when they had numbers, not years -- and I remember discussing suspiciously the "start" button when 95 came out.

Then again, I was born in 1985, so my memories are hardly indicative of my age. I was lucky enough to have a father who was interested in technology. I literally grew up with the stuff, unlike many of my friends. Started playing my first online games when I was 10...I remember thinking how cool it was to play with a guy from Israel.

K2aggi07 -- I'd love to read your blog & argue with you too, but I don't know what it is and am not sure it is polite to ask on the Captain's blog.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you about liberalism having only an emotional appeal. I think there are some core liberal principles that are pretty rational. I'd also argue that a lot of what passes for conservatism these days is pretty emotional -- the debates over immigration have a pretty nasty undertone to them for instance. (And that comes from someone who is sympathetic to the idea of needing better border control.)

Anyway, it is late and I need to hit the sack so I can get the kids up and going in the morning. If you can figure out a way to let me know about your blog, I'll check back here in the morning.

Night'

PS Carol -- I was born in 1968. Could a good lefty really be born any other year? :)

Thanks for the kind words Carol.

My broadcasting mentor was an Edward Murrow type who could see both Truman and Eisenhower as the loyal opposition and worked hard to see the good in those two men and tried to focus upon the good both did. Much like Ernie Pyle could and did respect our soldiers no matter what city, or state or town or farm they called home regardless of whether or not FDR should have landed them in the South Pacific first instead of North Africa first.

I see the demise of current day old network news as cumulative. Alphabet network management couldn't let go of a Watergate obsession (trousergate, Irangate etc.) and overplayed it twenty years to the demise of their audience following. It's easy to see a parallel in those same networks refusal to accept the Gore loss of 2000.

The TRS-80 (Zilog Z-80), Atari 800 (65c02), Apple II (6502 then 65c02) and Commodore (6510) were powerful for their day, despite the quirks like WordStar, Visicalc, daisy-wheel printers and single sided, single density floppy disks, 128k memory, yet were far more user friendly than MS-DOS before the Mac (68000) rocked the boat visually. How much has changed since the days of surfing BBS networks at the blistering speed of 300 baud. That's 0.3 kbps by today's lingo if my brain isn't too tired to type it correctly.

G'nite all.

Follow the money. LGBTetc. are worth more to the Dems, in terms of money and votes, than Indian tribes. Google "Tim Gill".

Teresa, if people leave a URL in the comments section their name becomes a hyperlink to that URL.

I don't say that liberalism is devoid of any rational basis. Likewise, conservatives aren't robots and have emotions, too. But there is definitely a spectrum there, and they're definitely on opposite sides of it.

Thats why truthers have traction on the left but not the right. Emotionally it must feel very, very good to delve into that: it puts order to a chaotic world, and gives an enemy that is somehow more easily hated, more powerful and frightening, but simultaneously more tangible.

All of the major tenets of the left are rooted more than anything else in emotionalism -- wealth guilt, race guilt, trust in the government, etc.

See you in another thread!

The neat thing about tv and radio, they have on/off buttons and channel/station selectors. If'n you don't like Fox - DON'T watch! I personally hate Geraldo and detest some of the other talking heads on various programs. When they come on, I switch channels. The same thing goes for the blogs. I like this one and follow it daily - most of the others - oh, well...

See... simple!

"If your not careful the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing" Malcolm X

I admire how baby-boomer Malcolm X had the courage to see the error of his youthful ways.

We already know who hates FOX, thanks Malcolm for explaining why they hate FOX.

The major candidates are also refusing to attend the "Prez on the Rez" debate due to the negative publicity that some California Tribes, such as Pechanga of Temecula and the Picayune Rancheria of Coarsegold are receiving for eliminating members from their tribe to gain more casino money.

Recently, Bill Cosby cancelled his show in Coarsegold in support of disenrolled Tribal Members.

Dennis Kucinich has stood up in support of disenrolled California Indians at the Native American Caucus at the San Diego Convention.

I can't understand why this wasn't done sooner. I mean it goes without saying that Faux is a Republican PR comapany. Why on earth would the Dems take part in a debate on Republican ground? For once, the Dems did the right thing and decided not to feed the beast that attacks them regularly.

And don't even start with me with the "oh but look at CBS and CNN...." There isn't a single responsible journalist on the Geraldo Channel.

Good for the Dems. Hope this wakes up viewers on the Republican Propaganda Station.

"There isn't a single responsible journalist on the Geraldo Channel."

Not biased, are you?

I believe it was the Columbia Review of Journalism that published a study they had done on political leanings in the media. Fox did indeed lean right, but only slightly. ALL the other networks leaned substantially left, to a much greater degree. Thus Fox was the closest to what the CJR calculated was the center. I do not remember what the methodology was, but the results were quite striking, and the CRJ is not known as a right-wing operation!

I believe that liberals assume that the frequency with which they hear their views broadcast in the media translates directly into the degree to which they represent the views of most Americans. This is probably a fallacy.

In my own life I have observed that friends who are left-leaning will automatically characterize even the most moderately-presented conservative positions as "hate". It is a reaction that they have learned works well in discrediting opposing views, but it is not truth.

As for Dems refusing to debate on Fox, it is a pretty clear indication that they like to talk about diversity of thought, but find the practice of it distasteful. Since the rest of the media will always provide them cover, they refuse to debate on the channel with the biggest audience for one simple reason - because they figure that they can get away with it.

Bill Clinton's recent outrage at being asked a direct question of the type that Republicans are expected to handle graciously every day is also a clear indication to me that the Dems have a sense of entitlement to immunity from harsh questioning in the media - and with good reason, because they have indeed been granted such immunity for years!

Why does it matter if FOX leans right? Those who don't like it are not forced to listen and apparently there are enough who do like it and listen to more than pay the bills...they are in a free market economy and they suit their market, why should they change?
"No coverage is a disaster"...exactly and my suggestion for FOX (and I don't believe for a moment they give a hoot about any of my suggestions) would be that those who don't want to appear on FOX not appear in any form on FOX (except of course for paid commercials)...not in the news, not in the discussions not anywhere...why give them the free publicity on a station they clearly despise and are trying to intimidate or drive out of business? They are cutting off their noses to spite their faces,IMO

Why does it matter if FOX leans right? Those who don't like it are not forced to listen and apparently there are enough who do like it and listen to more than pay the bills...they are in a free market economy and they suit their market, why should they change?
"No coverage is a disaster"...exactly and my suggestion for FOX (and I don't believe for a moment they give a hoot about any of my suggestions) would be that those who don't want to appear on FOX not appear in any form on FOX (except of course for paid commercials)...not in the news, not in the discussions not anywhere...why give them the free publicity on a station they clearly despise and are trying to intimidate or drive out of business? They are cutting off their noses to spite their faces,IMO

Candidates have the right to appear where they want.

True enough. But if they want my vote, then they need to reach out to me. Preaching to the choir is all well and good, but that doesn't gain you any converts.

I doubt anyone who watches Fox on a regular basis is going to vote for a Democrat anyway so why waste their time?

Maybe because they're running for the office of the President of the United States, not of the disaffected liberals or disaffected conservatives.

Teresa,

I don't have too much time to respond at length but did want to thank you for your thorough response back on the bias of my list of MSM outlets.

I have two points:

1. You mentioned this about The New York Times:

" General liberal tilt in reporting "

LOL! Teresa, I'm starting to think you either work in the State Legislature of S. Carolina or you have a degree in Spin! There isn't a Communist Propaganda News outlet in North Korea that could be perceived as different from The New York Times. The only aspect of the NYT that is American is their address and of course, apparently their only appreciation of capitalism....their offices.

2. Glen Beck will lead you to the promised land if you just let him. I promise. : )

Of course the entire MSM is totally biased to the Left. The only person who would deny that has lived only in a cave. But the reason that those from the Left, with 99.8% of the MSM liberally biased, would be so angered and enraged by Fox News is a simple one. In a Socialist society, there is no acceptance or tolerance of diversity from the Socialist Doctrine while in a Democracy, differences of political thought are welcome. So, as Socialists, you and the others on the Left simply MUST smash Fox News and drive that entity from your Socialist agenda. Your tolerating Fox News in America would be similar to Castro allowing a Freedom from Communism political party holding community meetings twice a week outside of the Government's HQ.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards are proving everyday they lack the larger vision to meet most voters and refuse to look down and visit the most loyal wing of the party in African and Native Americans.
Passing on the Native Americans was just flat cruel and high-handed. I hope they get behind Richardson or Kucinich.