One of the most gratifying and amusing things about the present -- certainly cyclical -- Republican ascendancy is how frustrated the left has gotten with the effects of their sweeping electoral losses. The most obvious example is the froth over the Republicans' petty insistance on Constitutionality in the Senate which gets them indirectly labeled terrorists for daring to obstruct the obstruction of the minority Democrats. The Dems claim to be protecting the American people by thwarting the will of their elected representatives, which is so thick with irony as to be pretty much beyond comment.
More subtle, and yet closer to home to whatever dozen people watch it, is the rebalancing of PBS. Mick Arran claims that "PBS is about to become a fully-owned subsidiary of the Bush Administration", which is hyperbole that's apparently intended to elicit outrage from his readers. In actuality, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, only controls a small portion of PBS's budget, and he isn't seeking to merge PBS with the RNC, he just wants to ensure that public money is used in a way that relfects the will of the majority of Americans. The alternative is that eventually the public will begin to question how its tax dollars are used, and PBS may be defunded entirely as Newt Gingrich tried to do in 1994. I'd be glad to see that happen -- what business does the government have paying for television? where's that in the Constitution? -- but supporters of PBS who want to keep the station around should learn to keep a finger in the air.
How about the demise of the old "politics stops at the waters' edge" philosophy that so quickly fell out of favor once Democrats lost influence and control over foreign policy? What other instances of Democratic floundering and frustration have you seen or read about?
It wasn't hyperbole, it was satire.
Your defense of Tomlinson is disingenuous in the extreme.
[Tomlinson] isn't seeking to merge PBS with the RNC...
How do you know that? Take it on faith, do ye?
a) Tomlinson is a political hack who surfaced during the Reagan Admin and ran the most partisan political VOA in history. When he was editor of the Reader's Digest, he reprinted nothing that wasn't critical of liberals and/or Democrats and nothing that didn't fawn over Republicans as if they were the Second Coming, and the more extreme right-wing they were, the more he liked stories that smooched. Sounds like an RNC op to me. How can you be so sure he isn't?
b) PBS was originally founded to counter the majoritarian commercialism of LCD-oriented media. IOW, its whole purpose is to give the minority a wider voice.
c) Since when does (maybe) winning an election by a single percentage point mean the other half of the American people can safely be ignored or have the majoritarian view shoved down their throats pretending to be 'balance'? Shades of Newt's idiotic equating of Rush Limbaugh as 'public broadcasting' because a lot of people listen to him. (Never mind that you more or less have to because he's the darling of Corporate Media Executives who kept his show on for years even when it was in the ratings dumper and made sure it was stuck in prime time slots its audience didn't rate at the time.)
Face it: Conservatives like you don't want PBS around because it used to say things you don't like.
Question:
Why are radcons so threatened by media that tell the truth? media that use facts instead of ideology? media that don't kowtow to the Great God Bush every time they open their yaps (like Fox)?
Just curious.
Mick: I don't have to take anything on faith, since as I pointed out the CPB only controls about 10% of PBS's budget. That gives Tomlinson some power over PBS, but not what you appear to imagine.
If PBS was founded with the purpose you describe, then it certainly should be reformed or eliminated. All the more so considering that the mainstream media is ridiculously leftist. Did you know that all the networks' employees give far more money to the Democrats than the Republicans, including the employees of Fox News?
Your "maybe" about winning the election pretty much betrays your nonserious views. If you want your positions to be taken seriously you have to at least pretend to accept the same general facts as the vast majority of the population. You may as well attribute Bush's win to space aliens as question its existence or legitimacy at this point.
I'm not "threatened" by media that spews leftist drivel, I just don't want to pay for it with my taxes. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference.
What I am honestly starting to worry about is the incredible amount of venom and absolute hatred coming from the left. Why or how has the Republican party been labled in the past as the party of hate. When did it become acceptable as a society to dawn shirts reading "Kill Bush" or "F*&# the President". How can this be viewed as tolerable. When Clinton was in office, I did not want him there but I still supported the office of the President of The United States. I can not believe the double standard that is being allowed. It is consistently being downplayed but I am watching it escalate daily. I avoid most all discussion of politics at this point because there is such an absolute disconnected hatred for all things that the current administration stands for. It will come to a head at some point, but the question is when and at what cost?
"Never mind that you more or less have to because he's the darling of Corporate Media Executives who kept his show on for years even when it was in the ratings dumper and made sure it was stuck in prime time slots its audience didn't rate at the time."
Actually you don't have to listen to him, unless someone took your radio dial. The reason why Rushis the darling of 'Corprate Media Executives' is because he gets high ratings as tracked by Arbitron, high ratings result in advertisers paying more money to advertise on his show. If his rating dropped low enough he would be moved, replaced or his ad time would be sold for far less. Its the reason why KABC in Los Angeles dropped Michael Jackson, he wasn't making enough money. Its why radio stations change formats. They have always done ratings for shows, because it sets the rates they charge. Ratings are the reason Stern is on the air, dispite the FCC issues he brings in way more than he is fined. You may hate Rush, but he is the reason why talk radio became a sucessful and lasting radio format.
Eric: You always find what you look for. My sense about it is that if you look for the most venomous and vicious attacks on President Bush, you'll find them.
By the same token, if you look for people who have an attitude toward President Bush that is similar to the attitude you had toward President Clinton.. you'll find them and plenty of more pleasant sentiment.
I am a fairly liberal guy (and proud of it) but I have never advocated the death of President Bush or expressed such vehement rhetoric. I, like you with Clinton, don't want Bush to be in the Oval Office... but I respect the Presidency itself.
MW: Public support of Congress and the President is rather low, brought about by the overreaching in the Terri Schiavo case.
Support for the Republican plan on Social Security and the "nuclear option" on judicial filibusters among Republicans in Congress may diminish considerably (from current levels) as we move into the midterm elections, when Republican senators and representatives have to go home and sell these plans.
Tick:
Question:
Why are radcons so threatened by media that tell the truth? media that use facts instead of ideology? media that don't kowtow to the Great God Bush every time they open their yaps (like Fox)?
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., FEB 7, 2005
FNC O'REILLY 2,652,000 [VIEWERS]
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,904,000
FNC GRETA 1,568,000
FNC HUME 1,446,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,327,000
CNN LARRY KING 891,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 755,000
CNN ZAHN 550,000
CNN AARON BROWN 528,000
CNN ANDERSON COOPER 445,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 416,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 411,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 360,000
Well, Nick, it looks like the majority of cable news watching Americans prefer the "kowtow" to your rabid pronouncements.