Real quick post here before I turn in tonight…
I haven’t had a chance to watch all that much of the president’s awkward-moment-filled appearance on Univision last night (here, here, and here, are a few snippets), but every clip I see makes me want for more.
Watching just the little I’ve seen, and the hard-hitting questions and follow-ups, though, I wonder: Do the reporters who cover the president and his other lickspittle trucklers in the MSM ever feel embarrassed by their sycophancy? I mean really, do they ever, at the end of the day, stop and feel ashamed that they do so poorly at what their job is actually supposed to be: Seeking truth from power?
Just a thought. Every once in a while I end the day not having done much (the military is a big place, and you can’t sleigh a dragon every day). It makes me feel uneasy when that happens. I wonder, seriously, how reporters feel at the end of their day, to see people like Univision’s moderators (and audience members, for that matter, too) doing their jobs so much more competently.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)
P.S., Notice, too, by the way, that every answer the president gives is about how his problems are somebody else’s fault. I imagine this excuse-roladex he has would grow tiring to hear for the American electorate if he were actually—regularly—asked real questions…you know, the kind that the “Pimp with the Limp” doesn’t tend to ask…
UPDATE (from Dan): Holy cow, Nick, did you read my mind? (Or maybe just see my notes on the blog dashboard?) I had intended to get at the same thing you address in your postscript, particularly about how the president blamed Republicans for his failure to pass an immigration bill. Good post.
UP-UPDATE (also from Dan): love how Drudge promotes the interview:
UP-UP-UPDATE (also from Dan): Commenting of the Univision Townhall, Jennifer Rubin reaches a conclusion similar to Nick’s: “That President Obama has not been pressed by any U.S. TV network or English-language cable news interviewer speaks volumes about how uninterested the media are in doing anything but finding Mitt Romney gaffes and helping steer the news headlines in the president’s favor.“
I don’t know if they ever get embarrassed but I am embarrassed for them.
My guess is that mainstream reporters avoid comparing themselves to real journalists.
Great blog.
I’m not. I get infuriated sometimes, but it has been a long time since I have been embarrasses.
I would love to see harder questions and time for follow up from both sides. When candidates give in to their hyperbole it should be the duty of the Journalists to ask strong redirects and press the answerer to give an answer. Unfortunately, when that happens candidates are trained to filibuster and run out the segment as capitalism requires the journalists to get moving to the next sensational story like cute kittens or a celebrity sex scandal.
There is no money in a holding a serious policy debate and a for profit news agency has no incentive to hold one. This is why it would be great if debates were held and conducted only by PBS with no ads, no breaks and no stupid gimmicks.
Wow, real journalists. Who knew? Did you notice how flustered he was getting by the questions, not just the gaffes, I mean, but how he was struggling for words and trying not to sound too much like he was talking down to them in his answers, though he was clearly frustrated.
…and with PBS’ notorious left wing bias, Mike? I think not.
You have a problem with capitalism, little Mikey? Good news! There are still a couple “worker’s paradises” left. Can I help you with a one-way ticket, comrade?
Of course they don’t. Shame is not compatible with their outlook. Did Torquemada ever feel shame or doubt about what he was doing? Or Richard Topcliffe? Or Bin Laden?
So, lower case mike thinks PBS should run the debates?
Because an agency that receives billions in taxpayer subsidies would certainly not be biased toward the candidate of Big Government, I guess.
Why would Smithers ever say anything bad about Mr. Burns? That’s how the MSM is.
I think a better option would be for each campaign to choose one of the interviewers. It would show who wants a real debate and would expose media malpractice. I cannot see Romney picking a far right guy like Hannity but I can see Obama picking someone far left like Chrissy Matthews.
If he was still alive, a debated moderated by Bill Buckley and Alan Dershowitz would be well worth watching.
I think the sad thing I the media probably thinks they are covering the president fairly.
I know the media is often frustrated by the lack of press conferences, but when they finally get one, they toss softballs.
The media should be ashamed, but a part of me doesn’t think they see the bias.
The profession of journalism in this country has been completely ruined and is for all intents and purposes useless to anybody. Acknowledging this decay is a necessary part of fixing quite a few problems with our government and our economy. Unfortunately, conservative criticism of the media will never evolve past this myth of the liberally biased media. This persists, despite Republicans winning elections, despite Fox News dominating ratings for more than a decade, despite talk radio remaining almost exclusively conservative…. this liberal media just doesn’t seem to get a whole lot done for liberals, does it?
No matter. The ‘liberal media’ myth is absolutely essential to conservatism, and so it will remain regardless of how nonsensical it becomes. Apparently, even innocuous questions like “What kind of newspapers do you read?” are unfair and push an agenda. The ‘liberal media’ is useful for dismissing anything negative or revealing about conservatives, which comes in handy because there is just so much that is negative and revealing about conservatives. Throwing these fits has the effect of diminishing journalism even more, since reporters and pundits are terrified of losing access or being cut out. Very few journalists can even muster up the courage to ask a difficult question, and fewer still have the resolve to press, or follow-up, or call out obvious bullshit when their interviewees are obviously spinning. Whining about the liberal media effectively excuses Republicans from having to put up with any kind of confrontation or conflict. But how people deal with confrontation and conflict is arguably the most important thing we should be trying to learn about our political leaders!
Pretending like these videos of Romney are being over-hyped, pretending like Obama is doing the same kind of stuff and is being ignored, pretending like Katie Couric was some relentless shrew deliberately trying to undermine Sarah Palin….. all this does is prevent candidates from having to take responsibility and honestly argue their position. Politicians want to be asked easy questions, and by complaining that every question is unfair and needlessly antagonistic, journalists start asking nothing but easy questions. This is helpful if you have something to hide, which the conservatives most certainly do. The media is undoubtedly more helpful to Republicans and conservatism because of this. Our media doesn’t suck because it’s politically biased one way or another, our media sucks because it’s hardly a media. It’s an easy-to-manipulate amplifier for whatever your political message is.
So Levi’s insistence is that the media is completely ruined and useless because it doesn’t publish 24/7 hit jobs on conservatives.
Why? Because Levi knows all conservatives are awful, evil people; therefore, the fact that the media doesn’t absolutely reflect his belief system means that they are wrong, that they are self-censoring, that they are scared, etc. — because if they weren’t, no conservatives would ever win elections, no conservatives would ever have anything positive written about them, no conservatives would be allowed to speak in public or have radio shows, etc.
In short, Levi views conservatives in the same way that his friends in Hamas view Jews.
And Levi exercises the same degree of intellect and rationality towards conservatives as Hamas does toward Jews.
Why the pessimism, Levi? They got President Corky McShortbus elected, didn’t they?
Levi, you can find a lot of evidence of media bias summarized in the research of Tim Groseclose of UCLA in his book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. You can also find his argument and methodology outlined in this review and in this video.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. The Republicans were terribly unpopular in 2008 and reasonable people agree that virtually any Democrat could have beaten the Republicans, but you still want to go around pretending like Obama wouldn’t have won without the media supporting him. I guess the Republicans were only unpopular because of the liberal media, right? And I suppose the only reason the Republicans ever took power in the first place, was so that the liberal media could undermine them, right?
Again, the liberal media myth is so important to conservatism because you can attribute every single Republican failure to it in one way or another. And when you fail as much as the Republicans do, it’s important to have such a convenient catch-all.
Since Univision caters to a somewhat immigrant community, could we say that this is a case of immigrants doing the jobs Americans won’t do?
Sorry, Levi, but your bias is palpable.
McCain was a dud candidate with tepid support from the base and he was beating Obambi until the Wall Street crisis hit at the end of September.
In 2004, the MSM was all over Bush like ugly on an ape and he still managed to beat (“I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot”) Kerry handily.
In 2010, the MSM was in stitches laughing at the Tea-baggers and then the Obama brain trust was stunned by what the hicks in the sticks did to them when the returns were in.
You are about to suffer the same kick in the groin in 2012.
We do it against the tide of the MSM love-fest for Obama and their censorship of anything reflecting poorly on him, while giving on-oing anal exams to the Republicans.
Where have any of us attributed a failure of a Republican candidate to be elected because of the MSM? Please cite.
We know the playing field is uneven. But, we go out and tell the truth and people seem to like it enough to elect our candidates.
Your problem is that you have no concept of conservatism. You regularly, predictably and comically paint anything conservative as selfish, greedy and mean spirited. You have not soul for debate on the ideas, you rely, instead on shifting the topic, ignoring the facts and name calling.
First, the review. He thinks Obama should have lost by 14% in 2008. I just think that’s ridiculous. I’m sure he has his methodology and maybe even provides a few examples, but what exactly did the media have to do for Obama in 2008 to overcome such a deficit? From my perspective, the election in 2008 came down to these things primarily: an unpopular incumbent party, the financial crisis, McCain running a poor campaign, capped by his disastrous VP choice, and Obama’s 50-state campaign strategy that put states like North Carolina and Virginia in play for the Democrats. All of these factors made it a very good year to be running for President as a Democrat, but this guy would have us believe that in actuality, all of the above added up to a landslide for McCain. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Now the video, and the two pieces of evidence that he claims prove the liberal bias of the media. Van Jones doesn’t seem to be the best example. For starters, he did end up resigning – how did this happen if the media is heavily biased towards Democrats? And let’s consider the newsworthiness of this ‘story’ in the first place. Were Jones’ remarks especially outrageous? I don’t think so. Do you think that the the Republicans calling for his resignation were doing so in the best interests of the country, or do you think it was a political calculation? You don’t know anything about American politics if you’d say it was the former. Of course, Tim Groseclose here, who is presenting himself as some kind of independent objective arbiter of bias, just takes the Republicans’ assumptions for granted and clearly agrees with their efforts to get him to resign. Compare Jones’ statement to Rick Perry’s, when he argued that Texas might still have the right to secede from the Union. Or Steve King’s statement after an idiot flew his plane into an IRS building, killing a government worker, where he insinuated that the IRS had it coming. Or how about Paul Ryan’s attendance at the Values Voter summit a few days ago, where a self-styled ‘former terrorist’ spoke to the crowd. All three of the Republicans are in much higher profile positions than Van Jones, all three Republicans said things arguably crazier than Van Jones, and most importantly – all three Republicans are still in office. I’ll ask again – if the media is biased against the Republicans and in favor of the Democrats, shouldn’t we expect that the Republicans be forced to resign?
The second example is even weaker. The Bush tax cuts are most definitely tax cuts for the rich. There’s nothing biased about calling them tax cuts for the rich. Giving millions to billionaires and hundreds to poor people is tax cuts for the rich, and just because everyone got something doesn’t mean it all evened out. I mean, conservative economic theory argues that giving rich people tax breaks boosts the economy – and this guy wants to pretend like they weren’t designed for that exact purpose?
Finally, there is a deliberate misrepresentation in the video at 2:25. While arguing that the tax cuts aren’t for the rich, he presents a bar graph, a line graph, and a pie graph, in that sequence. The first two graphs show the same thing. But when he goes to make his point about the overall percentage of taxes paid, all of a sudden he changes the the income level from on the third graph. In the previous graphs, he defined ‘rich’ as people making over $1 million a year. In the third graph, his definition has changed to anyone making over $100,000 per year. Do you see it? This is what is known as lying. He changed his definition of rich to better serve his argument. If he is trying to demonstrate how biased others are and making statements as an objective authority, why is he laughing to bolster his argument? Could it be because he’s biased himself and is no more an objective authority than Sean Hannity?
Yes, that’s it. That’s definitely it.
Just wondering, Levi – do you always cut-and-paste your arguments from left-leaning blogs because you don’t have an original thought in your head, or is it because you don’t have an original thought in your head that you have to echo the left-wing talking points?
To quote one of our favorite commenters – “Now hush, Levi – the adults are talking.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Can you prove what you’re accusing me of?
And here’s an example of how the Obama Party, as exemplified by their little talking-points repeater Levi, plays this game.
First Levi states this:
So in this case, Levi is referring to tax payments in amounts — that is, the sheer number of dollars given.
But what does Levi do when the topic shifts to how much people actually pay in terms of dollars given?
He then switches over to the rate, rather than the amount.
The reason why is obvious. If you look at the Bush tax cuts in terms of rates, the greatest changes in rates were in the lower income brackets, making it clear that the Bush tax cuts were more heavily-weighted towards the middle class and the poor than toward the rich. So Levi tries to switch and change to the amount that was paid.
And then, when the millions of dollars that Mitt Romney paid in taxes, far more than Levi will ever pay in his lifetime for all the welfare that he consumes, then Levi has to shift over to the rate at which it was paid.
Again, it’s to create the lie of “fairness”. Mitt Romney and others pay far, FAR more in taxes than Levi and his welfare-addled ilk ever do, if in fact they pay at all; meanwhile, Levi and his fellow Obama supporters freely admit they don’t want to work, they just want a free check.
This is the sign of a duplicitous and malicious liar. Levi is truly a fool, and he is a malicious and evil fool. Levi deliberately lies and obfuscates, as liberals are taught to do, in order to manipulate people, hold on to power, and con honest hardworking people out of their money. As he admitted just the other day, liberals are amoral people who will take shortcuts, cook the books, cheat, lie, and poison the environment unless the government specifically restrains them. They have no sense of decency or values whatsoever.
Levi, your responses to the Groseclose book aren’t very persuasive because I have trouble getting past your first paragraph. Without the biased press, it is unlikely Obama even would have been the nominee, much less that someone with such a thin resume, such empty rhetoric, and such a questionable past would have been taken seriously as a candidate. If the mainstream press had undertaken to do any reporting like this five years ago his candidacy wouldn’t have gotten very far.
But that’s not all. The mainstream press attacked Bush constantly and managed to persuade a huge majority of the public that the economic collapse of 2008 was all his fault. A more honest press would have explored the highly significant role of Democrat policies and the Community Reinvestment Act in fueling the rise of sub-prime lending and the housing boom, and it would have explained that Bush’s attempts to get greater oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were rebuffed by Democrats led by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Does Bush deserve some blame for failing to enact such reforms? Certainly, but an honest press would have at least reported that he tried and made it clear that both parties were to blame. It also would have reported that Franklin Raines got very rich while creating the mess at Fannie Mae and that he was a key adviser to the Obama campaign.
Your rebuttal on Van Jones is likewise unpersuasive. Van Jones’ statements were only covered widely on the right; viewers and readers of only the mainstream press still don’t know what he did or what he said or why he left office (nor are they likely to be familiar with Anita Dunn) because the story wasn’t covered–unlike the other Republicans you allude to. Another example would be the “Fast and Furious” scandal. Most readers and viewers of the mainstream media have no idea what it involves or why it is an issue.
And the other thing to point out, Kurt, is that, since the Obama Party is screaming that the collapsing economy is solely due to “obstructionism” of Republicans under Obama, then the Obama Party is responsible for the economic collapse under Bush.
And there are plenty more where that came from.
We have to remember that Levi is a malicious liar. He knows the media is biased, and that’s exactly the way he wants it. He just can’t say that, just like he and his fellow Obama supporters in the media couldn’t be honest about Obama’s lack of experience, racist opinions, and Marxist plans for wealth redistribution and putting more people on welfare.
Given that Levi’s admitted he’s a fascist, and displays he’s in love with the big lie, and won’t deny either of these facts, I don’t see why the little racist should ever be taken at face value.
Well, Republicans were in charge of the country and the economy for a solid decade before the financial crisis. The CRA and GSEs had been around for decades without creating financial disasters, and while subprime lending was the basis of the scheme that lead to the ultimate collapse, it was the deregulation of the derivatives market and the absence of regulation of the financial industry that turned those loans into the economic apocalypse we’re all experiencing. To the extent that the Democratic Party played a role in creating these conditions, they were implementing deregulatory, corporate-friendly policies traditionally recommended by conservatives.
I know that conservatives view the financial crisis completely differently, but you have a lot of work ahead of you if you think you’re going to convince everybody that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were singularly responsible for all of this. It sounds like a desperate attempt to absolve oneself of responsibility and not at all like a sober assessment of the factors that contributed to the disaster. Both parties contributed, but Republicans were in power for the critical period. If anything, I don’t see the press stressing that point enough. Regardless – you can’t really blame the American electorate for blaming the Republicans when the Republicans are in charge. Pretending that they needed convincing by the press is disingenuous.
Van Jones was clearly the victim of a politically-motivated witch hunt. His eventual resignation by definition makes him a terrible fable for the liberal, biased, Obama-supporting press, since they were unable or unwilling to prevent him from having to step down. Again – Republicans in much higher profile positions have endured much more controversy for much longer, and they still hold their jobs. Why would he resign if he wasn’t feeling any pressure? If the media effectively prevented anyone from knowing about Van Jones and his comments, why did he resign? That simply doesn’t make sense.
The only other piece of evidence Groseclose had was a completely subjective proclamation that the Bush tax cuts weren’t targeted to wealthy people, even though targeting rich people with tax cuts is a primary economic policy of conservatism. I also demonstrated how he was deliberately misleading with how he presented his information, revealing his own biases. If I’m going to be lectured by someone about the liberal media bias, I expect them not too resort to amateur debate tactics to bolster their argument.
#24 – “Can you prove what you’re accusing me of?”
Yes – but can YOU prove that you’re not doing it? It’s the Harry Reid way, after all. Burden of proof is on the person who’s being accused.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
For the CRA, the unhinged Levi dodges, spins, and LIES, LIES, LIES:
Meanwhile, guess who was pushing for MORE regulatory oversight of the GSEs in response to the clear evidence that their Obama-controlled executives were breaking the law?
And what did the screaming Levi and his Barack Obama Party say?.
So Levi, let’s review:
1) Liberals demanded loans be given based on skin color rather than ability to repay
2) Liberals punished banks that refused to do so
3) Liberals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought up these subprime loans and sold them as derivatives and securities
4) Liberals blocked the Bush administration’s attempt to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stop their abuse
Every single one of these is backed up by facts and links. Every. Single. One.
You have nothing. You just have blather and your insane religious fervor that conservatives are evil and that the Barack Obama Party is always right.
Next up:
The only other piece of evidence Groseclose had was a completely subjective proclamation that the Bush tax cuts weren’t targeted to wealthy people, even though targeting rich people with tax cuts is a primary economic policy of conservatism.
Comment by Levi — September 22, 2012 @ 6:34 pm – September 22, 2012
Your attempt to argue that was already dealt with above by posting links to your own statements and demonstrating your malicious and false pattern of duplicity in regard to tax rates and amounts.
You can’t argue facts, so now you’re screaming that your assumptions should count as facts. This simply shows how uneducated, ignorant, and simple you are, Levi. Typical of Obama supporters, you are unintelligent and amoral and left with nothing but malicious lies and smears against conservatives because you have no facts or intelligent arguments to back up your claims.
Please, let’s see the proof.
You dealt with it by linking posts I made a month apart. Do I have to explain to you why that’s meaningless?
Although NDT has already added a lot in the way of responding to Levi’s points about the role of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and government policies in helping to cause the economic meltdown of 2008, I wanted to add two more articles which provide even more perspective on the causes. This article points out that contrary to the popular narrative, deregulation was not a key feature of the GW Bush years: “Not only was there no major deregulation passed during the past eight years, but the Bush administration and a Republican Congress approved the most sweeping financial-market regulation in decades.” Furthermore, this article makes a very comprehensive case for the claim that too much regulation rather than too little, contributed significantly to making the problems worse. As summarized very briefly here: “The regulators seem to have been as ignorant of the implications of the relevant regulations as the bankers were. The SEC trusted the three rating agencies to continue their reliable performance even after its own 1975 ruling protected them from the market competition that had made their ratings reliable. Nearly everyone, from Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke on down, seemed to be ignorant of the various regulations that were pumping up house prices and pushing down lending standards.”
Yup.
Because you need to state publicly that malicious liars like yourself are exempt from your own rules on consistency.
Because you need to state publicly that malicious liars like yourself believe you can say and do anything you want and that you don’t have to provide facts or evidence.
You can’t argue facts, so now you’re screaming that your assumptions should count as facts, that your inconsistency should be ignored, and that anyone who doesn’t do that is an evil homophobic racist imbecile.
Your method is simple, Levi; scream and namecall at adults until they break and give you your way. This works beautifully in certain situations, as we see from spoiled toddlers and teenagers who are able to bully and manipulate college-educated and fully-mature adults into catering to the whims of people who are their emotional and intellectual inferiors, no matter how destructive those whims are. And it is the primary methodology of liberals, who also depend on bullying and insulting their intellectual, emotional, and moral superiors into giving them their way, no matter how destructive that way happens to be for society.
But it doesn’t work in places like this. You keep screaming and throwing your tantrums, and you keep getting answered with facts and rational argument. Hence, you either scream louder or run away sulking.
So yes, malicious brat, you need to explain why it’s meaningless. Your parents may have been foolish enough to allow a six-year-old’s whims to run their household, but no one here is. State your case and make an intelligent argument with facts and links, like adults do.
Or run off and sulk, as invariably happens.
One truther defending another. Anyone surprised?
What can’t be argued is that in modern American politics, Republicans assert themselves more forcefully than Democrats. Republicans are usually in lockstep and you see a lot of 100% yes or no votes from the Republicans, which is almost never the case with Democrats. NDT’s allegation that the Democrats forced through some kind of agenda and that the Republicans, who controlled all both houses of Congress and the White House for much of the relevant period, were powerless to stop it is ridiculous. That would count as the only instance where this happened during the Bush administration – why weren’t the liberal able to prevent the invasion of Iraq? Why weren’t the liberals able to stop the Bush tax cuts?
Even in the articles you’re providing, I’m not finding a whole lot to justify laying the blame for all of this on the Democrats. You’re quoting an admission of Republicans’ failure. I, for one, am not surprised that a party that complains about government and works against regulation couldn’t pass effective regulation. Just because Republicans couldn’t do it, doesn’t necessarily mean regulation wouldn’t have worked. These guys run on a platform that says that government is always a problem and that government always fails – should we expect success from this group? I don’t think so. Just because Bush couldn’t do it, doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done. Let’s remember that the housing bubble did generate a lot of economic growth that Bush benefited from during his re-election campaign. And I thought the conservative argument about regulation was the it strangled the economy and prevented growth – but now it’s alleged to have been completely responsible for all of the growth in the housing bubble….. isn’t that, like, a contradiction?
Clearly you didn’t read the second article, or if you did, you didn’t read it very closely. The regulations the article was referring to had all been implemented at different points over the previous 20 years or so, at many different levels. The point was that no one foresaw how all of the different regulations would work together to provide incentives for risky practices after the government started pushing lenders to make subprime mortgages. Likewise, the first article pointed out that the Bush administration was not–contrary to the popular media narrative–a period of massive deregulation. Both articles made clear that there was plenty of blame to go around. But the fact also remains that the Bush administration at least recognized some of the problems with Fannie and Freddie, and the Democrats always protested against doing anything about those.