Karl Rove axed from Fox News

[bush_cheney2004]

How exactly is this is different from the Democrats? The democrats are notorious for using regulation to pay off their corporate backers while they claim these 'regulations' are 'for everyone's good'.

There is no difference, as the Democrats are funded by Big Money from many large labour unions, trial lawyers, etc.

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

[Argus]

How exactly is this is different from the Democrats? The democrats are notorious for using regulation to pay off their corporate backers while they claim these 'regulations' are 'for everyone's good'.

Oh, the Democrats are no innocent virgins. But they haven't gotten to the point where they're outright whoring themselves to corporate lobbyists and doing nothing else. But then the Republican's political philosophy of small government is generally more inclined towards slashing taxes and legislation to begin with. That was why the corporations were able to buy them so cheaply.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Argus

[TimG]

But then the Republican's political philosophy of small government is generally more inclined towards slashing taxes and legislation to begin with.

Well this is crux of the matter. Republicans tend to have a philosophy of governance that some corporations like. That does not mean they are 'whoring' themselves to the corporations. The latter is a characterization that you invent because you don't like Fox News and dismissing them as a 'propaganda outlet' is easier to do than accepting them as an organization promotes a philosophy that you dislike.

Bottom line: you have no evidence of what motivates the people at Fox News. You simply assume the worst because it is easier to hurl ad hom attacks than to actually critique the philosophy.

Edited December 17, 2012 by TimG

[kimmy]

Propaganda is exactly what the Fox News network provided for the Republican party.

There is no difference at all between Dick Morris's "landslide!" predictions and Baghdad Bob telling the world that there were no Americans in Iraq.

We don't need evidence of their motivation to assess their actions, and the word propaganda is an entirely fair description.

-k

[Bonam]

Who says they covered anything up? They reported the polls that showed the results that they wanted to see. The same thing happens with other media outlets.

I don't think I said that they covered anything up. One can provide a distorted perception of reality without covering anything up.

[Argus]

Well this is crux of the matter. Republicans tend to have a philosophy of governance that some corporations like. That does not mean they are 'whoring' themselves to the corporations. The latter is a characterization that you invent because you don't like Fox News and dismissing them as a 'propaganda outlet' is easier to do than accepting them as an organization promotes a philosophy that you dislike.

Bottom line: you have no evidence of what motivates the people at Fox News. You simply assume the worst because it is easier to hurl ad hom attacks than to actually critique the philosophy.

First, there is more than ample evidence of how politicians in the US whore themselves to donors. The case is even more obvious for the Republicans given they've actually let donors write legislation which they've passed, without alteration. But as to FOX, their entire reason d'etre is to provide a 'conservative' slant on the news. Only in this case it's not simply conservative but corporate conservative. Ie., deliberately propogating phrases like "job creators" and using it repeatedly in an effort to fight off tax inceases on the wealthy. Their ongoing campaign against 'entitlements', which of course, don't benefit the rich. Their ongoing propoganda effort to demonstrate how America would be better with fewer taxes and regulations on big business. FOX basically tries to portray the messages which the corporate elites want ordinary people to accept. That these ideas benefit the elites and go against the interests of the poor and middle class seem fairly obvious to me.

I skim through the news channels every day, and FOX is right there among them. Virtually every time it comes on (briefly) they've got some talking head earnestly proclaiming (with much shaking of heads) how high taxes on the wealthy will destroy America, or how taxes on corporations cause poverty, or how those dirty "entitlements" are destroying the drinking water or something. There is no neutrality and no counter information. I understand they will occasionally interview a democrat or liberal but I've never actually seen that happen.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

FOX News Channel dominates its cable competition...has for years:

Ratings

The Scoreboard: Monday, December 17

By Chris Ariens on December 18, 2012 4:52 PM

25-54 demographic (Live +SD)

• Total day: FNC: 293 | MSNBC: 197 | CNN: 259 | HLN: 110
  

• Primetime: FNC: 381 | MSNBC: 276 | CNN: 321 | HLN: 154
  

Edited December 19, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

Well this is crux of the matter. Republicans tend to have a philosophy of governance that some corporations like. That does not mean they are 'whoring' themselves to the corporations. The latter is a characterization that you invent because you don't like Fox News and dismissing them as a 'propaganda outlet' is easier to do than accepting them as an organization promotes a philosophy that you dislike.

Ya but they are a propaganda network. By very definition:

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Propaganda

They claim to be a "fair and balanced" news outlet, yet they clearly aren't. They have a political ideological agenda. Similarly, i'd argue MSNBC is a propaganda outlet, left-leaning, but they seem at at least somewhat admit it:

"Beginning in the mid-2000s, MSNBC assumed an increasingly progressive stance in its opinion programming. In October 2010, it publicly acknowledged this with a marketing campaign it called "Lean Forward".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC

To think either of those outlet doesn't know what they're doing, who they are giving a voice to and who they aren't, is perposterous.

[WIP]

Oh, the Democrats are no innocent virgins. But they haven't gotten to the point where they're outright whoring themselves to corporate lobbyists and doing nothing else. But then the Republican's political philosophy of small government is generally more inclined towards slashing taxes and legislation to begin with. That was why the corporations were able to buy them so cheaply.

Usually, Democrats are option#2 for the corporate class. But, I'm not so sure about banking! Wall Street seems to prefer Democrats.

[Pliny]

Obama is a self described 1980's moderate Republican.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-moderate-Republican-Univision/2012/12/15/id/467898

Now that's propaganda.

[dre]

Obama is a self described 1980's moderate Republican.

http://www.newsmax.c...12/15/id/467898

Now that's propaganda.

Actually its basically true. Obama is by all accounts a pretty conventional mainstream right of center politician.

[Bonam]

Actually its basically true. Obama is by all accounts a pretty conventional mainstream right of center politician.

Right of what center? He is certainly not right of the modern American political center.

[Smallc]

Is there a modern American political centre?

[Bonam]

Is there a modern American political centre?

By definition, one has to exist, yes (that's just a mathematical truism about the existence of the average of a set). Is there a political party/movement that represents said center? No.

[kimmy]

Right of what center? He is certainly not right of the modern American political center.

Only because in recent years the "center" has moved far to the right of where it used to be. I think Obama's point is that today's Republicans have moved far to the right of where Republican icons like Reagan or Eisenhower were.

Jeb Bush said during the primaries that if his dad or Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination today, they'd be attacked as "too liberal" by today's Republicans.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Jeb Bush said during the primaries that if his dad or Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination today, they'd be attacked as "too liberal" by today's Republicans.

That's OK, as the very same has been said by "Progressives" concerning President Clinton and Obama.

[WIP]

Actually its basically true. Obama is by all accounts a pretty conventional mainstream right of center politician.

Exactly! And is there any more clear evidence that Obama's main priority is to serve the same aristocrats as the Republicans, all we have to look at is the phony drama drummed up in American news again of a "Fiscal Cliff."

All in all, the best course of action would be to just ignore this so called "cliff" and let the tax rates rise to pre-Bush levels, and automatic spending cuts kick in. Any really necessary adjustments to tax increases could be targeted to income groups that need it the most....personally, I would say Bite The Bullet, and start paying for things that are essential - like badly degraded infrastructure, and providing some relief to impoverished cities like Cleveland, Camden New Jersey and I'm sure there are many others, where the poor have been have been falling further behind....now that's a phrase I've never heard Obama mention, come to think of it! The "poor!" I've heard him talk about the middle class endlessly since he arrived on the national scene, and lately he noticed that there was growing animosity towards the rich....but the poor....have they ever shown up as a topic in any of his speeches?

Anyway; let the tax rates go up, and let the automatic cuts kick in. After all, is there any other method that will actually reduce America's bloated and ever increasing military budgets? Even a 20% cut...if they couldn't find a weasel way to get around it, would give the U.S. the opportunity to pack their bags and get out of wars they're never going to win anyway. It was a similar budget move that provided the opportunity to get out of Vietnam way back when. Cutting off the money, seems to be the only way to get troops out of places where they are not needed or wanted. Same goes for Germany and Japan -- what useful purpose do those bases serve any more?

But, what gets me about the Obama Fiscal Cliff strategy, both before and after the Election, is that he frames it has a search for a compromise with Republicans. And what is the compromise he is looking for? Letting the tax rates on income over $400,000 per year now, rise to pre-Bush levels, and offering up cuts to Medicare and Social Security on his part. Think about that for a moment, because I don't see too many analysts on TV asking how pensioners getting their old age pension benefits cut, or sick people who will see a cut to their health insurance after they retire, somehow benefit by having the rich pay slightly more in taxes!

So, if you look at what Obama does, both domestic and foreign, rather than what he says; there's no way to get around the fact that he is offering a conventional Republican agenda! What the Republicans used to offer......before they went insane!

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly! And is there any more clear evidence that Obama's main priority is to serve the same aristocrats as the Republicans, all we have to look at is the phony drama drummed up in American news again of a "Fiscal Cliff."

What kind of idiot would have ever believed otherwise ?

[jbg]

Actually its basically true. Obama is by all accounts a pretty conventional mainstream right of center politician.

Would Adam Lanza be your idea of a politician slightly to the left of center?

[dre]

Would Adam Lanza be your idea of a politician slightly to the left of center?

Wow... that post is retarded even by your standards!

[jbg]

Wow... that post is retarded even by your standards!

Well there were posts a couple of years ago saying that Jarod Lochner was acting as a good Republican.

[Pliny]

Actually its basically true. Obama is by all accounts a pretty conventional mainstream right of center politician.

Hardly. What right of centre politician would have dreamed up Obamacare?

Is he a Statist? Yes. Both the right and the left do tend to grow government but saying Obama is similar to 1980's Reagan republicanism is an insult. He is more similar to Chavez.

[Pliny]

Exactly! And is there any more clear evidence that Obama's main priority is to serve the same aristocrats as the Republicans, all we have to look at is the phony drama drummed up in American news again of a "Fiscal Cliff."

So, if you look at what Obama does, both domestic and foreign, rather than what he says; there's no way to get around the fact that he is offering a conventional Republican agenda! What the Republicans used to offer......before they went insane!

Obama is just trying to consolidate health care in one package. A single health care system. Eventually, No medicare. No medicaid No private insurance. Hardly a republican agenda.

[Pliny]

Exactly! And is there any more clear evidence that Obama's main priority is to serve the same aristocrats as the Republicans, all we have to look at is the phony drama drummed up in American news again of a "Fiscal Cliff."

The establishment of both parties are pretty close in who they serve but there is a push for big government coming from the left at the moment. George Soros, Big Labour and that ilk. They have their anatagonists in the Tea party and the Koch Bros.

All one need do to determine if Obama is left or not is to look at his allies and allegiances. You can't tell me Big Labour has suddenly become right wing.

[WIP]

Obama is just trying to consolidate health care in one package. A single health care system. Eventually, No medicare. No medicaid No private insurance. Hardly a republican agenda.

Obamacare was a proposal that originated at the Heritage Foundation's think tank, and was offered up by Bob Dole as a counter to Hillary Care early on in the Clinton Administration. It is not a single health care system; but a mishmash that puts restrictions on health insurance companies, while providing them a larger market base. Obamacare looks remarkably similar to car insurance here in Ontario. It's mandated that you have to buy insurance from one of the private insurers, if you want to own a car. When it comes to personal health, the stakes are much higher, and this plan is a sellout to the Insurance industry, regardless of controls and tinkering around the edges.

The establishment of both parties are pretty close in who they serve but there is a push for big government coming from the left at the moment. George Soros, Big Labour and that ilk. They have their anatagonists in the Tea party and the Koch Bros.

All one need do to determine if Obama is left or not is to look at his allies and allegiances. You can't tell me Big Labour has suddenly become right wing.

Big Labor in the U.S. is almost dead! Unions are in decline, and are almost at the point where workers will have to go out on wildcat strikes and fight police and hired goons just like they did a hundred years ago! It's history repeating itself.

And George Soros is not any kind of leftist that I would recognize! The facts are more correctly that he is a disaster capitalist who has personal issues with conservatives and with the Republican Party as an institution. It could also be that he just decided that his own needs could be better addressed by buying the DLC and the Beltway Liberals, rather than chip in to the same pot that the other billionaires are contributing to at the GOP.

Take a closer look at any of the Soros-sponsored media arms of the Center For American Progress. If you look at Think Progress, it's sub groups like Joe Romm's Climate Progress, you will discover that these "leftists" never point their guns at currency market manipulators like Soros, who have enriched themselves at the expense of third world nations. Nor does Think Progress have much to say about defense spending, war crimes and military overreach by U.S. forces....trade globalization agreements....a quick term search at Think Progress reveals that they haven't even featured a blurb about the new round of TPP closed door discussions since February.....and that is another of the hazards of depending on a billionaire to support "progressive" ideas! I could also mention how the Soros-funded antiwar groups like Move ON.org took down their tents and rolled up the carpet on that issue as soon as Obama was elected, and wars, war crimes, attacks on civil liberties etc. were okay as long as they were carried out by a Democratic president.