U.S. Electile Dysfunction 2016

[cheesehead]

Hmm...

There seems to be no thread for the 2012 U.S. presidential election yet.

So I'll start off with this article, from Politico via Yahoo!, about "fair and balanced" Fox News's current dilemma (or quadrilemma):

"The Fox primary: complicated, contractual"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/42745

With Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee all making moves indicating they may run for president, their common employer is facing a question that hasn’t been asked before: How does a news organization cover White House hopefuls when so many are on the payroll?

The answer is a complicated one for Fox News. (See: GOP's struggles play out on Fox)

As Fox’s popularity grows among conservatives, the presence of four potentially serious Republican candidates as paid contributors is beginning to frustrate competitors of the network, figures within its own news division and rivals of what some GOP insiders have begun calling “the Fox candidates.”

With the exception of Mitt Romney, Fox now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office. (See: Romney treads lightly in New York)

. . .

BTW, following that last link (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42344.html) leads to this revealing quote about the "fair and balanced" network:

. . .

"Go with her gut, get out there and speak to the American people," Palin said of O'Donnell. "Speak through Fox News and let the independents who are tuning into you, let them know what it is that she stands for, the principles behind her positions."

. . .

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

There seems to be no thread for the 2012 U.S. presidential election yet.

Too early.

[cheesehead]

The OP article isn't about candidates for 2010 elections.

[garo]

Maybe the wrong thread but this will have a bearing on the 2012 election as well.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/...bama_interview

Man, Obama sounds like a whiner. Instead of trying to figure out what is causing democrat voters to be apathetic he starts blaming them and calling their conduct inexcusable! Maybe you didn't live up to your promise mate? Maybe you are weak and ineffectual? Maybe you are just a Corporationist in Democrat's clothing?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by garo

Maybe the wrong thread but this will have a bearing on the 2012 election as well.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/...bama_interview

Man, Obama sounds like a whiner.

Perhaps you're too eager to accuse him of whining. You seem to have mis-read the article.

Instead of trying to figure out what is causing democrat voters to be apathetic he starts blaming them and calling their conduct inexcusable!

Note the verb "would be" in the lead sentence. Obama's speaking of a potential future, not the past. He's saying that _IF_ they were to "sit out the midterm elections" (in the future) _that_ would be (future) "inexcusable" and "irresponsible". He's not referring to voters' past or present conduct.

Maybe you didn't live up to your promise mate? Maybe you are weak and ineffectual? Maybe you are just a Corporationist in Democrat's clothing?

Maybe you're a bit too eager to read what you want to read? :-)

[Zeta-Flux]

I agree with Uncwilly. I'm still trying to recover from the 2008 elections, and don't want to think about elections that over 2 years away.

[garo]

The point I was trying to make has been rather more eloquently made by Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...10/09/28/obama

Excerpts below:

Originally Posted by Obama

The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible. . . . .If we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties, we'd better fight in this election.

To summarize Obama's apparent claim: the Republicans better not win in the midterm election, otherwise we'll have due-process-free and even preventive detention, secret assassinations of U.S. citizens, vastly expanded government surveillance of the Internet, a continuation of Guantanamo, protection of Executive branch crimes through the use of radical secrecy doctrines, escalating punishment for whistleblowers, legal immunity for war crimes, and a massively escalated drone war in Pakistan. That's why, as the President inspirationally warns us: "If we want the kind of country that respects civil liberties, we'd better fight in this election."

Speaking of inspirational messaging, Vice President Joe Biden yesterday said we must "remind our base constituency to stop whining." Last week, Obama condemned "Democrats griping and groaning," and the day before he mocked Democrats who "just congenitally, tend to get -- to see the glass as half empty." That, of course, was preceded by Robert Gibbs announcing that liberal critics of the President who complain about continuation of Bush policies "need to get drug tested," while Rahm Emanuel had previously shared his view that dissatisfied liberals are "fucking retarded." Echoing those sentiments almost verbatim, Matt Yglesias called this week in The Daily Beast for a "little less whining and a little more cheerleading from the left," and accused those who fail to comply of "self-pity and self-indulgence"

[garo]

And many others join in:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/...t-their-minds/
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/201...ing-the-blame/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...heres_how.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._09/025885.php

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by garo

The point I was trying to make has been rather more eloquently made by Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...10/09/28/obama

Excerpts below:

Yeah, why risk a bunch of relatively-untested corporate-owned Republican pols managing the above programs, when the current bunch of corporate-owned Democratic pols has been doing a quite admirable job of imitating "Dubya and Cheney's greatest hits?" I notice an ever-increasing number of vote-desperate Dems are now suddenly in favor of continuing all the Bush-era tax breaks for the rich, as well. Talk about a false choice.


And apologies to anyone who may have eaten in the last hour, by while we're here, I couldn't resist posting a link to a Vanity Fair piece scheduled to run in the October edition on the dangerous political freak show named Sarah Palin:

Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury: Even as Sarah Palin’s public voice grows louder, she has become increasingly secretive, walling herself off from old friends and associates, and attempting to enforce silence from those around her. Following the former Alaska governor’s road show, the author delves into the surreal new world Palin now inhabits—a place of fear, anger, and illusion, which has swallowed up the engaging, small-town hockey mom and her family—and the sadness she has left in her wake.

Read yesterday that one of the US Army soldiers involved in the killing-afghan-civilians-for-sport scandal is from Wasilla … coincidence, ya think?

[garo]

The last para from Greenwald's post is the clincher:

By incessantly complaining now about the "irresponsible" "whiners" who aren't sufficiently grateful to the Obama White House, they seem to be setting up in advance a nice excuse for Democratic defeat in November: it wasn't anything we did to cause this; it was the fault of those whiny, unrealistic irresponsible liberals who didn't cheerlead loudly enough. What seems to matter most is that Obama be exonerated for the Democrats' electoral woes, even though he clearly bears substantial responsibility for much of it.

[ewmayer]

Maybe the President is feeling a bit cranky due to chill-pill withdrawal pangs: