Friday, October 07, 2005

Line from a Future History of the United States

When a slight majority of the American people elected George W. Bush president in 2000, they expected a historic presidency. Little did they know it was going to be historically bad.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Fun With Huff Post

Feeling unusually bored and unproductive at work today, I spent some time trolling through the comments section on Huffington Post. They've changed the format, so I won't be getting any random people checking out my site anymore, which is disappointing, but it's still interesting to see what other people have to say. And of course, I love putting my two cents in.

On this story about Dan Senor, the "former Senior Advisor to the Coalition in Iraq," getting a job with Fox News, I posted the following comment:
For those discouraged by the seemingly unstoppable rise of Fox News, consider this. During primetime, they average just over a million viewers. By comparison, over 19 million viewers tuned into CSI and Desperate Housewives. Just over 15 million watched Lost.

Let's keep some perspective here. Fox News, though obviously biased, is not as influential as everyone fears. Their audience is relatively small and many in that audience are comfortable with the right-leaning bias. They might even prefer Fox News because of that bias.

The best thing those of us who aren't Fox viewers can do is watch something else...and I assure you, we're doing that in the millions.

On a side note, a rhetorical question: if Fox News wasn't so clearly biased, would the network be strong enough to stand on their own as a news organization? With the exception of Shepard Smith, it's unlikely.

Posted by: liftwithcaution on October 02, 2005 at 10:20am

That prompted this response:
Posted by: liftwithcaution on October 02, 2005 at 10:20am

Very good points raised in a thoughtful post. It seems as if Faux "News" is more influential than it really is possibly due to the incessant barrage of outrageous nonsense they spew out, which tends to get reported itself.

Faux does not provide objective news, but rather selected 'facts' that play to their nutcase base. They make a lot of noise, but they don't really influence as much as bolster the neo fascist crowd. Recent studies published show that in many markets they are losing viewership (as is Rush and other wingnuts), just as the Bush administration is losing what little support and credibility is has left (which isn't much, clearly). This is reflected in the increasingly shrill and desperate postings by the Bushbots. They practically beg for people to pay attention to them. Pathetic yet funny to see.

Posted by: Liberal Weenie on October 02, 2005 at 11:45am

On this story, I confronted someone named Kevin about a line of thought that I find increasingly annoying:
You guys are ignoring the real question that needs to be answered. You Liberals and Democrats are quick to distrust your own government, to hate America, to denegrate America and to call your government evil.

Yet you are silent on the most evil entity on earth...the one which condones and encourages suicide bombing...the one which praises the murders of innocent women and children...the one which praises the flying of jets into civilian skyscrapers...

the most evil, most of the devil entity on earth, the cult of Islam.

You are silent on that. Why?

Posted by: Kevin on October 02, 2005 at 09:36am

My response:

Unfortunately, your ignorance of Islam is shining through bright and clear, buddy. All of the things you are describing are part of fringe Islam, much like abortion clinic bombers are the fringe of Christianity. So basically you are using the worst elements of a world-wide religion to condemn the whole religion. That approach is so obviously flawed, you must have some other reason for your irrational hatred of Islam.

I just hope it's a good one.

Posted by: liftwithcaution on October 02, 2005 at 09:56am

Someone nicknamed Neo Concarney continues the Administration's attack on the Wilson's with this comment:
Prosecutor... Considering... Conspiracy... Senior Officials…

THE HUFF AND PUFF HEADLINE SMEAR STRIKES AGAIN. As long as we are "considering conspiracy" we should consider her husband and her for outing themselves. If ever someone needed exposed it is Plame and her lame husband. I think we should consider an investigation as to how this loser wrangled himself into a trip on our nickel so he could end up with a book deal. If this woman’s identity is such an issue she should yank her husband off of the talk circuit.

Posted by: Neo Concarney on October 02, 2005 at 10:11am

To which, I responded quite sarcastically:
Neo Concarney ,

Quick don't honestly believe that Joe and Valerie Wilson concocted his Niger trip so they could get a book deal, do you?

I mean, that's funny. That's really funny. Apparently we have a problem with book publishers in this country. I mean, Richard Clarke broke with Bush because he got that fat publishing contract. Bill Clinton? His whole presidency was an excuse to get a huge advance for his autobiography. And obviously this Joe Wilson character was too lazy to write a novel or something, so he had to come up with this grand scheme to lie about his trip to Niger to get his book contract.

What's with all these libs writing books? Don't they know that you're supposed to become a lobbyist or a CEO or something after their political careers wane?

I mean, really, does the world need another book?

Posted by: liftwithcaution on October 02, 2005 at 10:44am

Some asshole named Chuckling Republican stunk up the comments section on this post, but before he did, I gave him a piece of my mind.
"You're posting this on a far-left moonbat web site."

Posted by: ChucklingRepublican on October 02, 2005 at 12:03pm the Huff Post is considered "far-left" now? Huff Post does have a liberal slant but how "far" does it have to go to be "far-left?"

The unfortunate truth is that you can call it whatever you want, but calling a moderately liberal blog "far-left" just shows how little you know.

Betcha you're a big O'Reilly fan, too, huh?

Posted by: LiftWithCaution on October 02, 2005 at 12:15pm

More about the idiot called Chuckling Republican in a moment. First, there was also this comment, directed towards someone named Thalia, who I have to say, described the Republican Mafia pretty well, but was too general for my liking.
Thalia: "The best we can hope for from Repubs is treason, botched war, failing miserably after natural disasters, record deficits, record oil and gas prices, ruined national reputation, a quadrupling of worldwide terrorism?"

Thalia, I'd clarify that by saying "The best we can hope from THESE Republicans...."

I have faith that the GOP will get smart and chuck the "charltans in charge" by 08 at the latest.

The only thing Republicans have going for them right now is the complete ineffectiveness of the Democratic party.

You think GOP strategists don't know this? All they have to do is get rid of the corrupt neo-con-artists ruling the roost and nominate a moderate (think John McCain or someone in that mold) and the Democrats are toast.

Posted by: liftwithcaution on October 02, 2005 at 02:13pm

Not a bad assessment, if I do say so myself. But this guy didn't think so:
McCain a moderate?


The Republicans killed off all their moderates years ago. Now they've only got Bushist fascists, and regular fascists.

Posted by: Lying Black-heart Neo-Con Pubbie Pervert on October 02, 2005 at 02:18pm

This guy did:

I have to say I fully agree on this. I have a noteable number of Republican friends who are good people and don't hate Democrats at all. They just see them as being ineffective.

I believe the only reason there aren't more Independents out there is because most people crave some kind of group affiliation and NOT because they think either party is truly worth a sh!t at this point.

Posted by: Proud Indy on October 02, 2005 at 02:21pm

I had more to say on the topic, in response to the McCain remark here:
Alright....let's assume, for the sake of argument, that McCain is a "regular fascist" instead of a moderate.

Who in the Democratic Party can beat him?

When 11-08 rolls around, there will be no more Bush to fight against. At that point, the Democratic Party is going to have to stand for something other than "George Bush sucks."

Don't get me wrong...I agreed whole-heartedly with that sentiment.

But that approach didn't work in 04 and it certainly won't work in 08. And truth be told...I'd rather have an effective moderate-leaning conservative in charge than another ineffective partisan idealogue, even if he/she shares similiar political views.

If one thing two terms of GW Bush has taught us, it's that competence matters more than idealogy.

Posted by: liftwithcaution on October 02, 2005 at 02:28pm

At this point, Liberal Weenie prompts me with a question:
"If one thing two terms of GW Bush has taught us, it's that competence matters more than idealogy."

Posted by: liftwithcaution on October 02, 2005 at 02:28pm

Lift, I agree with much of what you write, but am genuinely curious; what do you see as examples of 'competence' by the Bush administration? Thanks.

Posted by: Liberal Weenie on October 02, 2005 at 02:35pm

My answer:
Lib Weenie,

Examples of Bush competence? Only one....his immigration policy (which hasn't actually been implemented yet). Not only is it humane, but it's realistic and practical. Right-wingers hate it too because it betrays their racist attitude against foreign workers.

Other than that....I agree with Google. George W Bush is a miserable failure.

(I meant to imply that George Bush showed us by his incompetence and willingness to play idealogical shell-games that competence, not idealogy, should be the measure of the political man.)

Posted by: liftwithcaution on October 02, 2005 at 02:41pm

And Liberal Weenie's brilliant response:
Posted by: liftwithcaution on October 02, 2005 at 02:41pm

Thank you for the clear and thoughtful answer. I agree, Bush has shown that a president must have competence by his pronounced lack of it. The country desperately needs someone who has integrity (real integrity, not the PR type), and can really forge consensus among such a diverse country of competing interests.

Posted by: Liberal Weenie on October 02, 2005 at 02:59pm

Briliant, you ask? Why do I think that's brilliant? Because Liberal Weenie defined in very simple terms what a president's job really is, to "forge consensus among such a diverse country of competing interests."

Way to go, Weenie.

Unfortunately the discussion got hijacked by Chuckling Republican, who began posting a bunch of nonsense. Everyone dried up and I'm afraid the thread has been effectively killed. Here's just a sample of the bullshit Chuckling Republican, may he rot, started spewing:
Lesbians drink, do drugs, or are hateful

When asked "Do you think most lesbians, when they first get involved in lesbianism, think it’s wrong?", all Lesbians responded: "Yeah, you know it’s wrong. And then you either drink or do drugs to get past those feelings of knowing it’s wrong, or you blame it on society and become aggressive and hateful. Those are your options."

Posted by: ChucklingRepublican on October 02, 2005 at 05:24pm

Very mature.