another round of TERRIBLE POLITICAL CARTOONS

[Samuel]

Progressives are smart enough to recognize the signs of a tsunami?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Anyone know whats going on here?

[Samuel]

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

Yeah, the artist is going to be a bit more specific.

[The Spartan]

This probably

(Was the first thing that came up when I Googled Obama and NEA.)

I won't post all of it since it's a blog, but the gist of it is that Obama is using the National Endowment of the Arts to help sell healthcare.

[Dominus Atheos]

That's 10 different cartoons that all featuring the exact same thing: Some guy sitting in front a a tv screen with Obama on it. And I for one don't know of a single person outside of the Establishment Media who gives a rat's ass about the subject.

[Ritterin Sophia]

OH NOEZ! Our elected leader is on five news channels attempting to rebut the Health Care hoaxes that the Republitards keep making up! He's overexposed!

WTF is this supposed to mean? It's shit like this that further validates my opinion that your average American is too stupid to be allowed to have a hand in the government.

[Pablo Sanchez]

That's 10 different cartoons that all featuring the exact same thing: Some guy sitting in front a a tv screen with Obama on it. And I for one don't know of a single person outside of the Establishment Media who gives a rat's ass about the subject.

It's shit like this that further validates my opinion that your average American is too stupid to be allowed to have a hand in the government.

The devastating picture is now emerging that, on the health care issue and issues relating to Obama, the average American is actually smarter than the media establishment. This is not because the average American is that smart or that well informed, it is simply that the media establishment is so fucking retarded. As a CNN poll tells us, the people who actually think Obama is overexposed amount to 34% of the population, which I'm sure is pretty much the same unshakable conservative one-third that shows up in practically every poll. It should not be surprising that so many media organs rushed to agree with the contention that the president is on teevee too much, this kind of thing is par for the course on the health care issue. Other polls have shown an enormous majority of Americans want real reform including a public option, large majorities are also aware that Republican claims about the bill (death panels, etc.) are lies.

[Vympel]

I'm pretty sure those idiotic cartoons are all the product of a single GOP talking point.

[Edi]

So what about Bush and his fucking drumup to the Iraq War? I live in Finland and I got treated to his face far too much on the TV at the time. This is the Republican media making noise about nothing again.

[Azazal]

Another golden Comic by our friend Chuck Asay!

You know there are times when Chuck can be fun

[The Vortex Empire]

How many of these things are there? And the guy can't even get the facepaint right.

And how exactly is he overexposed? What's wrong with a President speaking to the public?

[Ryan Thunder]

He's speaking about things that don't benefit the plutocrats.

[Duckie]

It's okay if you're a republican trying to start a war. Not if you're a black democrat trying to help the poor.

Hey, that's a semi-rhyme.

[Pablo Sanchez]

And how exactly is he overexposed? What's wrong with a President speaking to the public?

Apparently what happened is that Obama's team learned from the debacle last time health care came up for reform, when the Clinton administration heavily publicized its efforts to make a health care plan over a period of weeks and months, allowing opponents plenty of time to ridicule them publicly before details of the plan were even known, then plopped a fully-formed bill in front of Congress to vote on. It failed, the Republicans took the House in the next election, and Clinton really never recovered his equilibrium. This time around Obama mostly kept to the background and allowed the (retarded, incapable) Democrats of the legislative branch to actually make legislation, and then only when the process was nearly complete did he turn up in a media blitz to promote health care reform. The establishment media is unhappy about this because A) it upsets their applecart by making them form a new narrative after they've already decided how to talk about it B) they are mostly status quo supporters and ambivalent about reform anyway and C) now that he is in the open is time for them to make up for lost time in criticizing him.

Hence "Obama is overexposed" in spite of the fact that most Americans think he isn't, which is the only useful metric for media over-saturation anyway.

[Axis Kast]

Have you any proof that the media is status-quo? Far as I can tell, they enjoy chasing the president, Republican or Democrat, because he's always "a big deal." They also like disagreement, because it makes good drama. The one criticism (other than their excessive focus on the same events, to squeeze out every drop of overblown confrontation and disagreement) is an obsession with "balance" and appeasement so putrid, they put down-and-out extremists on television without a second thought.

As for Obama, I expected that his oratory skills would carry him through far better than they have. He continues to slip and slide all over the spilt oil that is public health care. He does it to his opponents' tune, too, even when he claims to be on the offensive. New strategy - that's what he needs.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Have you any proof that the media is status-quo? Far as I can tell, they enjoy chasing the president, Republican or Democrat, because he's always "a big deal." They also like disagreement, because it makes good drama. The one criticism (other than their excessive focus on the same events, to squeeze out every drop of overblown confrontation and disagreement) is an obsession with "balance" and appeasement so putrid, they put down-and-out extremists on television without a second thought.

Because we saw a couple thousand people in D.C. spewing the same bullshit, after the thousands more in the Town Hall protests.

As for Obama, I expected that his oratory skills would carry him through far better than they have. He continues to slip and slide all over the spilt oil that is public health care. He does it to his opponents' tune, too, even when he claims to be on the offensive. New strategy - that's what he needs.

What kind of bullshit are you spewing out now? Obama has been extremely concise about his Health Care plans, it's not his fault if conservatives make up blatant fucking lies.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Apparently, sitting presidents are not allowed to go on TV shows...


And Also...

I don't like Michael Moore that much, but Really? you are going to make THAT Argument?



ZOMG!!! Truck sales went up! the Cash for clunkers idea is a SHAM!

[Axis Kast]

Because we saw a couple thousand people in D.C. spewing the same bullshit, after the thousands more in the Town Hall protests.

This is evidence of the media's preference for the status quo ... how?

What kind of bullshit are you spewing out now? Obama has been extremely concise about his Health Care plans, it's not his fault if conservatives make up blatant fucking lies.

But it is his fault that he can't come up with a sound strategy to beat misinterpretation or "blatant fucking lies." Blame Republicans for derailing the argument - and rightly so. However, what the Democrats need is somebody who can cut through all that and bring a clear message to "average folk." Obama, despite his media savvy, hasn't been doing that well at all.

[JLTucker]

<snip Michael Moore cartoon>
I don't like Michael Moore that much, but Really? you are going to make THAT Argument?

Yes, he is. The same thing happened when Sicko was released. People said that Moore had no right to talk about health care because he is obese.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Have you any proof that the media is status-quo?

In other words, more dickless Axis Kast [[citation needed]] argumentation. No, I don't have any quotes of media stars announcing that they love the status quo. What I did was make a reasonable inference based on their behavior in a number of cases. Examples: the multi-year exhortation by media stars (most famously Tom Friedman) to give the Iraq War more time before opposing it, the ambivalence of the media reporting towards health care reform despite vast public support for it (e.g. labeling the public option as the far left position), the opposition of media elites to prosecution for CIA torturers (including the trend-setting Washington Post), their chummy relationships with political elites. The most useful example might be the denouncement of Paul Krugman for being "shrill" when he was making statements which clashed with conventional wisdom but which were largely borne out by the facts. There is also the observation the top level of the national media is populated by wealthy, powerful opinion makers, and it would obviously be in their personal interests to perpetuate a system that grants them privilege.

Probably at this point you are going to argue that this is all supposition and none of it proves anything, because the strategy you've developed is to scuttle around nitpicking and demanding evidence for shit that any reasonable person knows already. I mean, of my above post you focused exclusively on the contention that the media support the status quo while ignoring the rest. Why?

Now, why don't I try that. Hey, do you have a commonly accepted assertion that I can demand you prove to me?

Far as I can tell, they enjoy chasing the president, Republican or Democrat, because he's always "a big deal."

Ahem. Have you any proof that this is true?

[Axis Kast]

I'm not arguing anything. I asked for explanation of your point of view. Personally, I think the media will always tend to be on the liberal side of things, since it is often conservatives who argue for the compartmentalization of how this society does its learning (i.e., "parents" versus "schools").

I don't remember the news media speaking out against the Iraq War; but then, I don't remember news media striking such controversial positions at all, ever, with the exception of Cronkite, once. I hadn't realized that the media cast health care reform in any particular way, except inasmuch as there has been a failure to discredit misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the legislation - and oftentimes, the media are more interested in the clash of personalities and interests than the factual content of those arguments. The opposition to prosecution for CIA torturers is something I've not really heard before, although I believe it. Their chummy relationship with political elites stems not from a point of view, but from their job: they beam things out to the people. They'd be focusing on whoever is in power. They are.

[phred]

But it is his fault that he can't come up with a sound strategy to beat misinterpretation or "blatant fucking lies." Blame Republicans for derailing the argument - and rightly so. However, what the Democrats need is somebody who can cut through all that and bring a clear message to "average folk." Obama, despite his media savvy, hasn't been doing that well at all.

The way that the argument is getting derailed is by having it filtered through people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. The only sound strategy to deal with this problem is to have Beck, and Limbaugh, and all those other media personalities shot. And to continue shooting them until there is no one left to filter the news for the people who buy this shit. I don't think anyone can survive that politically

[Edi]

Kast et al, take the media debate out of this thread if you want to pursue it more fully.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Irony: Definition:
Having Conservatives call Afghanastan "Vietnam" after 6 years of Iraq

[open_sketchbook]

So, the country that conservatives invaded, that was occupied under conservative government for six years, becomes Vietnam the moment the Democratic party is in charge? Suddenly, the invasion is retconned as being a poor idea (on the part of liberals) because six years later, Democrats will be in charge of it?

Holy shit. That's unbelievably stupid. That's pants on head retarded. That's the greatest display of stupidity I have witnessed in a long, long time.