Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Oh that liberal media

Funny that:

Not once in the past twelve months has President Obama logged a seven-day stretch where his positive press coverage outweighed the negative, according to Pew Research analysis. And based on recent media trends, that streak is in no danger of being broken as the Beltway press continues to pile on the Democratic president with routinely negative and increasingly misleading coverage, while at the same time giving his Republican rival a pass.


Anonymous said...

Um, he deserves to be hammered, as do the Dems, because they are republiKKKrat POS. So who cares why? I'm still with Man of the People Mitch Romnick, because a rich, unpleasant white man whom people instinctively dislike is less likely than a black Dem to succeed in gutting Social Security and Medicaid. Fairness to the Dems? RU kidding me? WTF cares?

pansypoo said...

how precious. a purity troll. divide + conquer. this why we LOSE. THEY know it's war, the democrats DON'T. plus the fact they cave to wall street too.

but until we have more than 4 left justices on the supreme court, go away.

JDM said...

That was me you're calling a purity troll, just hit the wrong send button. Good luck supporting Obama - as bad as Bush and possibly worse. The idea that the Dems are one bit better on the issues than the republiKKKans at this point is asinine."How pecious"? Sounds just like Obamaist tbogg. KMA.

Raoul Paste said...

Remember the Greens and Al Gore?

No, I'm not happy. But all I know is that Mitt has endorsed Paul Ryan's idea to replace Medicare with a voucher system. That will place at risk the life savings of most people- is there something I'm missing here?

Montag said...

Oh, I think the ground truth is that we lose no matter who wins. It's just a matter of how quickly we lose ground on the issues of substance.

In a backhanded way, we'd probably be better off with a corrupt Repug in the White House, if only because, then, at least the Dems would fight back a little on partisan grounds, instead of negotiating away their hole cards before the game begins (and despite a lot of loose talk, lately, that's what did happen in 2005 when Little Boots tried to go after Social Security--he was stopped in his tracks).

But, anyone believing that the Dems generally will be better for ordinary people--instead of just not quite as bad as Repugs--is really in a state of denial, I think. And that's a sad, crummy state of affairs. Just because our representatives have successfully legalized large-scale corruption doesn't mean that corruption no longer exists. It means we're forced to accept it as the norm, and, horrifically, cheer it on when "our" side wins.

The simple truth is that we don't have a side any more, if we ever had one. We engage in these arguments to convince ourselves that we do have a choice, and a voice, that our choices bring substantial change, and that our voices are heard, but they don't, and they aren't.

It's why things have gone--for ordinary people--from tolerable to bad to worse in my lifetime and, conversely, from very well to very, very, very well for the miniscule fraction of the population with money and the power it brings. That is and remains the object lesson about what governance actually is in this country, and who actually forms our leaders' constituency, regardless of party.