Do regressives still insist that major media is objective and neutral?

 

CBS News: (un) balanced, deranged

CBS News: (un) balanced, deranged

CBS News political director John Dickerson: “Obama must destroy the Republican Party”.

The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. …

Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

30 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

30 responses to “Do regressives still insist that major media is objective and neutral?

  1. anon

    Republicans deserve every iota of evil the liberal press and the democrats hurl. They suck, plain and simply. They fell right into Obama’s web. Like the spider and the fly. Obama out-public-relationed them at every turn. Moral of the story: Nice guys DO finish last.

    • The Republicans lost because history has passed them by, I fear. A majority of Americans now takes in more from the minority than they could possibly earn themselves, and a party that offers hard work, sacrifice and delayed gratification as the proper course for the country will no longer prevail against a party promising a life of leisure paid for by others.

      • anon

        Obama sees himself as the savior to the USA. Witness, some. Of the inaugural crap for sale!!!!!!!
        For $25 u can get a print titled “Freedom Riders” of 2pac, Tubman, MLK, Obama, Malcolm X and Bob Marley on horseback http://t.co/KHzYCTLB

        • stedenko

          look at the picture closely………….they are carrying rifles in scabbards.

          and which one is danny glover?

      • Anonymous

        Disagree. Republicans needed only 3% more voting margin. If they had an agenda that had not offended a minor subset of gays, women and Latin immigrants they could have found plenty of support for their more conservative fiscal agenda. They lost on social issues.

        • Peg

          Yep, Anonymous. The far right of social issues is delivering politicians like Obama to us. It is beyond me why they cannot see this – and thus ultimately seem to prefer President Obama to any number of fiscal conservative/socially moderate Republicans…..

      • Anonymous

        The Republicans lost because they pandered to a base that is not representative of the electorate. I can not tell you how many people I know who consider themselves fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and were turned off by the party’s stance on social issues; women’s rights, gay marriage, immigration. The GOP has a choice – to modify its mandate slightly to capture a small percentage of these centrist voters. It would not be hard. If they do not change we can look forward to many more years of Obama-esque successors. anon @ 4:46 pm is partially correct, Obama did out public-relation them at every turn, he is wrong though about nice guys finishing last, nothing nice about either sets of politicians, all high douches.

        • TheWizard

          The republican party will cease to exist if they begin pandering to amnesty for illegals and the tax dollars of everyone for partners in gay unions and birth control for all.
          At the very least, I’ll be quitting them.

        • Anon58

          Agree with many of your points. The social and religious wackos on the far right have been holding the rest of the Party hostage for far too many years. These nuts are not for “less” government, they are for “their” government, and want to interject it into folks’ private lives.

    • anon

      It may surprise you to know I am a registered republican, but now disabled, suffering from post election trauma brought upon by the lousy campaign Mr. Nice Guy Mitt ran that allowed the reelection of Mr. Evil.
      If there is any doubt that Americans adore Obama, just read the comments posted now on the NYT article under the photos of his swearing in. Here’s one:

      A majority of the Nation and the World breathed a sigh of relief at the re-election of Barack Obama. We now indulge in justifiable satisfaction at the second inaugural of this unique President.

      We owe a debt of gratitude to his fortitude and forbearance, tackling the immense difficulties of his first term with resilience, perseverance and foresight. His accomplishments despite an obstreperous opposition are truly remarkable and a testament to his unwavering vision for the American people.

      We have witnessed political destructiveness and denied its validity. It is now incumbent upon we, the people, to pledge our support to help our President overcome upcoming obstacles.

      A brighter democracy lies ahead. If any leader can guide us there, it is President Obama.

      Forward !

  2. This guy is truly evil!,,,

  3. This has to be brief….
    I need to go to a book signing…
    Can you imagine a swearing in of Paul Ryan delayed by …….
    DEMOCRACY of HIPOCRISY
    a new manual of life in America by
    MEDIAOCRACY…..

  4. AJ

    The Republicans are the party of nothing. They could have won with Ron Paul, but they chose to disappear all the results of the early cacuses and primaries that would have made Paul the nominee, then they snubbed the Paul delegates at the convention, telling them they had no seat at the table, and that their input was not required — think about it, how much enthusiasm was there behind Romney, none. Personally I think we dodged a bullet by having Willard come out the loser. Had he won, I fear we would have gotten everything Obama has given us plus an all out war with Iran with the possibility of drawing in Russia and China.

    The Liberty movement is the only chance we have to keep America from falling into ruin; the Ron Paul movement was strongly supported by people from both the Left and the Right, and enthusiastically supported by young people of all political persuasions — he could have won. Why do you think he was so thoroughly attacked with attempts to smear and discredit from the media and establishment, both Left and Right? The Tea Party movement (usurped from founder Ron Paul) is a joke: Sharron Engle for Senator; you’ve got to be kidding. The idea that Obama will destroy the Republicans is nonsense: they have already done it to themselves.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      AJ is on the money. It is becoming ever more apparent that what is colloquially known as the MSM has devolved into nothing more than the marketing arm of some very sinister elitists. I think AJ calls them the NWO. Every so often I have occasion to drive past the venue in Stamford that now hosts the TV show of that skanky little turd Jerry Springer. That there is a line of people vying to get in to sit as audience members is mystifying to me. In a rational world, Springer would be cleaning toilet bowls in some Mid western high school and Ron Paul would have taken the oath of office last Sunday. Alas.

  5. Anonymous

    Taxation without representation….i can guarantee that the 53% of Americans who actually pay taxes voted overwhelmingly for Romney. The 47% who pay no taxes voted for Obama.

  6. Balzac

    Every four years, one party loses, and the hand-wringers conclude the losing party will never win again. This was particularly said after the Goldwater crushing in 1964. It is phooey.

    Capitalism works, and socialism doesn’t: that’s the lesson of the 20th century. American capitalism, like freedom, will outlast Obama.

    Please look at it another way. Obama was elected not for his economic policies. They suck, as the results indicate. He was elected in 2008 because America wanted once and for all to put racial animosity behind us. (His 2012 win was the last momentum from 2008.)

    2008 can’t be repeated. The Dems cannot find another first-black-president-ever, obviously.

    We conservatives are optimistic.

    • AJ

      Are you forgetting first woman (Hillary), first black woman (Michelle), first woman of a former President (Hillary or Michelle). Then there’s the possibility of a third term for Obama. I know, there’s the 22nd amendment, but they’ve already stomped on the fourth and the fifth amendments, and they’re working hard on killing the second. But other than that, you’re right,

    • hmmm

      The ny senate is GOP controlled they all need to be thrown out for going along at all. He is only revealing this because he wants to put on a show that he tried to do something when in fact he went along and was all for it. Anon at 446 is correct they suck plain and simple and they have already been broken and divided.

      The house in dc will be able to pass any bill they want that is left of center because the speaker is a fraud as witnessed by him voting for the fiscal cliff bill and the upcoming vote to temporarily increase the debt ceiling. There are very few fiscal conservatives in the GOP in the house and senate. Most are frauds. There main goal is to be back for the 114th congress.

      And not so fast with the 3% comment above and the social issues being the problem with the GOP. I think 10 million less people voted in this election and mitt received less votes than McCain therefore I am not sure that social issues were the reason for the loss and/or less votes for mitt. I think you will need the Hispanic vote (both McCain and bush received more than mitt). I think the difference was the conservative vote that mitt couldn’t bring home. That being said I will never understand the concept of not voting for anyone because you don’t like everything about a candidate.

      I think the social issues should be off the table but i also think you will lose more GOP votes by dropping the resistance to some of these social issues than you will gain from the gay community, women and Hispanics.

  7. Daniel

    Watch Ron Paul’s November 14 farewell speech to Congress. He hits every nail on the head.

  8. Tony

    I am old enough to have been voting since 1960. During that period I can only remember two cases where an incumbant Pres has been defeated,
    1 George the First
    2 Jimmah Carter
    George lost because of a strong third party candidate. Jimmah managed to piss off too many people besides being completely inept.

    It really is hard to unseat an incumbant who managed to pacify his “big government is right for me” base. The fact that it cost us trillions of dollars that the treausery does not have is, to, his base, of no consequent and insignificant..
    And I agree, we only have to pick up 3% to win again

    • hmmm

      Tony,

      where are you picking up the 3%? and if you pick up the 3% from “a” are you losing more from “b”? That’s what happened to mitt. The party is divided the democratic party is not they are one huge voting block who get in line everytime and do as they are told.

  9. Daniel

    When Candy Crowley won the second debate for Obama, I started to have uneasy feelings about the election. And Reid’s comments about the tax returns….

  10. stedenko

    CBS News was always biased but then crossed the line to become progressive advoctes a generation ago. Ever read Bernard Goldberg?

  11. stedenko

    fred frost