Interesting that my buddy Chris is willing to link to Fox News, since it’s such an unreliable source. 😉 I’m not sure why he wants to classify Fox News as part of the MSM, except that a lot more people watch FNC for their news than MSLSD or CNN. But ok…Fox News is now part of the hypocritical double standard where the MSM doesn’t call Iraq and Afghanistan socialistic enterprises, but it criticizes Obama for wanting to spend US taxpayer dollars on solving global poverty. One of these should be under the umbrella of necessary foreign policy, and one of them should not be. We disagree on whether the US role in rebuilding Iraq is a good investment in a positive outcome for Iraq or whether it’s just government wasting our money on useless nation-building — and thus no more useful than Obama’s efforts to finance the end of world poverty.
I’m not missing any such point. If the MSM sees a difference between our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and what Obama is proposing with the Global Poverty Act, it’s probably because there is one. If your intention is to shoot a specific messenger, you might want to get a more accurate gun. If Barack is being misrepresented, that’s not my fault. That’s not the fault of the MSM or Fox News. That’s his campaign’s fault. But I’m getting off of the subject here…
I called the bailouts socialism, while acknowledging my lack of expertise on the subject of the financial markets. You can choose to see this as a cop-out, or as an excuse for me not to be too hard on President Bush. That’s your opinion, and you are welcome to it. You can spin all you want to, but even you do not know what Barack Obama will do once he’s President. He could decide to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus the war funding would continue.
But let’s say you’re right — that we suddenly have all the Iraq and Afghanistan money to play with.
Let’s talk about what the priorities of the federal government should be, and what the mandate of the federal government should be under a Democrat or a Republican administration. First and foremost, the President’s responsibility is to protect American citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic. That’s priority one no matter who wins the election. Then there’s the building of domestic infrastructure and allocating resources to regulatory agencies ensuring safety of consumer goods, etc. There are some agencies that need to exist, and quite a few that don’t need to exist. I believe that the federal government has far more apples to juggle than it has the ability or resources to handle effectively, so its focus should be much more narrow than it is right now. In addition to that, bailing out all these private industries has taken a big chunk out of the government checkbook, giving us even more debt to put on the books, and to pass along to the citizenry.
Given the state of our economy, is it responsible to expand government spending, whether on domestic programs or on additional foreign aid? No, and both John McCain and Barack Obama should adjust to this reality and agree to freezes and / or reductions in government spending. Will they? I doubt it. Every political party likes to give away more and more government money to attempt to buy the vote of the taxpayer.
That’s why, while I’m sympathetic to the argument of shared sacrifice during a time of war, I think the federal government should have to spend less on non-essential wishlist items while they are taking more of my money. Not so unreasonable in my view. Coming under the non-essential wishlist item category would be the Global Poverty Act. We all have an individual moral obligation to help our fellow man and to share our good fortune with those in need. The federal government should be somewhat amoral when it comes to initiatives like this. Charity works best in the private sector — where the donations are voluntary, not taken out of our paychecks by force. It’s not the government’s responsibility to make sure every child in the world, or even in this country, gets 3 square meals a day. It’s not the responsibility of the feds to ensure every American health care or a job. Barack Obama wants to continue to move this country toward increased dependence on the provision of Washington bureaucrats and the feds. He also has an alarming desire to please the UN by adopting their Millenium Development Goals into his Global Poverty Act. Call that whatever you want to call it, but I call it a step in the wrong direction.
And for the record, I never said that the Global Poverty Act had been passed. 🙂
8 thoughts on “re: remove all doubt”
Lisa, I’ve noticed you’ve grown eerily silent on this subject.
I’m not obligated to respond to every single rant of yours against Fox News and the Bush administration. You may interpret this silence as a sign I’m ignoring you.
For the record:
1) Fox News is a biased source, but no more than any of your favorite sources like the tax-exempt Media Matters and TPM. Just as the New York Times, MSLSD, NBC, and other “esteemed” members of the MSM demonstrate obvious bias in their coverage, Fox News is no different. Since you are so big on consistency, I expect you will also demand quotes from conservative sources in the rest of the MSM’s political coverage and hold these other news organizations to the same standards you are demanding of Fox News.
2) So what if Fox News doesn’t agree with your definition of socialist policy? Like I said in the previous comment, you have plenty of other news organizations that do share your opinion on Iraq. It’s not up to me to defend or condemn Fox’s coverage.
3) The quotation from my post wasn’t at all commenting on Obama’s socialism or lack of same…it was expressing doubt that Obama will pull troops out of Iraq in the time frame you expect.
I can only speak for myself, not for other bloggers or for Fox News. With all due respect, Chris — I think you are exaggerating a great deal with this “greatest President ever” stuff. If you’re honest about it, you will admit that I’ve never said anything even close to that on this blog.
Believe anything you want to believe. I have nothing else to add to what I have already posted.
Ignore me all you want. That’s your choice. Call my posts rants if you want to. Doesn’t bother me any. For the record, TPM has never once said it’s fair and balanced and neither has Media Matters. If you read their mission statements they say they are progressive blogs, which only implies they aren’t gonna be supporting GOP politics. Fox News, on the other hand, claims itself as being fair and balanced. It’s their slogan. There’s a huge difference there, especially considering the whole reference to Fox was that you said that I’m finally including them in the MSM, which they always have been the MSM. Talking points and Media Matters are not mainstream medias sources. Fox is. That’s the difference. Take it how ever you want to, but asking political blogs to be objective is totally different than asking a media outlet.
Yes, I’m honest. If anything, I’m honest. But where in the world do I ever say that you called Bush the greatest president ever??? I think you are exaggerating hugely when you read my posts. Never have I claimed that you said it. My posts aren’t written to you or about you. Asking, or commenting about your silence on a debate we were having was only meant just as that. Sorry it took so much of your time and effort. Hope you and Kent have fun.
Upon further reflection, I would like to revise and extend my remarks. I misinterpreted your comment as you implying that I was ducking our debate and not as a joke. It’s hard to tell with you sometimes. So I’m pulling back from the personal comments.
On the other hand, I noticed you didn’t mention the New York Times, the rest of the cable nets, and broadcast news in your defense of TPM and Media Matters. Media Matters, BTW, has no legitimate reason to be tax exempt (but that’s an argument for another day). These news organizations are reporting news with an obvious bias, and they are also members of this MSM, so they should be held to the same standards as Fox News.
One thing that bugs me about your posts is that you throw all this stuff out there about how Republicans all see Bush as the greatest President ever, or that we all follow him in lockstep in whatever crazy thing he’s proposing to do (like this bailout for example). That’s the way I interpret comments like that. The confusion I have is that when you do this, you make a generalization that I naturally assume applies to me as a member of the GOP. When you link to one of my posts, you pull me into the discussion of these secondary points even though I may have never made any of these comments about the President.
Don’t take this as any sort of acknowledgment that I’m afraid to debate you. I just don’t have anything else to say about the subject. 🙂
Lisa, I totally respect your blog and your thoughts, but I disagree that Media Matters is a mainstream media organization and thus should be held to the same standards as Fox News. Media Matters does not report the news. It highlights segments of the media such as a watchdog, just like factcheck.org. Media Matters does not simply give the news, it gives analysis, which is not news. However, Fox News routinely mixes analysis with the news, classic examples are O’Reily and Hannity both of whom are not journalists. Asking a media organization such as Fox to be held to journalistic standards is not applying a different standard, it’s applying the only standard media should follow. If Media Matters should not be a tax exempt organization, then Fox News should be.
I linked to your blog in my original post because it summed up entirely how Obama is immediately labeled a socialist by the MSM and then repeated throughout the blogosphere without the same standard applied to a person who has proposed that we nationalize the financial industry and use tax payer money to buy huge sums of debt. Such is routine for the right and I believe it’s a huge double standard.
I would never think you’re afraid to debate.
Maybe I wasn’t clear about this minor point. I agree with you about Media Matters not being a member of the MSM. But I wasn’t saying they were. I was talking about the New York Times, the cable nets, and broadcast news having an obvious bias toward your candidate, Barack Obama. They have no desire to be fair and balanced, but that’s ok because they never claim to be…I suppose that’s the argument.
Chris doesn’t respect my blog or my thoughts, yet all the while he is unwilling and/or incapable of explaining how presenting both sides of a political issue, like Fox News Channel does, isn’t fair and balanced.
Give Liberals enough time and they twist themselves into pretzels with hate, intolerance and illogical positions.
Comments are closed.