that would make my blood boil. Though I did come to the conclusion the Republicans can call Obama "wicked" in May 2010 if the unemployment numbers are still bad, which of course they will be. Senator Reuss (D) called Reagan wicked in May 1982, which was 16 months after his election. Now considering this is going to be a jobless recovery for a long while, and no one can figure out how Obama will save/create 4-5 million jobs, we can hit him with "really wicked" in May 2010.
I didn't see any Editorializing on Gibson's part either in '82 or now.
that would make my blood boil. Though I did come to the conclusion the Republicans can call Obama "wicked" in May 2010 if the unemployment numbers are still bad, which of course they will be. Senator Reuss (D) called Reagan wicked in May 1982, which was 16 months after his election. Now considering this is going to be a jobless recovery for a long while, and no one can figure out how Obama will save/create 4-5 million jobs, we can hit him with "really wicked" in May 2010.
and JC Penneys underwear model, Peter Jennings.
"I didn't see any Editorializing on Gibson's part either in '82 or now."
Your partisanship has blinded you..
That's really the pot calling the kettle black. Here's the thing I hate about conservatives... if a liberal has an opinion, he's blinded by his partianship... this from people who call George Bush a GREAT President! "Good job, Brownie"!
Am I supposed to have the even handed, unbiased, middle of the road view of the world that the journalist Charles Gibson tries to pass off for himself or is it OK that he’s actually biased but fails to admit or report it?
Your point about conservatives is a non-sequitur.
This is about the Dead Free Press. This is merely one tiny example of the Dead Free Press attempting to cheerlead for BHO.
I made a simple statement that I didn't see any editorializing on Gibson's part, which one of your fellow conservatives, St. Croix happened to agree with.
But quadseasonal accused me of being blinded by my partianship... as if as a liberal I can't make an observation fairly or even worse, that my political leanings make me incapable of seeing things clearly.
I happen to think that if ANYONE is blinded by partianship, it's SOME of the conservatives on this forum, typified by statements like "George Bush was a GREAT President". OK, you're a conservative and you liked his policies; obviously I don't agree with you, but fine. However, to find greatness in any shape of form in George Bush is the ultimate blindness, in my opinion, and any conservative who is truly honest at least with himself would agree with me.
You start out with the qualifier "some" conservatives, but then you lump me in. You won't find anything I've said that comes close to calling GWB a great President. He did some things I agree with but also many I did not.
You need to quit treating everyone as if they are part of a totally homogeneous group.
I was using the "you" in a collective sense. Sorry if it was misunderstood.
-- Modified on 10/6/2009 8:45:39 PM
Charlie is doing what he's told to do. Tell both sides of the story without telling his audience anything. The media talking heads do this to keep the nutty reich wingers at bay (not that it works), but really Charlie's main goal is to act as the corporatist sycophant that he is. His most amusing moment of "journalism" was in the debate between Obama and Hilary where he asked why Obama was for raising capital gains taxes, a tax that only the top 1% pay....including Charlie.
But I have to admit, I was pretty shocked by his Palin interview. I figured it was going to be a fluff piece, but I guess Charlie couldn't bear the thought of a deranged lunatic with her twitchy finger that close to the button.
But let's deal with reality. Reagan's jobs numbers were far worse then what we're dealing with now. In fact, under Reagan we saw double-digit unemployment rates for the first time since The Great Depression, and unemployment remained at high levels throughout his entire administration.
Today things are a little different. Things are pretty freaking horrible, but it seems that the last of the bubble has mostly petered out. On the not so rosy side, unemployment is counted differently today then it was during the Reagan years, and it counts far less people then they did back then. What we were dealing with back then was the dismantling of our domestic industry. Today that domestic industry is long gone.
Things may stop getting worse, but they won't get better for a while.