Oh yes, the NY Times, Washington Post and the major networks are sooooooo anti-liberal.
Boo Hoo.
:'(:'(:'(
Uh, Kunsoo and Rachel: That plan is not getting a lot of press because nobody has the chance of passing it through either house.
The GOP plan can (and did) pass the House. The Obama plan would likely be passed by the Senate and signed by the President.
The "liberal" plan doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Miami in July of passing the House and has not been proposed by the Senate leadership or the President. The liberal group that proposed the plan doesn't have the power to pass the plan and their support is not necessary to pass the final compromise.
In other news, why doesn't the media cover Ralph Nader's plan?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214779
Originally posted by sh76Two points. Nobody is saying that they are "anti-liberal." The point is that liberal proposals are never covered in the beltway. Never. Not when they have power. Not when they don't. Your defense of the media by saying that they aren't covering liberal proposals because those proposals don't have a chance is kind of a catch-22 for liberals. We don't get covered because our ideas don't have a chance, but our ideas don't have a chance because they don't get covered. Single payer was never brought into the discussion around health care reform. Prosecution of the scammers who brought the economy down gets maybe an occasional mention. The argument that the stimulus was worse than nothing because it was too small may or may not have merit, but it wasn't even discussed - it was always projected as the Obama proposal vs. the Republican proposal (which is always tort reform and tax cuts - no matter what the problem).
Oh yes, the NY Times, Washington Post and the major networks are sooooooo anti-liberal.
Boo Hoo.
:'(:'(:'(
Uh, Kunsoo and Rachel: That plan is not getting a lot of press because [b]nobody has the chance of passing it through either house.
The GOP plan can (and did) pass the House. The Obama plan would likely be passed by the Senate and signed b ...[text shortened]... he final compromise.
In other news, why doesn't the media cover Ralph Nader's plan?[/b]
When Republicans are in power, the majority of guests on the Sunday morning shows are conservatives. When the liberals are in power, the majority of guests on the Sunday morning shows are conservatives. It has been that way for about two decades now.
And I agree that the media should cover Nader's plan. In fact, when we are at an impasse, all ideas should be looked at and discussed extensively.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214779
And the key point is being missed here. Most people in the country, right at this minute, think that liberals are happy with the Obama/Reid plan. That is how the beltway media are covering it. You've got the Boehner/McConnel perspective that is seen as the "middle" and the crazies in the Tea Party who would like to see the default happen just to make some kind of nihilist point about deficit spending. That progressives are disgusted with the whole obsession with the deficit while people are hurting for lack of work is not even on the radar screen.
And I agree it's because the Progressive Caucus won't flex any muscle to buck Obama. If they would sink this deal and force Obama into a 14th Amendment or Platinum coin scenario, they would be taken seriously next time around. But they won't do that because the media will blame them for the whole crisis, while all the other players, tea party included, will get a pass.
Originally posted by KunsooAnd many conservatives, including Sleepyguy for example, think that the Boehner plan is too much of a compromise. What's your point? The media doesn't have to cover every plan and idea that has no chance to pass.
And the key point is being missed here. Most people in the country, right at this minute, think that liberals are happy with the Obama/Reid plan. That is how the beltway media are covering it. You've got the Boehner/McConnel perspective that is seen as the "middle" and the crazies in the Tea Party who would like to see the default happen just to make some ...[text shortened]... em for the whole crisis, while all the other players, tea party included, will get a pass.
Maddow's idea that the media should play the dichotomy as the Obama plan vs. the "liberal" plan is complete nonsense. the dichotomy is always between the plans that the competing factions in power have put forth.
Originally posted by KunsooSingle payer "was never brought into the discussion around health care reform"??
Two points. Nobody is saying that they are "anti-liberal." The point is that liberal proposals are never covered in the beltway. Never. Not when they have power. Not when they don't. Your defense of the media by saying that they aren't covering liberal proposals because those proposals don't have a chance is kind of a catch-22 for liberals. We don't ge ...[text shortened]... , when we are at an impasse, all ideas should be looked at and discussed extensively.
Were you reading the newspapers and watching TV at the time?
Originally posted by sh76How about between plans that a very solid majority of the people accept i.e. ones with both tax increases and spending cuts in SOME areas v. plans like Reid's and Boehner's which they reject?
And many conservatives, including Sleepyguy for example, think that the Boehner plan is too much of a compromise. What's your point? The media doesn't have to cover every plan and idea that has no chance to pass.
Maddow's idea that the media should play the dichotomy as the Obama plan vs. the "liberal" plan is complete nonsense. the dichotomy is always between the plans that the competing factions in power have put forth.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214779
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, but he has a point. Until the Progressive wing burns Obama in a vote, they will always be perceived as in the same camp. Let's see how they vote this time around.
How about between plans that a very solid majority of the people accept i.e. ones with both tax increases and spending cuts in SOME areas v. plans like Reid's and Boehner's which they reject?
Originally posted by KunsooWhat choice do they have? They can either vote for Obama or a Republican. Until the two-party system is abolished there will be nothing to choose for anyone with non-mainstream ideas (and the additional problem is that mainstream parties are not really mainstream due to legalized bribery).
No, but he has a point. Until the Progressive wing burns Obama in a vote, they will always be perceived as in the same camp. Let's see how they vote this time around.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHe means congressional progressives, not voters.
What choice do they have? They can either vote for Obama or a Republican. Until the two-party system is abolished there will be nothing to choose for anyone with non-mainstream ideas (and the additional problem is that mainstream parties are not really mainstream due to legalized bribery).
Originally posted by sh76I guess we have a different view of what it means to be "progressive". Anyway, I can't tell much from Conyers' voting record because there haven't been votes for things like a 75% top income tax bracket, 90% cuts in defense spending, legalizing gay marriage, legalizing all drugs, significant electoral reform, etc. He also appears to be quite conservative when it comes to foreign trade policies.
No need to get silly about this, KN.
And, if you are serious, look of John Conyers and Bernie Sanders.