I'm sure I don't really have to point this out, but people like O'Reilly think that proactive government is a bad thing.
I didn't quite get that from the article. I mean obviously he's in the bush "traditionalist" camp. But the article was not critical of the fact President Obama was a reformer..
I'm sure I don't really have to point this out, but people like O'Reilly think that proactive government is a bad thing.
I didn't quite get that from the article. I mean obviously he's in the bush "traditionalist" camp. But the article was not critical of the fact President Obama was a reformer..
Do you think people like O'Reilly are in favor of proactive government? Does an editorialist have to spell out his philosophy from scratch every time he writes an article, or can a reader rely on what the editorialist has said/written in the past to inform him of the editorialist's leanings/likes/dislikes? Is every writing a completely blank slate starting from ground zero, or do we retain some memory?
I'm not like that guy in Amnesia. When I read an article by, say, George Will, I can remember things I've heard and read Will say in the past. I can remember that Will is a staunch conservative. If I read a new article from Will on PBS, I can remember that he has been sharply critical of PBS in that past, and that he probably is not praising PBS in this new article. Similarly, I can determine, based upon my memory of things Bill O'Reilly has said in the past, that he is probably not in favor of President Obama as a reformer. He doesn't have to actually write the words, "I am critical of President Obama as a reformer. I don't like proactive government. I like it better when government does as little as possible. I believe that, of the two types of governance I am writing about, reactive governance is preferable to proactive governance."
Do you need to actually see those words expressly written in the article to know that this is what O'Reilly is saying, or do you think that he's possibly a tremendous Obama supporter?
"This was my fourth televised conversation with President Bush, and it is clear to me that he is a reactive guy, not a proactive person. His major decisions were all made after something happened. They were not foisted upon the country."
The Iraq war was both foisted on the country and incredibly "proactive."
"This was my fourth televised conversation with President Bush, and it is clear to me that he is a reactive guy, not a proactive person. His major decisions were all made after something happened. They were not foisted upon the country."
The Iraq war was both foisted on the country and incredibly "proactive."
Would someone in favor of proactive government say that proactive governement was "foisted upon" anyone? Usually, foisted means that someone is forcing someone else to do something that they don't necessarily want to do.
Also, Kate is very right. Pre-emptive war must be one of the most radical, proactive things ever espoused by a U.S. president. How does Iraq fit into the sentence "His major decisions were all made after something happened"? As we all know, Iraq did nothing, absolutely nothing to deserve the war. The Bush Doctrine is a clear statement that Bush did not want to wait until after something happened to go to war. He wanted to go to war whenever his "gut" told him it was time.
Do you need to actually see those words expressly written in the article to know that this is what O'Reilly is saying, or do you think that he's possibly a tremendous Obama supporter?
Does every article written by a man who is not a Obama supporter have to be an attack on President Obama? Bill O'Reilly while a tool does say things that are not completely stupid from time to time and while he may not agree with President Obama I'm pretty sure he has respect for the man (unlike others). Republicans are not going to like a proactive reformer wow, Joe but it doesn't make Obama anything less then what Bill O'Reilly said. I'm sure After 8 years in Office President Obama will continue to be a force in politics for many years to come where I think president Bush will fade into retirement.
The Iraq war was both foisted on the country and incredibly "proactive."
I still consider this a reaction to 9/11 only because I don't believe they would have gone down the course unless they had the cover of 9/11.
Do you need to actually see those words expressly written in the article to know that this is what O'Reilly is saying, or do you think that he's possibly a tremendous Obama supporter?
Does every article written by a man who is not a Obama supporter have to be an attack on President Obama?
Do you think that there is no suntext here whatsoever? Do you believe that O'Reilly is comparing GWB unfavorably to Obama? Where do you think O'Reilly comes down on the question of proactive versus reactive governance?
It doesn't have to be an attack on Obama. O'Reilly is saying, "Wow, look at GWB. He really knew how to govern. He only reacted to things that happened. He didn't try to foist things upon us that we didn't want."
Do you think that there is no suntext here whatsoever? Do you believe that O'Reilly is comparing GWB unfavorably to Obama? Where do you think O'Reilly comes down on the question of proactive versus reactive governance?
No, actually I think he's just critiquing both of them as to how they will behave after the presidency. I agree with Bill O'Reilly in his assessment because if I wrote about that topic I would have said the same thing (though I like a proactive government) I'm giving him credit for a pretty neutral article even if he favors the reactive governance approach... If I wrote the article I would be subtly saying that because Bush just wants to go back to selling his book and golfing that he not taking responsibly for the actions he committed as president. That's the bias in the article, I'm giving O'Reilly credit for being insightful without overt insult or being super critical on one side or the other. I don't care if there is subtle spin to it.
The Iraq war was both foisted on the country and incredibly "proactive."
I still consider this a reaction to 9/11 only because I don't believe they would have gone down the course unless they had the cover of 9/11. 9/11 is not, in any way, a legitimate reason for the Iraqi War. The fact that it provided some political cover is beside the point.
Do you think that there is no suntext here whatsoever? Do you believe that O'Reilly is comparing GWB unfavorably to Obama? Where do you think O'Reilly comes down on the question of proactive versus reactive governance?
No, actually I think he's just critiquing both of them as to how they will behave after the presidency. I agree with Bill O'Reilly in his assessment because if I wrote about that topic I would have said the same thing (though I like a proactive government) I'm giving him credit for a pretty neutral article even if he favors the reactive governance approach... If I wrote the article I would be subtly saying that because Bush just wants to go back to selling his book and golfing that he not taking responsibly for the actions he committed as president. That's the bias in the article, I'm giving O'Reilly credit for being insightful without overt insult or being super critical on one side or the other. I don't care if there is subtle spin to it.
Scott, go back and re-read the article and pay attention to the vocabulary used to describe Former President Bush and President Obama. It isn't explicit, but it heavily implied in the language. Also, the banner to the right of the article advertising O'Reilly's book "Pinheads and Patriots" with a picture of President Obama placed opposed to O'Rielly adds its own context.
Further the premise that the Former Preseindent (or rather his administration) wasn't proactive is insane. They pushed for an amendment regarding marriage, they change how religious organizations receive funding, they ushered in the fucking patriot act, they actively worked to further deregulate and minimize oversight of private businesses, etc.
9/11 is not, in any way, a legitimate reason for the Iraqi War. The fact that it provided some political cover is beside the point.
I would agree with this statement. Other then the fact that if 9/11 didn't happen we probably wouldn't have been in iraq (and obviously wouldn't have been in Afghanistan.) Therefore technically speaking Iraq is a reaction to 9/11.
I would note again, that O'Reilly is mainly talking about what they will do after they are president.
9/11 is not, in any way, a legitimate reason for the Iraqi War. The fact that it provided some political cover is beside the point.
I would agree with this statement. Other then the fact that if 9/11 didn't happen we probably wouldn't have been in iraq (and obviously wouldn't have been in Afghanistan.) Therefore technically speaking Iraq is a reaction to 9/11.
No, it wasn't, it was a tangentially related at best and there have even been multiple articles about that Jr. wanted to finish Daddy's war. That is a simply if-then fallacy.
Also, O'Reilly never mentions any projection of President Obama's post presidency years.
"It is hard to imagine President Obama going quietly into the night once his tenure is over."
Kate, There would have been no patriot act if there wasn't 9/11.
The Amendment to "secure" marriage wouldn't have been being pressed if different states were not pursuing gay marriage at the time. These are all reactions.
"He's a traditionalist, a man who thinks the country is noble and doesn't require an extensive overhaul. " Notice most of these things are reactions to events instead of occurring independently. There was not a need for the Marriage amendment before states started moving on gay marriage in the republican mindset because they thought that the country wasn't changing and didn't need reform. Suddenly a group starts change that and they react and say they need to defend it.
Obviously not everything he did as president was reactive but generally most of the foreign policy and social reform was reactive.
Bob Woodward and others have written that GWB was itching to go to Iraq early in his administration. They were just looking for an excuse. If 9/11 hadn't happened, they would have figured out something else.
Yes, Clearly that is what I'm doing. Funny enough I'm actually saying Bush was a terrible president because he was reactive. But in a way it's better that he was reactive because I'm sure if he was proactive it would have been worse (It could always have been worse).
Do you really want Bush running around after the presidency advocating for all those hard right positions? President Obama will be running around post-president probably more then President Carter and President Clinton and that will be a good thing.
Just because I am not partisan enough to never agree with anything a conservative commentator says I am now a Bush apologist, awesome.
Funny enough I'm actually saying Bush was a terrible president because he was reactive.
This is also how I take it. I want a proactive president. I think it's a good thing for a President to push an agenda.
Also, are you a Bush apologists now?
Yes Joe, because we're either with you or against you. That's how this country works, right?
I'll agree that O'Reily's language betrays his slant, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate his points.
Bob Woodward and others have written that GWB was itching to go to Iraq early in his administration. They were just looking for an excuse. If 9/11 hadn't happened, they would have figured out something else.
This is true. Yes, Bush did "foist" things on the country, but as much as Obama has "foisted?" I think not.
"Foist" is a weasel word to be sure. Its use depends on your perspective.
Geez, did you decide from past experience that I would think being a Bush apologist is a bad thing? Maybe I think it's a good thing. Maybe I'm a Bush apologist myself. I never actually wrote the words "being a Bush apologist is bad".
Geez, did you decide from past experience that I would think being a Bush apologist is a bad thing? Maybe I think it's a good thing. Maybe I'm a Bush apologist myself. I never actually wrote the words "being a Bush apologist is bad".
I think it is. But seeking to understand different motives other then "OMG BUSH WAS AN EVIL MAN" shouldn't be written off as being an apologist.
Geez, did you decide from past experience that I would think being a Bush apologist is a bad thing? Maybe I think it's a good thing. Maybe I'm a Bush apologist myself. I never actually wrote the words "being a Bush apologist is bad".
I think it is. But seeking to understand different motives other then "OMG BUSH WAS AN EVIL MAN" shouldn't be written off as being an apologist.
That necessarily leads to the following question: Did progressives reasonable themselves out of an election in 2010? You might look disdainfully upon anything that sounds to you like "OMG BUSH WAS AN EVIL MAN", but the republicans just made some significant progress on their platform of "OMG OBAMA IS AN EVIL MAN".
Are progressives hamstringing themselves with reason? Does it help your cause to spend time and energy trying to see reasonable motives behind your opponent's cause while your opponent takes advantage of your distraction to convince all unreasonable people (a significant enough portion of the U.S. to win just about any election) that you are the devil?
Is Beck concerned with the motives behind Obama's positions? Is Limbaugh? How about those stupid political emails you like to talk about? They might be unreasonable, but they must have persuaded some people to vote republican this election. What wins in a fight between reasonableness and fear?
I'll agree that O'Reily's language betrays his slant, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate his points.
I never said he was wrong. His thesis in the article is a simple one. It's easy to see that GWB was reactive and Obama is proactive (with the exception of the Bush Doctrine, which is, in fact, insane. No - I mean it. It's like something out of a Philip K. Dick novel. What rational person could seriously espouse the idea of going to war over something that hasn't happened yet? That idea doesn't deserve to be argued by rational people. Don't try to see a reasonable motive behind it. It's crazy, plain and simple.). All I said was that O'Reilly (and the other FOX News types) may agree that Obama is proactive, but they don't see that as a good thing.
Is Beck concerned with the motives behind Obama's positions? Is Limbaugh? How about those stupid political emails you like to talk about? They might be unreasonable, but they must have persuaded some people to vote republican this election. What wins in a fight between reasonableness and fear?
Beck is concerned with the motives behind Obama's positions, he just assumes they are communism and islamic motives.
Look we didn't lose because we were reasonable, we lost because we expected our congresspeople to do way more then they could deliver and instead of coming out to vote we stayed home or made excuses.
Oh and we lost because we don't have a efficient echo chamber that the right has mainly because we don't work in the black and white world that they do and we don't want to live in that world.
Oh and we lost because we don't have a efficient echo chamber that the right has mainly because we don't work in the black and white world that they do and we don't want to live in that world.
Listen to what you said there. You just agreed that progressives are at a disadvantage because they don't want to appeal to the same negative emotions to which conservatives regularly appeal.
. . . and we don't want to live in that world.
You'd rather live in an ivory tower of calm rationality? I know some monasteries you might apply to. Maybe you can find some space on a mountain in Tibet. The problem is, until you get to one of those ivory towers, you live in the irrational world of fear, torment, and loathing.
Is Beck concerned with the motives behind Obama's positions? Is Limbaugh? How about those stupid political emails you like to talk about? They might be unreasonable, but they must have persuaded some people to vote republican this election. What wins in a fight between reasonableness and fear?
Beck is concerned with the motives behind Obama's positions, he just assumes they are communism and islamic motives.
That's not real, rational concern with motive. That's just stirring up the "OMG, OBAMA IS AN EVIL MAN" pot. It's effective. While you're scratching your chin and saying, "Hmmm, maybe I should give GWB the benefit of the doubt and try to find some rationality behind his craziness because I'm sure that, deep down, he is a very good man of fine and noble character", the right is implacably building up support based on fear, fear, and more fear.
Listen to what you said there. You just agreed that progressives are at a disadvantage because they don't want to appeal to the same negative emotions to which conservatives regularly appeal.
You know, I agree with this. I remember saying to Rym that it would be so much easier to lie and manipulate people with fear, but we don't want to do it. This is what we fight against.
You just agreed that progressives are at a disadvantage because they don't want to appeal to the same negative emotions to which conservatives regularly appeal.
It's super shitty, but it's true. Republicans are bad people, and that makes them better at getting elected.
You just agreed that progressives are at a disadvantage because they don't want to appeal to the same negative emotions to which conservatives regularly appeal.
It's super shitty, but it's true. Republicans are bad people, and that makes them better at getting elected.
That is part of the problem. The biggest problem is that the masses drink their bile down as if it was mother's milk.
You just agreed that progressives are at a disadvantage because they don't want to appeal to the same negative emotions to which conservatives regularly appeal.
It's super shitty, but it's true. Republicans are bad people, and that makes them better at getting elected.
So, what's the solution? Give up? Maybe we should train up some liberal attack dogs to do the dirty work some people don't want to do. Would it work? Could a liberal Limbaugh exist?
Maybe we should train up some liberal attack dogs to do the dirty work some people don't want to do. Would it work? Could a liberal Limbaugh exist?
No, because we fact check and dislike people who lie, even if they lie to prove things we agree with. For the same reason that Greenpeace gets me annoyed even though I am an environmentalist, I would get super annoyed at these hypothetical pundits.
I don't have any idea what the solution is. I acknowledged a long time ago that politics is too complicated for me to know what to do about any of it. In this case, it may just be almost a law of the universe -- conservatism has the dubious advantage of being well-suited to using fear and hatred as a campaign tactic. The qualities that make a person liberal rather than conservative are some of the same qualities that inoculate a person against that kind of manipulation.
A related thing is the way republicans are generally better at getting their legislative agendas through, because they'll toe the party line. The same independent thinking that makes a person more likely to be a democrat also makes them less likely to vote for their party's agenda because the party says so.
In the long view, the ebb and flow of this radical right, racist, anti-government nonsense will be overtaken by cooler heads with reason, peace, and shared prosperity in mind. It is two steps forward, one step back. We just have to make certain that this doesn't become a fascist/Nazi situation.
The same independent thinking that makes a person more likely to be a democrat also makes them less likely to vote for their party's agenda because the party says so.
And a liberal, progressive mindset tends to make one more apt to see the other side of an argument and concede someone else's points. The conservative mindset lends itself to being a stubborn twat.
In the long view, the ebb and flow of this radical right, racist, anti-government nonsense will be overtaken by the young replacing the old.
While many things correlate to conservative beliefs, the strongest correlations seem to be age and geographic location. Each generation wins the battles of its youth as the generation preceding it disappears, moving on to stonewalling the following generation.
I'm sadly starting to believe that most of our social progress to date has had little to do with activism and a whole lot to do with the death rate of the elderly...
Comments
I'm not like that guy in Amnesia. When I read an article by, say, George Will, I can remember things I've heard and read Will say in the past. I can remember that Will is a staunch conservative. If I read a new article from Will on PBS, I can remember that he has been sharply critical of PBS in that past, and that he probably is not praising PBS in this new article. Similarly, I can determine, based upon my memory of things Bill O'Reilly has said in the past, that he is probably not in favor of President Obama as a reformer. He doesn't have to actually write the words, "I am critical of President Obama as a reformer. I don't like proactive government. I like it better when government does as little as possible. I believe that, of the two types of governance I am writing about, reactive governance is preferable to proactive governance."
Do you need to actually see those words expressly written in the article to know that this is what O'Reilly is saying, or do you think that he's possibly a tremendous Obama supporter?
Also, Kate is very right. Pre-emptive war must be one of the most radical, proactive things ever espoused by a U.S. president. How does Iraq fit into the sentence "His major decisions were all made after something happened"? As we all know, Iraq did nothing, absolutely nothing to deserve the war. The Bush Doctrine is a clear statement that Bush did not want to wait until after something happened to go to war. He wanted to go to war whenever his "gut" told him it was time.
It doesn't have to be an attack on Obama. O'Reilly is saying, "Wow, look at GWB. He really knew how to govern. He only reacted to things that happened. He didn't try to foist things upon us that we didn't want."
Further the premise that the Former Preseindent (or rather his administration) wasn't proactive is insane. They pushed for an amendment regarding marriage, they change how religious organizations receive funding, they ushered in the fucking patriot act, they actively worked to further deregulate and minimize oversight of private businesses, etc.
I would note again, that O'Reilly is mainly talking about what they will do after they are president.
Also, O'Reilly never mentions any projection of President Obama's post presidency years.
Kate, There would have been no patriot act if there wasn't 9/11.
The Amendment to "secure" marriage wouldn't have been being pressed if different states were not pursuing gay marriage at the time. These are all reactions.
"He's a traditionalist, a man who thinks the country is noble and doesn't require an extensive overhaul. " Notice most of these things are reactions to events instead of occurring independently. There was not a need for the Marriage amendment before states started moving on gay marriage in the republican mindset because they thought that the country wasn't changing and didn't need reform. Suddenly a group starts change that and they react and say they need to defend it.
Obviously not everything he did as president was reactive but generally most of the foreign policy and social reform was reactive.
Also, are you a Bush apologist now?
Do you really want Bush running around after the presidency advocating for all those hard right positions? President Obama will be running around post-president probably more then President Carter and President Clinton and that will be a good thing.
Just because I am not partisan enough to never agree with anything a conservative commentator says I am now a Bush apologist, awesome.
I'll agree that O'Reily's language betrays his slant, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate his points. This is true. Yes, Bush did "foist" things on the country, but as much as Obama has "foisted?" I think not.
"Foist" is a weasel word to be sure. Its use depends on your perspective.
Are progressives hamstringing themselves with reason? Does it help your cause to spend time and energy trying to see reasonable motives behind your opponent's cause while your opponent takes advantage of your distraction to convince all unreasonable people (a significant enough portion of the U.S. to win just about any election) that you are the devil?
Is Beck concerned with the motives behind Obama's positions? Is Limbaugh? How about those stupid political emails you like to talk about? They might be unreasonable, but they must have persuaded some people to vote republican this election. What wins in a fight between reasonableness and fear? I never said he was wrong. His thesis in the article is a simple one. It's easy to see that GWB was reactive and Obama is proactive (with the exception of the Bush Doctrine, which is, in fact, insane. No - I mean it. It's like something out of a Philip K. Dick novel. What rational person could seriously espouse the idea of going to war over something that hasn't happened yet? That idea doesn't deserve to be argued by rational people. Don't try to see a reasonable motive behind it. It's crazy, plain and simple.). All I said was that O'Reilly (and the other FOX News types) may agree that Obama is proactive, but they don't see that as a good thing.
Look we didn't lose because we were reasonable, we lost because we expected our congresspeople to do way more then they could deliver and instead of coming out to vote we stayed home or made excuses.
Oh and we lost because we don't have a efficient echo chamber that the right has mainly because we don't work in the black and white world that they do and we don't want to live in that world.
A related thing is the way republicans are generally better at getting their legislative agendas through, because they'll toe the party line. The same independent thinking that makes a person more likely to be a democrat also makes them less likely to vote for their party's agenda because the party says so.
I'm sadly starting to believe that most of our social progress to date has had little to do with activism and a whole lot to do with the death rate of the elderly...