Selasa, 01 Oktober 2013

1 OKTOBER 2013... PENENTUAN KUBU REPULIK DAN DEMOKRAT...TENTANG APBN DAN KONSEP AGENDA UTAMA PRESIDEN OBAMA...??>> ADA TERASA KEANEHAN... DALAM SISTEM LIBERAL BARBAR AMERIKA... ??>> MASALAH NASIB PEMERINTAHAN DAN KEPENTINGAN RAKYAT SEDANG DIPERTARUHKAN... ??? >>> KEPENTINGAN RAKYAT MANA..??>> DAN UNTUK SIAPA..??>> DISINI LAGI2 JURNALIS DAN MEDIA MAINSTREAM...BELUM TENTU BERFIHAK KEPADA RAKYAT TERTINDAS..??>> KENAPA...??>> KARENA PARA JURNALIS ITU HANYALAH KULI2 TINTA...YANG MENCARI MAKAN DENGAN MEDIA2 MEREKA YANG UMUMNYA ADALAH KORPORASI....??>> SIAPA SESUNGGUHNYA PEMILIK KORPORASI...???>> DI AS SEPERTI DIDUNIA NEOLIBS .... TENTUNYA...ADALAH MEREKA2 PARA BORJUASI...ORANG2 KAYA..DAN TENTU TAK PEDULI TENTANG RAKYAT YANG MEMBUTUHKAN BANTUAN...??? ORANG2 KAYA..DIMANAPUN..BISA MELAKUKAN APA SAJA... TERMASUK JAMINAN ASURANSI KESEHATAN/ BEROBAT...???>>> MAU DI DALAM NEGERI ATAU KELUAR NEGERI TENTU... BAGI MEREKA BISA2 SAJA...???>> TAPI BAGI RAKYAT AWAM...DAN GOLONGAN MENENGAH TENGAH DAN KECIL... INI MEREKA..SANGATLAH BERHITUNG..DENGAN SETIAP PENDAPATAN... MASING2...??>> HAL INI JUGA YANG MEMICU KEPENTINGAN...DIANTARA PROGRAM2 PEMERINTAH DAN KEPENTINGAN RAKYAT AMERIKA GOLONGAN MENENGAH ATAS DAN KAUM KAYA......???>> TERLEBIH.. KONON DI AS.. SEKARANG INI SEDANG KRISIS..... BANYAK PABRIK2 GULUNG TIKAR...DAN PASAR MODAL DAN JUGA PASAR UANG TIDAK BEGITU..SEMARAK...???>> KENAPA...???>> INGAT AKAN ADANYA GERAKAN ..ONWS....DIMANA LEBIH DARI 2 BULAN..MASYARAKAT MEMBOIKOT PASAR MODAL DENGAN MENDUDUKI NWS...?? ..TAPI AKHIRNYA ...DENGAN KEKERASAN DISELESAIKAN... YANG AKIBATNYA RAKYAT SEMAKIN SKEPTIS...???>>> BENARKAH AS AKAN BANGKRUT...???>> Pilih Obamacare atau Pemerintahan 'Bangkrut'..>>> ...Ironisnya prosedur government shutdown bukannya menghemat uang, tapi justru menghabiskan uang. Pada tahun 1996 lalu, persiapan government shutdown sendiri memakan biaya 1,4 milyar dollar....>>> Kekhawatiran bahwa pemerintah AS akan default (tak mampu biayai operasionalnya lagi), akan menghancurkan kepercayaan ekonomi kepada pemerintah. Hal ini pernah terjadi pada tahun 2011, dengan jatuhnya pasar saham, turunnya rating kredit pemerintah AS, keyakinan konsumen jatuh, dan perusahaan berhenti merekrut karyawan...>>> Government shutdown pernah terjadi pada akhir tahun 1995 hingga awal 1996 pada masa Clinton. Jika Obama mengikuti prosedur yang pernah dilakukan maka, government shutdown akan memaksa sekitar 800,000 (delapan ratus ribu) pegawai pemerintah AS berhenti dari pekerjaannya...>>>

Dilema Obama: Pilih Obamacare atau Pemerintahan 'Bangkrut'

Sutarno   -   Selasa, 01 Oktober 2013, 08:58 WIB 
http://www.bisnis.com/dilema-obama-pilih-obamacare-atau-pemerintahan-bangkrut

130515_obama-reuters.jpg 

Bisnis.com, JAKARTA - "Apa yang diputuskan Konggres, pengaruhnya terlihat Selasa besok [Rabu, 2/10 waktu Jakarta]. tak ada..tak ada pengaruhnya, Anda tak bisa memutup pemerintah," tegas Obama di Gedung Putih Senin malam (30/9/2103) waktu Washington atau Selasa pagi (1/10/2013) WIB sebelum menghadiri sidang Kabinet, seperti dilaporkan Reuters.


Ketegangan yang terjadi antara Gedung Putih dan Gedung Capitol berpangkal dari proposal reformasi tunjangan kesehatan yang populer dengan sebutan Obamacare.

Ketika berita ini diturunkan sekitar pukul 09:00 WIB, berarti di Washongton Kongres tinggal memiliki waktu sekitar 3 jam untuk tenggat waktu persetujuan anggaran pemerintah pada pukul 24:00 Senin (30/9/2013).

Reformasi tunjangan kesehatan bertajuk Obamacare itu memungkinkan warga negara yang tak diasuransikan untuk mendapatkan tunjangan kesehatan.

Sebanyak 48 juta warga AS yang tak terlindungi asuransi akan mendapat tunjuangan kesehatan.

Di mata kubu partai Republik, reformasi tunjangan kesehatan itu justru akan membuat eskalasi biaya bagi perusahaan terkait biaya upah dan tunjangan kesehatan.

Inilah sebenarnya yang menjadi pangkal permasalahan. Partai Republik tidak setuju dengan proposal Obamacare.

Apesnya, penolakan itu bisa berbuntut kebangkrutan pemerintahan Obama jika anggaran negara yang berlaku mulai 1 Oktober tak disetujui Konggres.

Namun, beberapa anggota Senat dari Republik menjadi  tidak akan terjadi pembangkrutan pemerintahan.

"Demi Tuhan, kami ingin pemerintahan tetap jalan. Kami akan menjaga pemerintahan tetap beroperasi," ujar Marsha Blackburn, anggota senat Partai Republik dari Tennessee Tennessee.

Dengan kata lain, Kalau Obama mengalah untuk tidak memaksakan Obamacare sebenarnya anggaran pemerintahan langsung disetujui Kongres.

Pun kalau toh Gedung Putih ngotot dengan Obamacare dan terjadi deadlock, maka fungsi-fungsi utama pemerintahan tetap berjalan normal.

Misalnya saja fungsi Departemen Pertanian yang masih tetap menjalankan fungsi vitalnya untuk mengawasi makanan dan minuman.

Dalam konteks seperti itu, sejumlah analis yang diwawancari tidak terlalu khawatir dengan kemacetan persetujuan anggaran pemerintahan Obama tersebut.

"Pasar tidak mempedulikan masalah shut down, " ujar Todd Horwitz, Pendiri Averagejoeoptions.com, ujarnya seperti dikutip Bloomberg.
Editor : Sutarno


Pemerintah AS Bangkrut, Terancam “Government Shutdown” 1 Oktober


AS Bangkrut Oktober www.bringislam.web.id
Pemerintah federal AS terancam harus menjalani prosedur “government shutdown” 1 Oktober ini akibat anggaran yang membengkak. Demikian laporan CNN (23/09).
Program asuransi kesehatan ObamaCare memakan anggaran yang terlampau besar dari semula hanya sebesar 850 juta dollar, membengkak menjadi 2 milyar dollar. Angka ini di luar kemampuan pemerintah AS.
Membengkaknya anggaran operasional pemerintah federal AS, memaksa Kongres harus menetapkan satu dari dua pilihan.
Pilihan pertama, mengeluarkan undang-undang baru yang memungkinkan pemerintah federal AS menambah hutang.
Pilihan kedua, menutup sebagian departemen-departemen pemerintah AS. Penutupan departemen ini disebut dalam perundang-undangan Amerika sebagai government shutdown.
Konsekuensi government shutdown adalah sebagian pegawai pemerintah AS, baik pegawai negeri, sipil maupun kepolisian tidak akan digaji hingga ada solusi anggaran. Pelayanan publik seperti imigrasi (pengurusan paspor), sanitasi (kebersihan kota) di Washington DC akan dihentikan, wisata publik (kebun binatang, taman nasional, dan sejenisnya) akan tutup, juga terhambatnya aplikasi jaminan sosial dan asuransi kesehatan Medicare. Namun demikian, layanan pos dan rumah sakit akan tetap berjalan.
Government shutdown pernah terjadi pada akhir tahun 1995 hingga awal 1996 pada masa Clinton. Jika Obama mengikuti prosedur yang pernah dilakukan maka, government shutdown akan memaksa sekitar 800,000 (delapan ratus ribu) pegawai pemerintah AS berhenti dari pekerjaannya.
Menurut Huffingtonpost (25/09), pada pertengahan Oktober 2013, pemerintah federal AS akan kehabisan uang tunai untuk membayar tagihan-tagihannya.
Jika Kongres tidak memberikan persetujuan penambahan hutang, maka pemerintah AS akan menjalani default, yaitu sebuah status bahwa pemerintah AS tak mampu lagi membiayai dirinya sendiri. Dan hal ini belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya dalam sejarah AS.
Ironisnya prosedur government shutdown bukannya menghemat uang, tapi justru menghabiskan uang. Pada tahun 1996 lalu, persiapan government shutdown sendiri memakan biaya 1,4 milyar dollar.
Kekhawatiran bahwa pemerintah AS akan default (tak mampu biayai operasionalnya lagi), akan menghancurkan kepercayaan ekonomi kepada pemerintah. Hal ini pernah terjadi pada tahun 2011, dengan jatuhnya pasar saham, turunnya rating kredit pemerintah AS, keyakinan konsumen jatuh, dan perusahaan berhenti merekrut karyawan.
Jika default, maka Menteri Keuangan Jack Lew memperkirakan pemerintah akan gunakan semua hutangnya paling lambat 17 Oktober. Uang pemerintah ketika itu hanya tinggal 30 milyar dollar, dan tak lama kemudian pemerintah AS tak mampu lagi membayar tagihan-tagihan. Jaminan rakyat miskin AS (Social Security) juga akan mundur diberikan, dari 1 November menjadi 13 November.
Terancam bangkrutnya pemerintah AS ini hendaknya menjadi peringatan bagi muslimin akan sangat dekatnya hari kiamat. Hari di mana musuh-musuh Islam memperoleh kehinaan dan Islam memperoleh kemenangan.
Boleh jadi ini merupakan balasan ALLAH subhanahuwata’ala kepada pemerintah AS yang selama ini gemar berbuat zalim dengan memerangi dan membunuhi muslimin. Hingga kini drone-drone AS masih berterbangan mencari mangsa muslimin. Belum hilang pula dari ingatan ummat akan serangan AS kepada muslimin di Iraq beberapa tahun lalu. Obama juga terang-terangan membantu militer Yahudi di Palestina sebesar 3 milyar dollar pada 2012 lalu.
“Akan senantiasa ada sekelompok umatku yang menegakkan agama Allah, orang-orang yang memusuhi mereka maupun tidak mau mendukung mereka sama sekali tidak akan mampu menimpakan bahaya terhadap mereka. Demikianlah keadaannya sampai akhirnya datang urusan Allah.” (HR. Bukhari) [antiliberalnews/Nur/Siswanto/Mbudur Online/www.bringislam.web.id]
The House of Representatives now finds itself in the position of the proverbial dog who caught the car.

Under pressure from its conservative Tea Party wing, and having been backed into a corner by firebrand Ted Cruz and his GOP allies in the Senate, House leaders have drawn a line in the sand that, for House leaders to save face, seems to require some concessions from the White House on Obamacare delays or changes.
But the White House and the Senate Democrats have shown no inclination to negotiate, and to all appearances seem content to let the government shut down today.
"They're not doing me a favor by paying for things that they have already approved for the government to do," President Obama told NPR. "That's part of their basic function of government; that's not doing me a favor. That's doing what the American people sent them here to do, carrying out their responsibilities."
The President seems confident that history will repeat itself. The last time a conservative House tried to stare down a Democrat in the White House, it led to a rejuvinated Clinton presidency, as the GOP was held responsible by the news media and, ultimately, the general public.
Last night the GOP House defeated a revolt by GOP moderates, who sought to send a "clean" continuing resolution to the Senate.
Earlier this Spring the Senate passed a formal budget for the first time in four years, after in 2012 unanimously rejecting President Obama's proposed budget. But the House and Senate have made little progress on reaching a budget compromise, and as a result the government continues to stumble along from one make-do "continuing resolution" to the next.
In the absence of actual budget negotiations, Republicans have sought to leverage the continuing resolution votes and the now-routine hikes of the debt limit to force debate and change on major fiscal concerns.
In 2011 Congress passed a budget deal that expanded the debt limit conditioned upon automatic spending cuts that would take effect if specific reduction targets were not met. No one expected the cuts to take effect, but no deal was reached to avert them.
When the sequester took effect in January of this year, it was widely expected that it would have devastating impacts on government functioning and the economy. But the effect proved obscure, and the issue largely disappeared. Those automatic cuts now seem likely to survive the current budget crisis, most observers expect.
"This is a huge victory that nobody has talked about," Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told the Wall Street Journal. "The spending portion of the spending bill we have won."
The House has now passed two resolutions, both rejected by the Senate. A game of hot potato seems to have developed, with neither House or the Senate wanting to be left holding it when the shut down takes effect.
Plan C for the Republicans, it now seems, may be to try to force Congress to live by the rules it set out when Obamacare passed. During the original debate on the Affordable Care Act, as Ezra Klein outlines at the Washington Post, the GOP had offered, as a kind of poison pill, an amendment that required Congressional staff to be covered under the exchanges.
The proposal slipped into the bill and became law, but it was later waved in the rule making process by the Obama administration, in a move of disputed legality.
A Plan C that forced the Democrats to implement the law as written would have the upside of saving face, while forcing Capitol Hill to live with the rawest side of the new health care law. But it would have the downside of injuring GOP staffers as well.
Democrats would probably have a hard time voting against such a move. And short of that, it is hard to see a viable exit strategy that allows the GOP House to save face.

5 Reasons the Media Is Covering Ted Cruz's 'Filibuster' Differently Than Wendy Davis's or Rand Paul's

Liberal bias plays a role, but it's premature and inaccurate to say that explains everything.



Screenshot
America seems to be in a golden age of the filibuster. First, there was Rand Paul's March attempt to derail John Brennan's nomination as CIA director. Then there was Texas state Senator Wendy Davis's filibuster of a bill to restrict abortions in the state. And now there's Ted Cruz's "fauxlibuster," a long speech he began Tuesday but will have to wrap up by around noon Wednesday.

There's a raging debate on Twitter over how the speeches were treated in the press (since that's surely what all three legislators wanted to happen when they embarked on policy-based stands). Conservatives charge that Davis, a Democrat, was portrayed as courageous, while Cruz, a Republican, is being ridiculed and dismissed. Is the coverage slanted, and if so, does simple partisanship explain it? Here are a few explanations for the discrepancy.
  1. Liberal media bias. Let's get this one out of the way now: Many mainstream reporters lean left, and that colors coverage. Many of the complaints are about not news stories but editorials by predictably liberal editorial boards. Now, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the liberal editorial board of the New York Times blasted Cruz. (It doesn't appear the paper wrote an editorial on Davis's filibuster, though the board's blog was generally sympathetic.) But this is a complaint that news coverage is too dismissive, too. Bias isn't enough to explain everything here.
  2. It's too early to tell. As Dylan Byers rightly points out, Davis became a media fixation -- even her shoes became star. And yet Cruz isn't even on the front page of the Times! But on June 26, 2013, the day after Davis' filibuster, she wasn't on the front page of the Times either. It was only over the ensuing week that her star rose. The trick is to watch how Cruz is covered in the next few days. To speak of a "media blackout" is premature.
  3. If it's all bias, what about Paul? The Kentucky senator's crusade (which Cruz aided!) against drones drew a round of coverage just as adoring as anything that followed Davis and helped solidify his status as a top-tier presidential contender for 2016. How does one explain such positive coverage of a Republican?
  4. The politics are substantively different. It's reporters' job to portray the facts of a given situation. Davis's speech united liberals in celebration and earned an approving tweet from the president. Paul's filibuster helped galvanize a coalition of libertarian Republicans and civil-libertarian Democrats. Cruz, on the other hand, has been widely criticized by his own party. While his stand has endeared him to activists, it has earned the derision of Republican leaders, rank and file legislators, strategists, and commentators. If Cruz were uniting the GOP and leading a successful revolt against Obamacare, it would be reported that way and he'd look triumphant. As is, he's dividing his party and won't overturn the law, so the coverage reflects that.
  5. Davis and Paul's filibusters actually mattered. It doesn't matter if Cruz talks until noon: According to Senate rules, a vote must be held, and Cruz can't talk to delay it in the style of old-school talking filibusters. That's the key difference between Cruz's speech on one hand, and on the other Davis's filibuster -- which ran out a session and killed a bill, although it was passed in a later special session -- and Paul's filibuster, which did stall Brennan's nomination, at least for 12 hours until Paul gave up. Paul also got results: He extracted a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder promising the federal government wouldn't use drones stateside, the sort of concession Cruz is almost certain not to receive from the White House. As my colleague Molly Ball has pointed out, there are some serious logical problems with Cruz's stand. One, he's calling on his colleagues to filibuster a bill they called for; and two, no one believes he will succeed in getting Obamacare defunded. That opens him up to the charge that he's grandstanding. Were Davis and Paul grandstanding too? Of course. But there was a concrete political goal in view as well.
Rather than compare Cruz to Davis, a better parallel might be liberal independent Senator Bernie Sanders's epic December 2010 floor speech. It wasn't technically a filibuster either, something many failed to point out. On the other hand, though, Cruz has attracted far more coverage for his anti-Obamacare fight over the last week than Sanders did for his. Pop quiz: Can you even remember what Sanders was talking about? Didn't think so. (For the record, it was a deal to extend Bush tax cuts through 2012.)

  • 98 comments

Leave a message...

  • BWTrainer

    "Many mainstream reporters lean left, and that colors coverage."
    That's a pretty bold claim without documenting any supporting evidence.


    • David A. Graham Mod BWTrainer



      • BWTrainer David A. Graham

        Thanks.
        Although I will point out that article is over 9 years old (the actual study is no longer available by clicking the link) and included local-level reporters.
        The article also brings up the point, importantly IMO, that management was not asked the same question, and they may be making decisions on what gets published. And it describes how journalists may end up providing false balance in hopes of not appearing to let their "liberal" bias show.
        I'd also be interested in knowing their actual policy prescriptions to see what 'liberal' actually means to them. They could in reality be quite mainstream, and only identify themselves as liberals because the right has shifted so far right (although this was probably less of an issue at the time of the study in 2004).
        All in all, I would say points 2 though 5 are much more relevant. But always nice to see the author reply.


      • jay_see_are David A. Graham

        From your link:
        "First, the poll never asks exactly how personal political attitudes impact on the ability of journalists to do their job. In that sense, I think the poll may be a disservice. It implies — but never explains how or if bias has an impact on journalism. The poll simply assumes — as conservatives constantly point out — that bias makes its way into the journalism."


    • Kfredrick72 BWTrainer

      Watching or reading any of the MSM outlets is all the proof you need. Not to mention the revolving door between the media and Democrat political appointees.


    • Tim_Sims BWTrainer

      I'd say it's so far from being bold as to be meaningless. "Many" is a very low bar to clear when you're talking about the totality of American media. 1% would still be many. In any case, Pew among others has polls showing that media members do tend to self identity as left leaning, and saying that some one's biases tend to shade their coverage is just stating something about the meaning of the word bias.
      People seem really fixated on what seems to he a throwaway point, conceding something so that it can be minimized through context. Graham's larger point is that there are lots of reasons other than bias to explain a different reaction.


    • azt24 BWTrainer

      There is this from 2009
      http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-21...
      Pew found journalists identify themselves as 34% liberal, 7% conservative (as opposed to approx. 20% liberal, 40% conservative for the American public at large)


  • ctdfalconer

    It's not a filibuster, it's a bullyfister by a fussybillster.


  • JenniferC

    This is a boring non-controversy manufactured by TalkingPoints TM. Is it time for a War on Christmas article yet? Too early?

  • seanmkelley

    The liberal editorials are hard to distinguish from conservative commentators. Can you tell the difference?
    "Cruz and company are expert at blaming others. They find a betrayal in every plot of theirs gone wrong. And they are incapable of being shamed.
    "This combination of grandiosity and pure nastiness helps explain why the senator has become the least popular man in Washington."
    Of course, this bipartisan scorn is exactly what Cruz wants, to enhance his self-image as some Galtian ubermensch, so I guess we've fallen right into his trap.


    • Bearpaw01 seanmkelley

      These days, the difference between conservative editorials and most "liberal" editorials is generally whether actual liberals are referred to as "terrorists" or just "hippies".


    • smilly124 seanmkelley

      Well, at least he's not blaming Bush..
      Edit: Oh wait, he does that too.


  • Judme

    As a left leaning liberal myself, I'm finding it harder and harder to find all these so called left leaning media you talk about...including at MSNBC.


  • EnderTZero

    You're discounting the fact that, while Cruz's "filibuster" itself might not garner significant media attention, that lack of coverage can be somewhat remedied by ruffling the media's feathers a bit by calling them biased. Now, instead of just running articles talking about Cruz's Paul rip-off, you're also talking about the coverage of that rip-off as well - which is more free publicity for Cruz.


  • Damascusdean

    Cruz is also just plain smarmy, lacking in charm, and unlikeable. His presentation alone draws criticism.

  • Bearpaw01

    Another difference is that Wendy's filibuster actually stuck to the topic at hand (despite convenient claims to the contrary), unlike Cruz' fauxlibuster. It's hard to take a filibuster seriously when it includes a full reading of "Green Eggs and Ham".
    (Especially considering that Dr. Suess' classic could be taken to undercut opposition to Obamacare.)


  • marketkarma

    I am not sure point 5 is compelling:
    almost all talking filibusters are doomed to "failure"-- in every case, the action the filibuster ostensibly sought to block eventually happened--
    if the alternative view is that they are done simply to highlight the minority view of an issue -- each will be successful.


  • Hal Horvath

    I think the idea that newspapers "lean left" or "right" itself, that idea, is mentally disabling.
    Just using that idea sharply reduces the thinking and insight of anyone.


    • smilly124 Hal Horvath

      So you disagree with, say Anderson Cooper being left-leaning and Shepard Smith being right-leaning?
      I realize you are citing "newspapers" specfically, but wouldn't that apply across the entire media spectrum?


      • Hal Horvath smilly124

        Yes. The distinction does not serve in a useful way (that helps us have insights). It's only about forming teams. Self defeating.
        I don't mean that millions and millions of people don't believe in those team labels!
        They sure do.
        I'm saying the labels, and the teams, are a real error.

        • So all sources should be treated as fundamentally unbiased?
          That's a really good way to misunderstand the world. Critical attention to biases is part of ANY analysis of a source.


          • Hal Horvath TadhgMor

            heh, all sources should be treated as biased, generally. Even the NYTimes (the best). But, I'm referring to unconscious bias. Even a reporter trying hard to be impartial cannot really be "objective" etc. One's very worldview itself contains all sorts of presumptions and choices actually.
            But this doesn't stop us from making useful and needed choices and distinctions. It's just beneficial to begin with the understanding that we are all bias
          • For decades I've seen all sources as biased by nature. Even the best, like the Atlantic or Times. But, I'm referring to unconscious bias. Even a reporter trying hard to be impartial cannot really be "objective" etc. One's very worldview itself contains all sorts of presumptions and choices actually.
            But this doesn't stop us from making useful and needed choices and distinctions. It's just beneficial to begin with the understanding that we are all biased.
        • Hal, I see what you are getting at, but lamenting for equity in a system that provides for none is as equally self-defeating. Also, journalism today is 80% opinion-based "reporting" so it's hard not to have camps of thought. The only way, I think, to negate this is to consume information from multiple sources from both sides and form your own opinions

          • Yes, the explicitly opinion part has expanded. But then there is the fact that objectivity itself is a questionable concept. It's a kind of claim. But false, generally.
            Sometimes I think only science or math or engineering has a real shot at being "objective", and then only when following an objective method with considerable effort to 2nd guess one's process, etc.



    • Captain_Hook Hal Horvath

      Generally speaking, the smaller the market, the more conservative the inclination of the news outlet. Generally speaking, the more educated a person is, the more liberal his or her bias.
      • If you try to go a *lot* further into a characterization, say like Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style..." then you could actually produce a fruitful insight.
        But our "liberal" and "conservative" team labels are barren, arid, useless.

        • Hal Horvath Hal Horvath

          And I say this even having read, long ago, Thomas Sowell's great insight that (roughly) "conservatives" have a dark view of human nature, so that policing and military might is paramount, and "liberals" have a positive view of human nature, believing that violence is mostly learned and from culture. ("A Conflict of Visions") Even with good, older insight like this, the labels themselves now-a-days are harmful to thought and insight.


      • dtechba Captain_Hook

        Actually, the so called education correlates with political leanings is tenuous at best. States with high levels of minorities also have low education levels and those minorities are overwhelmingly democratic in their leanings. You can't point to PhDs as academia has influencers beyond education levels. This is obvious since even lower educated individuals working around college campuses lean left. Blue collar union labor trends left and their education is below average. In short, you can try all you want but you won't find a valid causation for education level and political tendencies.

  • Davis is a state legislator. Cruz is a U.S. senator. There shouldn't be any comparison in the amount of coverage they received.
    But newsrooms are funny places. Davis was talking about abortion. So she is an important person to watch. Cruz is a Republican. Yuck!


  • IheartTesla

    If you are not talking about the filibuster but rather the reaction to the filibuster you have already lost.
    Apparently Cruz's fakeybuster just did not hold up in the 'free marketplace of ideas'.


  • Casey Dreier

    Really? Blaming liberal media bias? Is this seriously what passes for political analysis at The Atlantic these days?
    Isn't David Graham actually paid money to focus on these issues so he doesn't have to toss out some lazy trope and pass it off as insight? Man, try harder next time.
  • Finding bias in an editorial is generally what one expects to find, especially in publications with a distinct editorial point of view. The editorials at the NYT tilt liberal; editorials at the WSJ tilt conservative. Not always, but usually. So what? Veteran reporter David A. Graham is surprised, dismayed?
    That said, here's a pleasant surprise, the WSJ editorial on Senator Cruz's talkathon was less than flattering, details here,
    Liberal bias at the WSJ? No, reality bias. Dan


  • Economics Institute

    Cruz is non compos mentis, an embarrassment to the party
  • Admittedly an imperfect metric:
    Wendy Davis hits on news.google: 12,100
    Ted Cruz hits on news.google: 167,000
    Cruz is getting more than ten times the attention than Davis. Yes, some the attention to Cruz is not flattering, but then I think that there is a growing consensus, outside Tea Party circles, that Cruz is more interested in publicity stunts than in policy making. Dan

  • HCCarey

    Working the refs!
    There were how many articles about Cruz at the Atlantic? At Talking Points Memo? And Slate? At the Washington Post? There's been a ton of coverage of Cruz and his fake filibuster. It just hasn't been adulatory. Cruz's deluded nutjob followers, for whom this long. rambling speech is like Gandalf facing the Balrog, want adulatory coverage.
    Why isn't it adulatory? Because the filibuster was a big phony stunt designed to advance Ted Cruz.
    This just in "senator seeks attention and publicity." Stop the presses!




  • CitizenE

    Ted Cruz will not appear at the next Floyd Mayweather fight with Miley Cyrus in a fishnet. Alas.

  • f00k_y0u

    since the media is pro-gay, they hate ted cruz. if you oppose ted cruz, your gay

  • Skippy-san

    Charles Pierce summed this up pretty well. Wendy Davis was trying to do something for her constituents. Tailgunner Ted is standing up for the right of big insurance to screw his constituents. Big difference. And if you don't understand that-try watching something other than Fox News or reading Drudge.




Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar