Pubs Warn CNN, NBC

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Aug 5, 2013.

  1. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Of course if you could snap your fingers and eliminate political parties all of that would fall like dominoes.

    But people ... they like they're rah rah team mentality stuff. It's a psychological advantage that politicians have over their "constituents."
  2. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,700
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,544
    It's a pretty clear attempt to promote a preferred politician at a targeted date, unsurprisingly, right before the nomination battles really start to heat up and gain steam.

    I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the reaction or the stance the GOP is taking here, but at the same time--how else to call out blatant favoritism?

    Either certain press outlets drop whatever pretense at being unbiased they're attempting to adopt (CNN, NBC, and CBS), or this will be the continued reaction: more polarization and partisanship in our media outlets.
  3. demosthenes
    Online

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,247
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +982
    Or it could be pretty clear case of attempting to profit off someone they believe will run for President. It's not unheard of for people to become more interested in politics when Presidential elections roll around.
  4. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    I agree with the first two items. I'm not sure I agree with the third as it may attract even more leaches not capable of earning a living in the private sector.

    Maybe an attempt to return to the idea of a "citizen" legislature would work better. Like at the state level. Maybe you cut their salaries in half and let them keep their day jobs and congress is in session from Jan 15-April 15 and Sept 15-Nov 15 . This might encourage those who have been successful in the private sector to dedicate 2-12 years to public service while still running their business or working for a company. And certainly with 1/2 a paycheck, they could not rely on guvmint paycheck to support a family so they would need to work. They would perhaps act more like one of us?
  5. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Think about it this way: if you pay a good salary but with no pension you're still saving TONS of money. By offering term limits, you're likely attracting young people who will then need to parlay this into a real job.

    You want to pay well because these jobs should attract the *best of the best*.
  6. PSGator66
    Offline

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,361
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +732
    If they run the program I hope they include her handling of the Bengahzi situation - with the video that never existed.
  7. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    I keep thinking back to UF days and the kids who were interested in politics and hung out at the Student Government offices of the Reitz Union. Were they the best and brightest? Hardly (with an exception or two). They were political junky dweebs for the most part.

    I wonder if that is what we now have in the halls of congress? Dweebs and misfits? So if we raise the pay for that work do we make it even more attractive to those who don't want to compete in the "real" world? Just asking.

    The idea of public service (IMHO) is to "give back". I hardly think the founding fathers ever believed that public service would become the "lifestyle" that it has become.

    So, perhaps our appeal should be to those who are accomplished in the private sector? Engineers, Docs, Attorneys, Business owners and even academics...I'd like to think we would have a much better pool of candidates than the current political hacks we have mostly due to "name recognition". A misfit with name recognition beats a talented candidate with none due to why? Jersey Shore, the View, America's got talent, Idol have way more followers than the news shows. An uninformed, disinterested and non invested electorate, is killing us. How many people under age 30 read the newspaper these days?
  8. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Um, you're describing the PRESENT situation which does not attract the best and the brightest.

    That's what I'd like to change.
  9. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    For most kids who are looking at politics, it is a very easy way to be set for life. The path is laid out.
  10. tim85
    Online

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,155
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,153
    I dont think it has to be some incredibly well-paid job, the 'best and brightest' ia relative to what profession you're talking about. The 'best and brightest' for polirics may be someone whose passion lies in the Constitution and in the citizens of this country, not in whose passion lies in making a ton of money. This isn't google we're talking about - a modest salary compared to that of what our military members make would be fine by me.

    The 'best and brightest' for the political world wouldn't be drawn to it because of some financial incentives, like how most teachers aren't drawn to teaching for the pay.

    And why young people? You mean inexperienced people who possess no wisdom?
  11. gatorjd95
    Online

    gatorjd95 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +118
    The only sure fire way to get money and lobbyists out of D.C. is to stop Congress' massive overreaching into all aspects of industry, the economy, and peoples' lives in general. The money and lobbyists flow to those who wield control/regulate in order to effect/influence the outcome. I would prefer the federal gov't limit itself to its Constitutional powers and let the states/cities handle everything else. That doesn't mean that local officials won't be corrupt (e.g. Chicago), but it's a lot easier to notice when my mayor buys a new Mercedes. And, there would actually be redress to federal gov't or courts to root out the corruption on the state level. Of course, this would have the unfortunate result of depressing real estate in D.C. area as all the lobbyists pack up and move to Springfield, IL, Carson City, NV, Jefferson City, MO, etc. to continue their trade. ; )
  12. AustinGator1
    Offline

    AustinGator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7,803
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +422
    These networks are just catering to their audience. Nothing wrong with that. All I would ask is for our lefties on this board to please stop the claim that CNN and NBC are not biased. They lean to the left the same way Fox leans to the right. Once again, nothing wrong with that. They are merely catering to their audience. Just stop claiming they don't or are some how not biased.
  13. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,216
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,397
    Career politician should basically become an oxymoron as fast as we can manage it. There is no upside, none, to so institutionalizing people in public office that they become experts at being there. Why do people think that there is such a thing to place value on as "knowing the ins and outs"? The ins and outs are bad habits and house rules built up by those who stay there to justify their presence and manipulate the new and idealistic.

    I generally like the 12 year approach, but that isn't enough, IMO. I like six. One term in the Senate, three in the House, and either constitutionally change the Presidency to a single six year term or two three year terms. Or a single four year term and just ignore that the election schedule will be a bit unbalanced. Nobody has a legitimate reason or adds any legitimate value by spending a full two decades in national elective office. They can go back to their cities, states, and counties after that if they feel called to serve in politics.

    As for debate theatre, the GOP will be smart to stage their own events on their own terms. CNN or MSNBC aren't out there to give these candidates a platform to speak to their likely voters, or all Americans; they are there to stage gotcha theatre and drum up soundbites for Democrats to use. But they will still cover the events cover that reason, so the GOP has no upside in letting them set the agenda for then as well.
  14. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984

    You are on the right track. I like a 6 year presidency as whoever is the POTUS seems to get things done the first 2 years and then they are raising funds and building a campaign the next two. And term two, they often times become irrelevant and tired.

Share This Page