What if Obama...?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Most of all, he's a Democrat and perceived by the right to be a liberal (in reality, he's an Eisenhower Republican). Bill Clinton encountered the same vitriol and double standards and he's a white male.

Indeed. the partisan scorched-earth "war" is, I think, a facade to mask the fact that two parties aren't terribly different on the issues that matter -- finance, the stratification of society, and foreign policy.

But they were from "liberal" MSNBC and the point is that the criticism was along the lines of "oh, that's Christie for you". It's a far cry from what it would be if it had been a Democrat or a "liberal".

There was also "unPresidential", which would seem to directly undermine your point here.

If the Republicans take the Senate, you will see Obama be impeached. As other Republicans have openly said, the reasons can be found later but the important thing is getting the votes in the Senate and House to do it.

Perhaps. I personally don't think that will happen, no matter the fondest wishes of the dumbest Republicans. They don't have the power to do it, and wouldn't even with majorities, because they are already a shrinking power-base, and going after Obama will certainly be perceived as being based in part on his race -- and that will mortgage the future of the Republican Party, because their power base is the shrinking white demographic; they cannot afford to alienate hispanics and blacks.

The trend in this country has been away from Republican social policies, and the minimization of the fundamentalist Christian influence in politics. If the Republicans wish to tie themselves to them anchor so that they go down with the ship, why should that bother you?

So "liberal" that they played along with the run up to the Iraq War, offering Cheney the justification he needed. Any delusions that we have a liberal media should have been dispelled by the W administration. The media acted like cheerleaders in the run up and then swept it under the rug after the dust settled.

A fair point. However, this study has some interesting points to make: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitst...iaBias.pdf

Abstract: We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News’ special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN’s Newsnight, and ABC’s Good Morning America; among print outlets, USAToday was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.

It's also true that on an individual basis, reporters and other media employees tend to be more liberal than those they report on, or to. Obviously that doesn't mean that their product is necessarily biased, but it's hard to believe that none of that leaks into reportage.

Generally speaking, I listen to NPR for my news. They strike me as pretty well-balanced. I used to try to "triangulate" my news, with multiple sources and assuming that the truth was somewhere in between them, but that's a hell of a lot of work, and now that I've gotten rid of my television, it's even more difficult.

---

In 2001 you basically had a right wing coup with some right judges giving your country to the losing republican candidate and hardly a murmur was uttered by the "liberal media".

America seems a bit like a banana republic with nukes sometimes.

This post belies an ignorance of the American electoral process.

[DeistPaladin]

FOX would have lost its mind, D-P.

As opposed to the epitome of sanity that they are now.

---

There was also "unPresidential", which would seem to directly undermine your point here.

But apparently not unGovenorial. His act evidently plays well as a governor but there were doubts expressed as to whether he could take that act on the road to DC.

Perhaps there's a higher standard for president than for governor. I can understand that but how much lower are the standards? The governor is the chief executive of a state and while this entails fewer responsibilities surely there is SOME standard of behavior.

[Cato]

But apparently not unGovenorial. His act evidently plays well as a governor but there were doubts expressed as to whether he could take that act on the road to DC.

I find Christie's style refreshing and I would like to see him make a run for President if nothing more than to inject some candor into the primary process. The Tony Soprano shtick may seem over the top, but I am much more tolerant of it than the typical meaningless euphamistic bullshit that passes for polite political speech:
- "My esteemed colleague"
- "My friend from across the aisle"
- "Gentle-Lady"

The whole notion of presidential or statesmanlike is nauseating because it is undefined and wielded when substantive criticism is lacking. I wish Obama could get away with being more direct; perhaps even abrasive at times. Sadly, I can't argue with your assessment of what would happen if Obama approached detractors in the manner that Christie does; however, I don't think the solution is to expect our elected officials to act in some Emily Post approved manner simply because it's considered presidential.

I can't help but recall the police station scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off where Charlie Sheen's character calls out the sister for being upset with Ferris and the associated inept authority figures simply because he can get away with his shenanigans. The solution isn't to brow beat Christie under the guise of white male republican privilege, it's to club the fuck out of the hypocritical pundits that create the privilege.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There was also "unPresidential", which would seem to directly undermine your point here.

But apparently not unGovenorial. His act evidently plays well as a governor but there were doubts expressed as to whether he could take that act on the road to DC.

Perhaps there's a higher standard for president than for governor. I can understand that but how much lower are the standards? The governor is the chief executive of a state and while this entails fewer responsibilities surely there is SOME standard of behavior.

I agree with you that the standards for governors are unaccountably low.