Obama has lost his credibility with the left!

[Damocles]

You say it's because a liberal was elected but perhaps it was because that liberal actually put exit dates on the conflicts, or because the people who elected him appreciated losing the lone cowboy diplomacy and exaggerated rhetoric of the former prez.

I say it because the numbers dwindled before there were any "exit" dates. Even when he escalated in Afghanistan the numbers continued to fall. Even you, if you are honest, must notice that there are fewer protesters than before, and even less coverage of those few.

Yes, I believe it is because of who is President. I believe that the vast majority of those who protested were protesting Bush with the war a convenient excuse to do so.

When it goes from many thousands gathering at the end of the Bush term, along with the anti-entourage each time he traveled to just a few so quickly it isn't because of future events that hadn't happened yet, it was because of the party of the person in the office.


As for Onceler, the numbers began to dwindle near the end of Bush's terms not because they aren't "indefatigable" but because they saw an end to what they were actually protesting. Bush's Presidency.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.9]

Obviously Obama is so very, very wrong on the economy & spins GOP tax cut goals, so fiscal conservatives, we expect you to fight for us.

 

[Onceler]

I say it because the numbers dwindled before there were any "exit" dates. Even when he escalated in Afghanistan the numbers continued to fall. Even you, if you are honest, must notice that there are fewer protesters than before, and even less coverage of those few.

Yes, I believe it is because of who is President. I believe that the vast majority of those who protested were protesting Bush with the war a convenient excuse to do so.

When it goes from many thousands gathering at the end of the Bush term, along with the anti-entourage each time he traveled to just a few so quickly it isn't because of future events that hadn't happened yet, it was because of the party of the person in the office.


As for Onceler, the numbers dwindled near the end of Bush's terms not because they aren't "indefatigable" but because they saw an end to what they were actually protesting. Bush's Presidency.

Statiistically, media coverage dropped significantly well before Bush left office - almost 2 years prior.

This has been debated pretty endlessly on the board. Conservatives are like NE Patriot fans - an endless persecution complex. Things like war fatigue and other issues like the economy coming to the forefront never enter their minds...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It is what stops a lot of Republican folk from liking him, although, he has sold his soul to them!

you've been telling us for years we needed to develop an appetite for soul food.....

 

[Damocles]

Statiistically, media coverage dropped significantly well before Bush left office - almost 2 years prior.

This has been debated pretty endlessly on the board. Conservatives are like NE Patriot fans - an endless persecution complex. Things like war fatigue and other issues like the economy coming to the forefront never enter their minds...

Right, again I present my opinion. I believe the coverage began to slow because they already saw the end to the Presidency they worked so hard to undermine.

Yes, it has been "debated", however nothing you say changes what is. The numbers dwindled "the last two years" because the were already treating him as an outgoing President.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.9]

As Michael Reagan’s dad once said, “We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected…. ‘We the people’…”

 

[Onceler]

Right, again I present my opinion. I believe the coverage began to slow because they already saw the end to the Presidency they worked so hard to undermine.

Yes, it has been "debated", however nothing you say changes what is. The numbers dwindled "the last two years" because the were already treating him as an outgoing President.

As you stated, this is your opinion, and nothing more. It's the partisan view; it's my opinion that it has nothing to do w/ reality.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.9]

I say it because the numbers dwindled before there were any "exit" dates. Even when he escalated in Afghanistan the numbers continued to fall. Even you, if you are honest, must notice that there are fewer protesters than before, and even less coverage of those few.

Yes, I believe it is because of who is President. I believe that the vast majority of those who protested were protesting Bush with the war a convenient excuse to do so.

When it goes from many thousands gathering at the end of the Bush term, along with the anti-entourage each time he traveled to just a few so quickly it isn't because of future events that hadn't happened yet, it was because of the party of the person in the office.


As for Onceler, the numbers began to dwindle near the end of Bush's terms not because they aren't "indefatigable" but because they saw an end to what they were actually protesting. Bush's Presidency.

A poll number like that? That doesn't look really pretty today.

 

[Damocles]

As you stated, this is your opinion, and nothing more. It's the partisan view; it's my opinion that it has nothing to do w/ reality.

Because your view comes from a different form of partisanship. This is a political site, views tend to be that way.

 

[Onceler]

Because your view comes from a different form of partisanship. This is a political site, views tend to be that way.

I have actual stats to back up my opinion, as well as the universal idea that it is utterly ridiculous to think that 2 years into Bush's 2nd term the media collectively decided that they could do no more damage to the guy by covering the war so changed their entire editorial & journalistic focus.

 

[Damocles]

I have actual stats to back up my opinion, as well as the universal idea that it is utterly ridiculous to think that 2 years into Bush's 2nd term the media collectively decided that they could do no more damage to the guy by covering the war so changed their entire editorial & journalistic focus.

Nobody says they all got into a room and had a vote. 2 years before Bush was leaving office there was this clear indication he would leave office, you know that constitutional limitation. They, like any normal group of people, are more highly motivated to get their message out for somebody who was more relevant than a President who was already largely a lame duck President...

And you've posted no "data" to support your opinion on how you interpret the data. The data we agree on, it's the reason we disagree on and that you base on your own already set beliefs. I base mine on how I see groups of people behave and the data.

 

[Onceler]

Nobody says they all got into a room and had a vote. 2 years before Bush was leaving office there was this clear indication he would leave office, you know that constitutional limitation. They, like any normal group of people, are more highly motivated to get their message out for somebody who was more relevant than a President who was already largely a lame duck President...

And you've posted no "data" to support your opinion as to what the data means. The data we agree on, the reason we disagree and that is based on your own partisanship. I base mine on how I see groups of people behave and the data.

It's called "news" for a reason. This was a 7+ year war, Damo. To me, it's just bananas to think that the media would cover it w/ the same kind of intensity that they did in the first several years, particularly when other issues like the primaries & economy started coming to the forefront.

You'll just have to take my word for it on this one; you're wrong about it. War fatigue is a real phenomenon. Editors & journalists base decisions about their general coverage philosophy on what sells, not what candidate they like. Within that framework, there is partisanship, but as far as "general coverage," it's all about the benjamins...

 

[Damocles]

It's called "news" for a reason. This was a 7+ year war, Damo. To me, it's just bananas to think that the media would cover it w/ the same kind of intensity that they did in the first several years, particularly when other issues like the primaries & economy started coming to the forefront.

You'll just have to take my word for it on this one; you're wrong about it. War fatigue is a real phenomenon. Editors & journalists base decisions about their general coverage philosophy on what sells, not what candidate they like. Within that framework, there is partisanship, but as far as "general coverage," it's all about the benjamins...

Basically, the fact that Bush was leaving left people uninterested in war reports and going out to protest the wars. Again, we agree on what happened, just not on what motivated it.

I agree news agencies report what will sell, what we disagree on is why people were losing interest. What you call "war fatigue" I see as "political war fatigue", people knew Bush was leaving, they had less need for constant negative reporting on the wars. For that same reason there was less interest in protesting, which became even more pronounced as a different party took that office.

There is a reason that even though more people are dying in Afghanistan than ever before there is still less protest and coverage of that protest. I think that both "war fatigue" as well as "partisanship fatigue" have a roll in that. People who see a political "ally" because of party are less inclined to constantly protest when that party takes that office. While some still maintain their belief and protest the war, others were never really protesting the war, but rather the person who ran it.

 

[NOVA]

I have actual stats to back up my opinion, as well as the universal idea that it is utterly ridiculous to think that 2 years into Bush's 2nd term the media collectively decided that they could do no more damage to the guy by covering the war so changed their entire editorial & journalistic focus.

You got the stats? Lets see 'em.....and stop the bickering.

 

[Onceler]

Basically, the fact that Bush was leaving left people uninterested in war reports and going out to protest the wars. Again, we agree on what happened, just not on what motivated it.

I agree news agencies report what will sell, what we disagree on is why people were losing interest. What you call "war fatigue" I see as "political war fatigue", people knew Bush was leaving, they had less need for constant negative reporting on the wars. For that same reason there was less interest in protesting, which became even more pronounced as a different party took that office.

There is a reason that even though more people are dying in Afghanistan than ever before there is still less protest and coverage of that protest. I think that both "war fatigue" as well as "partisanship fatigue" have a roll in that.

It's disingenuous to portray the reaction to both wars equally. By FAR, the brunt of protest & media coverage was always Iraq. Afghanistan was fairly insignificant by comparison (not as a war - just in terms of protest & coverage).

And you're really wrong about the anti-war movement. We can disagree about the media coverage, but the true anti-war people are still anti-war. I can't even describe some of the dismay I have seen regarding Obama's policies among the lefties I know; this is true both locally and nationally. Code Pink is still out there, as are other anti-war groups.

Again, the coverage of that is almost non-existant now. The economy is now issue #1 with the media (not surprising, since it's issue #1 with their readers/viewers, as well).

 

[Damocles]

It's disingenuous to portray the reaction to both wars equally. By FAR, the brunt of protest & media coverage was always Iraq. Afghanistan was fairly insignificant by comparison (not as a war - just in terms of protest & coverage).

And you're really wrong about the anti-war movement. We can disagree about the media coverage, but the true anti-war people are still anti-war. I can't even describe some of the dismay I have seen regarding Obama's policies among the lefties I know; this is true both locally and nationally. Code Pink is still out there, as are other anti-war groups.

Again, the coverage of that is almost non-existant now. The economy is now issue #1 with the media (not surprising, since it's issue #1 with their readers/viewers, as well).

We agree, the "true" anti-war people are still anti-war. As I said, they still protest. Some are still here and report they get e-mails about it all the time.

However, the numbers at the protests underline what I have said. It is my opinion that had McCain won, protest numbers would both be larger and they would be better covered. Again, many of those who protested see "ally" in the letter after the name, those who do will continue to be less likely to protest regardless of what happens in either war.