Political leanings of network anchors

I guess if it makes you happy, you can call them liberal. Considering the major news outlets' under-reporting or just plain non-reporting of George Jr.'s various pecadillo's, I'd call 'em conservative. But then we all know I'm a commie every since SM pulled my cover in the philosophy forum.

[warch]

Liberal is a good thing. No... liberal is a great thing. Liberals embrace reason and thought. Liberals seek progress and improvement. Liberals believe in the balance of powers. Liberals champion personal freedom, human rights and social responsibilty. Liberals believe in the separation of church and state.

Dan reported attrocities from the trenches of Viet Nam, the assasination of leaders, so I'm guessing those experiences have made impressions. He's as liberal as old Walter Cronkite.

I think the other two are more news readers than actual reporters.

I think its telling that you dont know for sure. That speaks to some bit (at least) of balance. Youre guessing from their hometowns and haircuts. The guys I worry about have the flag in their lapels and say things like "shut up" during their interviews.

I watch Fox like one watches a car wreck. I have to mention I saw Bill Maher take on Sean Hannity over the weekend over Hannity's book riddiculously titled "Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism". Maher actually got him to admit that liberals were not evil. Perhaps Sean overstated. Sales, you know. That was sweet. Then the best part was when he asked Hannity something that he said he's been asking all conservatives. "Does it bother you that Bush sat stunned for 7 minutes in a classroom before taking any action, gathering any more information when he learned that the country was under attack?" Why didnt the commander and chief feel the immediate need to command? Not even excuse himself to gather more information. Particularly if he believe Iraq's nuclear attack could reach us within 45 minutes and not knowing the details of the country under attack. Dont you think he would be curious to get right on it?

Actually it was 27 minutes if you include the hanging around, figuring out the safest place to go (meanwhile endangering the whole school) After hemming and hawing Hannity conceeded that it was not the reaction he looks for in a commander in chief. Me neither.

[lookout123]

Warch - the problem is that the terms liberal and conservative are very subjectively applied. it isn't like saying x is white/black or open/closed. who gets to decide who is liberal or conservative?

and maybe even deeper than that - how do those terms really even apply to our political philosophies ?
by most people's standards i'm a "conservative", but am i? i once had a professor who called me a flaming liberal. but why? i support a limited governmental role in our lives. i support a safety-net version of our welfare system - not large scale entitlement programs that have crept up on us. i support a large standing military with the budget necessary to maintain the US military's place as the best trained, best equipped in the world. i believe in a fiscally responsible method to government A & R. i would support a law making lobbiest groups illegal. although i oppose quota systems and the direction that affirmative action programs have taken, i support the idea of a color blind society. i don't really care about gay marriage, and i don't believe we need too many laws about reproduction.

my political views could go on page after page but what i am getting at is that each of have views that are labeled as "liberal" and "conservative". it is very subjective and there are shades of gray - as if your liberal/conservativeness is on a sliding scale. a while back Jag and i were throwing the terms about when talking about news outlets. he stated that CNN is right leaning, i disagreed. what it boiled down to is that he was comparing CNN to BBC and european outlets. it is all a matter of perspective.

neither liberal nor conservative are good or bad. they are just different views of the world. good and bad leaders apply each of their preferred labels to themselves and what they view to be the unfavorable label to their opponents. the problem is that the uneducated, ill-informed grab their "knowledge" from headlines, commercials, pamphlets, and worst of all - the grapevine. they believe what the world around them tells them to believe. liberal=democrat=takes care of working class/are tax and spend fiends; conservative=republican=believe in limiting the power of gov't/are in bed with big business and the rich.
there is some truth in these stereotypes, but there is more inaccuracy than truth. we don't vote for parties, we vote for and are governed by individuals. people that will be "liberal" or "conservative" depending on the situation.
if we made a scale where 1= liberal and 10 = conservative people like michael moore and al franken would be pretty close to a 1 while rush/hannity types would be 10. most of us are pretty close to 5's but would move a couple of points in either direction, depending on the specific issue.
the problem is that we get caught up in the labels. we become to proud of being liberal, not conservative; or vice versa that we forget to just think about the specific issues and the specific candidates (read job applicants). that is the D's and R's like it, because they keep us common folk battling against each other to the point that we don't just pull back from the situation long enough to vote them both out in favor of someone who is really willing and able to put the american public ahead of their own dreams of avarice.

anyway - that is my view of the peanut gallery.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by warch

"Does it bother you that Bush sat stunned for 7 minutes in a classroom before taking any action, gathering any more information when he learned that the country was under attack?" Why didnt the commander and chief feel the immediate need to command? Not even excuse himself to gather more information. Particularly if he believe Iraq's nuclear attack could reach us within 45 minutes and not knowing the details of the country under attack. Dont you think he would be curious to get right on it?

Actually it was 27 minutes if you include the hanging around, figuring out the safest place to go (meanwhile endangering the whole school) After hemming and hawing Hannity conceeded that it was not the reaction he looks for in a commander in chief. Me neither.

This is one criticism of Bush I have trouble with. I don’t think even Bush is dumb enough to believe that Iraq could stage a nuclear attack on the US unless it came UPS or FedEx, then the 45 minutes would be moot.
That aside, I don’t believe any President would, or should, leap up on the table with a blade in his teeth, to lead the country to victory. Our military and emergency response professionals work almost autonomously, in initial response. The President isn’t a planner in these situations, he’s presented with options to yea/nay, or multiple choices with pros and cons to discuss with advisors and reach a consensus or if at impasse, make a decision. Whatever the scenario, it takes time to gather this information and present it to the President, so 7 minutes or 27 minutes doesn’t matter. He just has to wait for others to do their job first.



Then he can screw things up.

[lookout123]

bush has screwed up plenty since then, but Bruce is right. Bush did exactly what he should have done. present a calm face to the children he was with, and by extension the rest of the world. wait for more complete reports to come in and prepare himself for the decisions that lie ahead.