Fox omits Republican role in Sebelius confirmation delay
SUMMARY: Reporting that "President Obama went golfing and the Department of Health and Human Services is short a secretary, so other U.S. officials took the controls" dealing with the swine flu, FoxNews.com omitted Senate Republicans' role in delaying Kathleen Sebelius' nomination as HHS secretary.
In an April 26 article on the government response to the swine flu, FoxNews.com omitted the fact that Senate Republicans have delayed a vote on the nomination of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services and misrepresented an exchange during an April 26 White House press briefing to suggest the administration may have held the briefing to distract from President Obama's golfing that day.
Fox News.com reported that "President Obama went golfing and the Department of Health and Human Services is short a secretary, so other U.S. officials took the controls Sunday as the Obama administration ramps up efforts to find and isolate U.S. cases of swine flu." Referring to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's recent announcement that the government was declaring a public health emergency regarding the swine flu, the FoxNews.com article further reported, "Ordinarily, such an announcement would have been made with the secretary of Health and Human services present. But Obama's nominee, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, is still awaiting confirmation from the U.S. Senate, which is expected to vote this week." The article added: "[White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs said the effort to get a team in place to respond to the health scare has not been hindered by the lack of a secretary at HHS, a vacancy in the surgeon general's post or the acting roles for the heads of the Food and Drug Administration and CDC." But FoxNews.com did not note that Sebelius is "awaiting confirmation" because Republican senators objected to holding a vote on her nomination on April 23. Indeed, the Associated Press reported that day: "The head of the Republican Party called on President Barack Obama to withdraw Kathleen Sebelius' nomination as health secretary unless she answers more questions on abortion." A Senate vote is currently scheduled for April 28 with 60 votes needed for confirmation.
The FoxNews.com article, headlined, "White House: Obama Updated Regularly, Despite Golf Outing," is similar to a headline from that day's Drudge Report, which linked to an April 26 AP article that reported that "[b]efore he left for the [golf] course, Obama received an update on the swine flu virus, said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin."
Moreover, the FoxNews.com article misrepresented an exchange at an April 26 White House briefing, during which Napolitano made the emergency announcement, to suggest the briefing may have been held to distract attention from Obama's golfing that day. The article stated: "Gibbs denied that the rare weekend White House briefing was designed to minimize attention that otherwise might have been paid to a presidential golf outing during a public health scare." The article then continued: " 'I'm not sure I would draw a direct conclusion between the news today and the president's golf,' Gibbs said. 'The president has been updated regularly on this and will continue to do so as we will continue to regularly update you.' " But Gibbs was not responding to a question about whether the administration scheduled a press conference to deflect attention from Obama's golf outing. Gibbs was in fact asked, "[W]hat if anything are we meant to read into the fact the President Obama decided to go golfing today? Is this part of your effort to reassure Americans that there's no need to panic?"
From the press briefing:
REPORTER: Robert, how concerned are you about the potential for this outbreak to set back the hopeful economic recovery both here in the United States and globally? And secondly, what if anything are we meant to read into the fact the President Obama decided to go golfing today? Is this part of your effort to reassure Americans that there's no need to panic?
GIBBS: I'm not sure I would draw a direct conclusion between the news today and the President's golf. (Laughter.)
I think as Mr. Brennan said, the President has been updated regularly on this and we'll continue to do so as we will continue to regularly update you.
In terms of anything that is affected economically both here and worldwide, I think it's probably far too early to determine whether that will be a case or whether that will have some factor. We just want to ensure that people understand the steps that are being taken both here and throughout government to address the situation, as well as, as each of these speakers have said, understand the individual responsibilities that people have. If you have questions, go to the CDC website at cdc.gov. And as the doctor mentioned, there's also a Spanish version of that site.
From the April 26 FoxNews.com article:
President Obama went golfing and the Department of Health and Human Services is short a secretary, so other U.S. officials took the controls Sunday as the Obama administration ramps up efforts to find and isolate U.S. cases of swine flu.
During a White House briefing, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that HHS will issue a public health emergency warning that will free up resources to address the outbreak that has hit 20 Americans in five states.
[...]
Meanwhile, as Napolitano, Besser, presidential homeland security adviser John Brennan and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs addressed reporters, Obama golfed with Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Trade Representative Ron Kirk and White House aide Marvin Nicholson.
The White House permitted journalists no opportunity to video Obama golfing. Gibbs denied that the rare weekend White House briefing was designed to minimize attention that otherwise might have been paid to a presidential golf outing during a public health scare.
"I'm not sure I would draw a direct conclusion between the news today and the president's golf," Gibbs said. "The president has been updated regularly on this and will continue to do so as we will continue to regularly update you."
Napolitano said the emergency announcement is designed to increase preparations to combat and isolate swine flu, not to create public alarm. She said such health emergencies had recently been issued to deal with flooding in Minnesota and North Dakota and for Obama's inauguration.
"That sounds more severe than really it is," Napolitano said. "This is standard operating procedure and allows us to free up federal, state and local agencies and their resources for prevention and mitigation and allows us to use medication and diagnostic tests that we might not otherwise be able to use, particularly on very young children, and it releases funds for the acquisition of additional anti-virals."
Ordinarily, such an announcement would have been made with the secretary of Health and Human services present. But Obama's nominee, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, is still awaiting confirmation from the U.S. Senate, which is expected to vote this week.
Gibbs said the effort to get a team in place to respond to the health scare has not been hindered by the lack of a secretary at HHS, a vacancy in the surgeon general's post or the acting roles for the heads of the Food and Drug Administration and CDC.
"I think this notion somehow that if there's not currently a secretary that there's not the function that needs to take place in order to prepare for either this or any other situation is just simply not the case,"Gibbs said.
"I think these guys have given you a pretty good indication of the response mechanisms that are in place and that have been activated relating to this, so, I think it's all-hands-on-deck and we're doing fine.
"I would say we're hopeful that we have a new secretary very shortly," he added.
Despite the opening at the top of HHS, Napolitano's role as homeland security chief gives her the top authority in nationwide coordination.
Napolitano said reports from the Agriculture Department show no threat to the U.S. food supply. She reminded Americans that swine flu cannot be transmitted by eating pork.
Fairly unbalanced as usual. I also liked this.
"The head of the Republican Party called on President Barack Obama to withdraw Kathleen Sebelius' nomination as health secretary unless she answers more questions on abortion."
Didn't they used to opposed litmus tests on abortion for nominees?
Havent the dems always suppoted a litmus on abortion for nominees, or is that only used to speak at the convention?
Democrats have a litmus test that JUDGES support the LAW. Sebelius is NOT being considered for a judgeship.
It's hard to tell what you are BSing about but MMFA has a search box where you can refute yourself.
That's not true, and I think you know it. There is no requirement for convention speakers to be pro-choice. There is a requirement that they support the nominee. Other speakers at that convention held pro-life views and were allowed to speak.
He doesnt CARE if its true except by the wingnut definition of true. It NEEDS to be true for propaganda purposes therefore it is true for that reason alone
Havent the dems always suppoted a litmus on abortion for nominees, or is that only used to speak at the convention?
You're lying again, POV.
Sure, they can speak, as long as they dont talk about abortion. There is a big difference. Her stance on partial birth abortion alone, as well as the money she took from abortion doctors makes her unfit to serve.
In other words they can speak as long as they are trying to get the ticket elected and not cause problems that will detract from getting the ticket elected which after all is WHAT THE CONVENTION IS FOR. No one cares what you think about anybodys fitness to serve. Review the last couple of election cycles and try to remember just how irrelevant you far right Limborg dittoheads are. YOU saying she is unfit to serve means less to reality than a fart in a hurricane
-- No one cares what you think -- solon
Disturbing habit of mind reading and over generalization...you don't have to agree or like the comment...but POV is free to state his thoughts on the subject.
There are plenty who have the opinion that Sebelius is unfit to serve.
"There are plenty who have the opinion that Sebelius is unfit to serve." - wesley
Do you have a link? ...Preferable a link that doesn't connect to a talk radio personality.
Please get a clue. Sebelius has been wonderful for abortion reduction in Kansas. They have reduced, by most estimates, as much as 10% during her tenure. She has received about $12,000 from George Tiller during her ENTIRE career. I have always wondered why the right-wing argues that Tiller is not allowed to give money to campaigns. I always thought you guys said money was free speech. Unless it is speech you disagree with. As always, 2 sets of rules for the right wing.
She became a prominent politician in my home state of Kansas by winning an insurance commissioner post in the mid 90s that none of us in Kansas thought a Democrat could win. As commissioner she refused to take donations from the insurance companies and she blocked a merger of Blue Cross (the largest insurance company in Kansas) to keep it from getting too big back before keeping companies from getting too big was fashionable.
Kansas has Wichita, Kansas City, Topeka, Lawrence, and a whole bunch of small towns filled with right-wingers. We have less than 30% of our registered voters as Democrats. Yet she won over 50% twice. She has been an advocate of legislation that provides support for the families of young pregnant women, sex education, and adoption info and incentives. While you right-wingers and Bill O'Reilly snipe from the bleachers she has been in the trenches making an actual difference in the reduction of abortions. She vetoed anti-abortion bills 4 different times and the vetoes held. Her biggest issue with the laws was that they did not provide any exceptions for the health or life of the mother (which the Supreme Court has made pretty clear) and would open up women's medical records to public scrutiny. Bill O'Reilly is all for the right to privacy unless it involves the medical records of people he disgrees with politically.
Sebelius is a pragmatist and has an uncanny ability to get things done even while working with legislators who openly despise her and attack her in the media day after day. If you opened your eyes, possessed even a slight hint of intellectual curiosity, and read a little bit for yourself you would know this. She is an excellent qualified HHS candidate and I am just sorry Kansas has to lose her. Especially, if it means we get stuck with Brownback.
No mind reading involved an overgeneralization no doubt. POV is free to state HIS thoughts and then I am free to state MINE. As for plenty, well that is a subjective term. I would say, more accuratly SOME. The far right really isnt as big as they would like to believe. The last two elections and Obamas popularity speak for themselves.
Lucky for the fourth estate, Keith Olbermann made the names public.
Please, PLEASE tell me how FNC is unbalanced. I challenge you. Just because its not ALL liberal like the other networks does not mean unfair.
That said, I think it goes without saying that the GOP would prevent Sebelius confirmation. She is a VERY bad pick, personally offending to most Americans. Her views and support of late-term abortion "doctor" Tiller is absolutely horrid.
The story is that Obama picked a highly controversial, extreme left-wing pick for his supposed "hope and change" cabinet. THAT is why he does not have 16 key positions filled... What is the response to that?
Give me a break. FOX took Obama's rephrasing of a question posed to him and made it look like he was stating his own position. Don't act as if they aren't unfair. As for "ALL liberal", note the conservative misinformation that comes from those networks.
John Mccain perfected the art of rephrasing the question, allowing him to answer whatever he wanted and sounding like a genius.
ALL skillful politicians do this. It's one of the tricks that Jim Hacker taught his permanent secretary Bernard Wooley in the British political comedy series "Yes Minister"
Brab - That tactic is not limited to FNC, nor is it limited to Obama. If you are intellectually honest, you would admit that the tactic of "spinning" is done all over.
I'm not clear on your statement of "note the conservative misinformation". ABC, CBS, and especially NBC are all progressive networks. They reflect zero conservative values in their news organizations. I am a conservative. I watch both FNC and the others. I also read this site, and others that talk about liberal/progressive bias (NewsBusters).
Educate yourself.
ABC, CBS, and especially NBC are all progressive networks. They reflect zero conservative values in their news organizations.
Ha! Good one.
And Newsbusters? Please stay away from them. They've obviously poisoned your mind.
Newsbusters is the conservative version of Media Matters. If you want to understand both points of view...read both.
It is so nice to see a sane person post here. I am afaird however that you wont last long on this site. Most here have an aversion to an kind of intellectal honesty.
Insane people usually think like minded people are sane too. So be afaird, be vewwy afaird...
You wouldnt KNOW sane if it kicked your dog...into your lap.
I have read newsbusters. They are a joke. Their mind reading and body language snivels were good for a laugh but thats about it.
That is Bill O'Reilley. Not NewsBusters.
NB is no more a joke than Media Matters. They do the same thing, from different points of view.
Not near the same at all. But at least y'all have someone trying, it's better than redstate.
Not unless they have gotten much better in the last year or so they dont. They TRY and fail miserably.
No, that isn't "spinning". That's flat-out lying. There is a tremendous difference.
Why is a news organization - any news organization - supposed to reflect "conservative values"? That's not objective. Is the absence of bias towards the right supposed to prove that they're progressive?
The phrase "note the conservative misinformation" is very clear. If they were progressive, then why would people who put out or allow conservative misinformation to be put out be allowed to come back and do it again?
I'm not sure how your baseless and idiotic assertions are supposed to be considered educational.
Did you tell US to educate OURSELVES. I have a cat better educated than you at least on politics and he is burried in the ground because he is dead. Try to keep up. I am a liberal and NONE of the networks have EVER reflected my views EVER. YOUR bias doesnt define reality. The networks are NOT progressive. Never were. You regurgitating this stale and silly talking point will NOT make it true. Do you EVER leave Planet Wingnut to go anywhere other than baseless assertionville?
Ouch! Your liberal hatred cuts deep...
I would say based on the caliber of your response...yes, I am more educated than you. Both politically, and logically.
That said, liberal views are much more visible than conservative. Set TV news aside...how about Hollywood? Overwhelming (and self-admittedly) progressive. Daytime TV (the View, Oprah, etc...), progressive. Again, the admit it themselves. Time magazine? Newsweek? Big time progressive. Bush bashing, Obama loving.
Now, for the network news...I admit, proving bias is very difficult. It is largely based on interpretation, because the analysts are themselves biased. But, many of the news anchors have come out and admitted liberal views. Couric, Matthews, Rather, Koppel, Lauer...These are not commentators or entertainers, they are hard news anchors.
Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh are strong conservative...but they are commentators.
Yes, this is an old talking point. But still valid.
Just like most progressives, your classless name calling is crap. I don't have anything against people on this site personally...I just enjoy the debate.
If you make solon stop using insults and name calling, he has nothing left. If you forbid col sanders and snoopy from using the terms stawman and nazi they have nothing left.
If you make POV post a fact, he has nothing to say.
POV snivels. Did the poster who posted THIS
Most here have an aversion to an kind of intellectal honesty.
REALLY just complain about MY namecalling? Isnt it just too bad that God didnt give POV the exclusive franchise on personal attacks? Apparantly POV thinks it is his God given RIGHT to attack us then whine when we dont treat HIM with respect.
Well you can add that to the list of your delusions that grow longer post by post. You havent shown a BIT of logic in any post you have made. Baseless assertions are not LOGIC they are wishful thinking. Like saying Time and Newsweek are liberal. That is funny. Dumb but funny. They are NOT liberal. I am a liberal they arent pushing my point of view. The only way you can claim them as liberal is if you believe Colbert is right and reality has a liberal bias.
Hollywood? Yeah, Die hard seven is SSOOOOO liberal. Give me a break. You really dont even know what logic IS. As for daytime TV I wouldnt know I dont watch it. So what? The news is what matters in this context and as I said they LED the rush to war. Liberals were against it. They tried to BURRY the downing street memo. They refused to call Bush on his many lies. They let slide his malaprops while taking Kerry and Gore to task for every little thing they said includig LYING about Gore to make him look bad. I am not claiming the media is conservative mind you. They however are NOT liberal you have to be severly brainwashed to think they are.
No it is an old talking point and it is still idiotic and stupid.
WWWWAAAHHHHHHHH, it is ok for you to be condescending and tell us to educate ourselves but somehow I have an obligation to treat YOU with respect. It is ok for you to question OUR education but not for me to question yours. Man up. Either stick with the issues and leave off YOUR little snarky jibes or get ready for some to come your way. If you must continue to denigrat us then snivel piteously that we are doing the same to you but its pathetic.
How about because they are refusing to air Obama's speech scheduled for Wednesday because they think American Idol is more important?
How does making a programming choice determine fairness? I'm not sure if you are being serious...but only 1 of the 4 major networks need air Obama. If someone wants to watch...they can. I can refer you to NUMEROUS President Bush speeches that were not aired on any of the "big lib 3", ABC, CBS, or NBC. Only FNC carried the speeches. Does that make them biased? Of course it does...The citizens of this country are so skewed into believing that any negativity toward progressivism is wrong. Its not.
Another note: This president has had more prime time speeches than any other in history. Its OK for some networks to not air.
I expected you to suggest that. Bottom line, putting ratings over a major policy speech to the country is a direct show of bias. Now how about you post some of those "facts" about those bush speeches not being aired? You won't find a single major policy speech in that list you may or may not be able to provide. I'd also like to see your proof that Obama has had more prime time speeches than any other president. Prove that's not just another opinion.
Airing a prime time speech costs a network approx $10 million in advertising. That is a big decision. In 2001, Fox chose not to air one of President Bush policy speeches, and in 2004, all 4 networks chose not to air a speech on Iraq. In fact, NBC chose to air "Fear Factor" instead of the Bush speech in 2004.
As for the frequency...I admit, it may be more my perception than anything else. While he is currently having 1 prime time speech per month, I do not know for sure how that compares to past presidents.
I don't care less what it costs them. The airwaves belong to the people, not fox news.
Can you post that info about Fear Factor? I have not heard that before.
Fear Factor and a Bush speech were pretty much the same thing.
The following article has the details:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12791060/
As for cost...while you don't care, the shareholders do. Those particular airwaves belong to the network. The FCC has allocated them to the broadcast companies to make a profit. We can call our elected representatives to have that changed...but for now, it is what it is.
Three other networks are running the speech.
Ha! You almost had me going there! No, you're right. Fox is completely fair to our radical Commie Muslim president...
Fox is unbalanced by being dishonest and pushing the rightwing agenda. NO responsible news agency would have PROMOTED protests. I have personally seen them slant the news itself. They are unbalanced in every way they can manage to be. They sent out MEMOS telling their newspeople how to slant the news day to day. The media is NOT liberal. You and the rest of the Limborg spewing this substanceless talking point day after day will NOT make it come true it will just show how out of touch with reality you are.
Sebellius is NOT a bad pick because YOU and the rightwing doesnt like her. You are a rightwinger you DO not speak for most Americans this is just another in your long line of delusions. It is Obamas cabinet. Perhaps you forgot how bad you LOST the election. America doesnt AGREE with you. THAT is a better response than your inflamatory rightwing talking points and baseless assetions deserved. You DO understand that things dont become true just because you post them dont you?
We can argue forever on the bias. You will see it your way. I understand that. I'll stop arguing that point.
As for the "protests"...yes, FNC did promote them. The key to this is that they did NOT coordinate them, nor did they sponsor. They did talk about them, but it was a major news item. All news agencies should have covered them. It was the American people doing what the Constitution allows. Nothing more.
Although I could point you to sites such as Newsbusters, NationalReview, and Fair.org that do in fact reflect the bias of the media...you will find counter leftist sites that say the opposite. No use in discussing that any longer.
Sebellius is a bad pick because Obama said he would be bi-partisan, and she is CLEARLY very progressive. That was in my original post. True, she is not my choice, but Obama said he would bring us together.
As for whom I speak for...true. I do not speak for anyone but myself. But, my views are very typical of most Americans, and based on our Constitution and Bible.
And yes, Obama did win the election. But true conservatives, like myself, lost the election long before that. McCain was not our choice by far. For that matter, Bush made some big mistakes as well. Americans voted Obama largely due to lack of knowledge. The media covered Obama like a rock star, but did not discuss policy.
As for the talking points comment, progressives like yourself spew the opposite talking points. What I'm looking for is civil conversation on the topics, not flame wars. I'm quite confident in my intelligence, and I believe I understand I do not create reality by posting comments to web sites. But thank you for checking.
Talking about protests and promoting them are not the same thing. You're contradicting yourself. They actually were trying to get people to attend, which goes far beyond coverage.
Your comparison of MMfA to Newsbusters is weak. MMfA doesn't focus on bias, they focus on misinformation. It's a difference between subjective and objective. I would put a lot more stock in a site that would point out actual liberal misinformation, where I wouldn't have to buy the notion that David Letterman's Top 10 list is some sort of evidence of bias in the media.
Yes they PROMOTED the protests after several of THEIR commentators called anti war protesters anti-American. They PROMOTED them, A BASE violation of journalistic ethics. They dont even pretend to have them. What if CNN had promoted antiwar protests for weeks BEFORE they happened in the same way? The screaming from the conservatives would have been heard all the way to Norway. All the news agencies DID cover them WHEN THEY HAPPENED as they should. I dont have any problem whatsoever with the protests themselves. I think they were dotty but I am always glad to see direct democracy even when I disagree with the their take. It is healthy for America.
Bipartisan doesnt mean do things YOUR way. Sebellius isnt a bad choice because she is progressive, she is far less liberal than I am, nor because YOU and some on the right dont like her. You guys seem to think that co-operation is synonymous with capitulation. YOU guys lost the election YOU dont get to pick Obamas cabinet. Bipartisan doesnt mean Obama is obligated to NOT be progressive. Only that he be willing to listen to your side and be willing to compromise SOMETIMES.
NO your views are NOT typical of most Americans, that is you being delusional again. YOU LOST THE ELECTION. Obama is popular. Most Americans are NOT ideologues much less rightwing ideologues.
Americans voted Obama largely due to lack of knowledge. The media covered Obama like a rock star, but did not discuss policy.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This statement, just another in a long line of your baseless assertions is not only very arrogant but plainly dumb. The media pushed all the idiotic stories about Obama being a Muslim and Ayers and all the dumb rhetoric. Obama DID discuss policy this claim he didnt is ludicrous. Who is doing your thinking for you? I heard all kinds of policy issues from the guy about healthcare about tax cuts about Iraq. You really do think if you just say and repeat something it will magically become true. You ought to try to visit your planet someday. We have a nice climate and the word educated apparantly has a different meaning here than it does on Planet wingnut because you flat out dont know what you are talking about.
I am sure you are quite confident of a lot of things. Most so far seem to be completely WRONG. You have done little other than spew outrageous baseless assertions and tell us how smart YOU are and how WE need to educate ourselves. You are plainly delusional about a whole slew of things. You dont want a flamewar but you tell us to EDUCATE ourselves as if that werent rude and condescending. Did you think THAT was civil discourse? See because I DONT. I am confident that I flat out know more about this subject than you do. You answered me saying that the media wasnt liberal with a claim basically that it wasnt conservative. A clear false dichotomy, a logical fallacy by definition. If you REALLY want a civil discussion then you can leave your rude snarky condescention out of your posts and try to make a cogent argument instead of baseless assertion after baseless assertion that sounds exactly as if it came from AM Hateradio.
Solon - You are correct in the "snarky" comments. I apologize.
I agreed with you that FNC did promote the Tea Parties. I stated that early in my response. They absolutely, 100% promoted them. That said, why is that wrong? American citizens gathering to protest against the government is what makes this country great. And, the commentators (not anchors) that promoted the most are not hard news sources. They were personalities, like Glenn Beck and Greta. Compare those to Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. During the past 8 years with Bush, they were pretty active against all things conservative, often calling conservative personalities "the worst person in the world".
And I apologize for the lack of knowledge statement. True, it was arrogant. And, to be honest, the lack of policy discussion was not limited to Obama. McCain was right there. Yes, there were many discussions on grand plans, but no meat.
I wasnt looking for an appology but thank you. I just wanted you to understand what motivated MY snark.
What is wrong is that it is a gross violation of journalistic ethics. You dont become PART of the news you REPORT it. Fox crossed that line and every journalist worth his salt KNOWS what that line is. As I said am all for the protests. Even if I disagree with them I am glad of them because it is direct democracy. The more people think that democracy means that WE get involved with policy decisions the better for our country in the long run. My only problem was with FOX not the protests.
This is a problem we have had with the press for a long time. There is a reason they focus on the trivial. While I understand it this is not the forum for the rationale it would be longwinded. It is to the detriment of public discourse overall. That said if you listened to his speeches he DID address policy. It is getting so that question and answer formats are just about worthless. IF I read one more story in a paper about the colors a candidate is wearing or what their voice sounds like I wont be responsible for my reaction. The media needs to be taken to task for this focus on inconsequentials but I wont hold my breath
I agree completely. While we may have different views, we both agree that the press was put into place by our founding fathers to watch the government, not root it on.
...but it was a major news item. All news agencies should have covered them.
A few thousand angry white men (racists?) showing up to protest a sitting president over, well, NOTHING, is NOT news.
Hundreds of thousands showing up to protest a looming war? That is news, and was ignored by the "liberal" media.
Disgraceful. I attended a Tea Party, and am personally offended by your remark. If you had payed attention to the stories, the Tea Parties were about spending. Out-of-control spending. 3.7 TRILLION dollar budgets. 400 Billion Omnibus package. 787 Billion Stimulus. Bailouts. It was not anti-Obama. It was anti-spending. It was news. I was there. I can attest to the power of the people.
As for war protests...I am quite aware of every one. They are all over the big 3 networks.
If you want to talk about large protests that go un-reported, let's discuss the protest against Roe v. Wade every year. When was the last time you saw that reported on?
Funny how there were no protests when Bush expanded the government more than any other president in history.
Funny how in all the coverage I saw there were zero minorities in attendance.
Funny how when one of the tea bag-people was asked why he thought Obama was a socialist, his answer was "because he's a socialist".
Funny how you still don't understand how economics works.
Try again.
Bush did not expand the government by this size. The response is proportionate to the action. That said, I was absolutely against his economic decisions...including TARP. In fact, had you listened or read any of the MANY Tea Party sites, you would know that.
Again, I saw minorities, and I ATTENDED. You did not. You saw TV coverage, and probably not FNC. BUT...who cares in minorities attended? They were invited. As was I. If they CHOOSE to not attend, that is their choice. Why is this an issue? Because the LEFT has made it a racial issue, when it is CLEARLY not.
Every crowd will have someone ignorant. I know that at any anti-war protest, I could find many people that believe Bush coordintated 9/11. Big deal...
I do not claim to be an economist, but I am fairly educated on the subject. What part are you having problems with. Maybe I can help.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. She has reduced abortions in Kansas. Personally offending to MOST Americans? That is an outright lie. And, you either know that or you are completely ignorant of reality. What was her "support" for George Tiller?
An extreme left wing pick...from KANSAS? Have you ever been to Kansas?! The next likely governor is Brownback. I suppose you think he is a moderate Republican. Please, PLEASE back up your assertions with just a few facts - you know...things other than Bill O'Reilly told me so.
Yes, I do. Here is a link showing the financial ties:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h702UpSGq2AIfQKoN_karkJtZ5hQD97HT4981
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516036,00.html
Yes, I lived in KC for my childhood. Have many friends that still live in that area. Why is that relevant?
And yes, most Americans do NOT believe in killing an unborn baby. So, they do reflect my views. Hence the fact that EVERY time it is voted on, abortion is banned. Then, overturned by liberal judges.
Do you believe in killing unborn babies? George Tiller does. And Sebelius took money from him multiple times. Why? He was even in court with charges pending, and she accepted money. Not a small amount...and not once. She does not answer why.
Right, Tiller gave Sebelius about $12,000 over her entire career (or less than 1% of her campaign contributions). And he also gave some $20,000 to a PAC that went for all Democratic candidates running in tight races in Kansas. That IS a small amount. I'm sorry if the numbers are too confusing for you.
And so what? What does this show about her supporting Tiller? That was your statement. That she somehow had supported Tiller. Back it up. And what does being in court with charges pending have to do with anything. You may want to consult the writings of our founding fathers one more time if you think you are being conservative by attacking someone because they have charges pending. And, I noticed you did not say what happened to those charges? Interesting spin.
I would assume that if you were even faintly familiar with Kansas you would know that no liberal extremist would ever win over 50% of the vote TWICE. Perhaps I gave you too much credit. If Kansas is too extreme liberal for you, no need to look around for the fringe - you are it, my friend.
Almost every single poll over the last 10 years shows that only about 20% of people in the country want abortion outlawed. That's one fifth. I don't want to spend too much time explaining the obvious, but that is LESS than a majority. Just because you say it is so, does not make it so.
You can call them baby killers or whatever extremist term you have been told to use, it does not change the facts. Most Americans support a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term. And, yes, I certainly agree that we do not want to make these women and the doctors who help them into criminals as we once had in this country. I also, unlike you, support candidates who actually work towards results in lowering the rate of abortions.
You said she had supported Tiller and that she was personally offending to most Americans. Prove it.
Drudge: 'Things happen while Obama sleeps!' Developing.
I agree...this is no more a story than when President Bush went to his ranch for the weekend periodically.
Oh...wait...that was a big deal. Remember how the media bashed him for "taking time off"? That must have been different. They probably didn't have phones or communication lines at his ranch like they do on the golf course...
No...I'm sure they have them at both. Hmm.... I guess the real difference here is that Obama is a progressive, not conservative. Different set of rules apply.
jstephens005 :
"I agree...this is no more a story than when President Bush went to his ranch for the weekend periodically.
Oh...wait...that was a big deal. Remember how the media bashed him for "taking time off"? That must have been different. They probably didn't have phones or communication lines at his ranch like they do on the golf course..."
What l love about this site is when a new troll (or an old one with a new handle) turns up with an easily knocked down strawman. You do realise that while in office bush spent nearly ONE THIRD of his presidency on vacation? If your agruement wasn't so pathetic l would laugh at you.
Troll? Name calling? Wow...if not for the source, I would be offended :)
No, President Bush did not spend 1/3 of his time on vacation. Statements like that are silly. Actually, it is EXACTLY the same thing, not a straw man argument. Look up any news source. President Bush was ridiculed (presumably by progressives like yourself) for spending time away from Washington. I am simply comparing golf to time at the ranch. Both are relaxing, neither distract from the job.
I welcome intellectual debate on the subject :)
You're right, it was more like 1/2 of his time. His job commitment was as phony as that patch of land he calls a ranch. If he put as much time into reading the situational reports as he did clearing shrubs 9-11 could have been averted.
That response has zero intellectual value. How about we step it up on this site, and have real conversation?
You and I both know 9/11 was not isolated to President Bush. The planning took place long before he was in office. That is documented from the 9/11 Commission.
All presidents, including Bush and Obama, give our country their full attention.
The response perfectly matches the post it was responding to.
To your 2nd statement, yes it was. So what? If Bush had been paying attention to the report "bin laden determined to strike in the us" it could have been averted. Bush wasn't concerned though, he was focused on privitizing SS and deregulation. Bush's "full attention" included the Katrina aftermath, freddie mac and fannie mae, Enron, $5 a gallon gas and today's full blown recession. Underachiever doesn't begin to describe him.
No, President Bush did not spend 1/3 of his time on vacation.
Wrong again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4728085.shtml
Yes. I admit that President Bush is documented spending 1/3 of his time away from the White House. Are you conlcuding, as did the author of that story, that during that time he was on vacation? Serious? All time spent away from the White House resulted in zero work...?
Well...Obama has spent quite a bit of time away from the White House. Is he working? Yes. Was Bush working during the majority of that time? Most likely. Does hatred for all things conservative lead you to beleive that Bush sat around playing during his trips to Camp David? Disgusting.
The author of that story could have obviously pointed that out. He could have pointed out that many presidents in history have worked directly from Camp David. But he chose to paint it such to insinuate that Bush was lazy, and feed all the progressives on sites like this.
He took a month long vacation after only BEING president for six months. He spent 490 days at his ranch in texas and almost that many at camp David. You can SAY he was working BUT when he was given a briefing saying that Ben Laden was determined to attack INSIDE THE US, he acted petulantly telling the briefer ok you have covered your a##. Then he spent the rest of the day FISHING. Now to me if you are fishing you are on vacation.
Do you seriously believe that the President of the United States was on vacation for a month? If so, I cannot help you.
Fishing is equivalent to golfing. Obama golfed. He was not on vacation. And I would be that people were discussing policy with him during that time. Same for Bush.
We could go round-n-round, but the fact is he did spend 1/3 of his administration away from the White House, but there is zero evidence that it was all vacation.
Solon is way beyond help. He takes his leftie marching orders and that is it. Of course Bush worked when away from the white house, and of course he wanted to protect america. But many here really believe he would let 911 happen so he could award no bid contracts. it is sad really.
... Katrina, Enron and today's recession being perfect examples of Bush protecting America. But you'd be hard pressed to find a single example of any liberal on this site saying they believed Bush let 9-11 happen so he could award no bid contracts. You'd have been more accurate if you said we believe he was a typical rightwinger who took advantage of a disaster to do so. Not even close to the same thing, except in your mind.
Cheney let 9-11 happen to enrich his buds at Halliburton. Bush let 9-11 happen so he could have his revenge war against Saddam. By saying they "let" it happen means they did nothing to prevent it, you know, like having a cabinet level meeting with Richard Clarke, the man most knowledgable about al queda.
That's just my opinion.
Really...? I get accused of bringing up old, debunked arguments, called a troll...and you stroll out Katrina and Enron?
I agree that progressive minded folks do not all believe that Bush let 9/11 happen. That is crazy to think. I disagree with the "rightwinger" comment...all politicians look to take advantage of disasters. I have audio clips of Rahm Emanuel saying you have to take advantage of a crisis, along with Hillary and Obama. Its not isolated to Republicans. Democrats do it as well...
No one can help you. Besides your obvious intellectual challenges you are a jerk that likes to snivel that we dont treat YOU well enough WWWWAAAHHHHH. So Bush was ALWAYS working he just managed to take more time that was reported as vacation time than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. I believe Bush wanted to protect us. He is just not too bright, like you, and not too competent. I never thought he WANTED 9/11 to happen. Some say that but you have never seen it from me.
By that logic you can say Bush NEVER went on vacation. What we can do is compare to other presidents and Bush took MORE time that he called vacation days, that were reported as vacation days than ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. If you do not understand that then. I. CANT. HELP. YOU.
If you have a link to formally documented vacation numbers for each president in history, I would like to see it.
different rules and double standards are how the dems stay in business.
You mean that's how republicans stay in business. It's all about party above country in the republican country club house.
BTW, nice record y'all set today. Only 21% if the country wants to identify themselves as a republican now.
Feeding slop and delusions to simpleminded easily brainwashed people like YOU is what kept the GOP in business for so long.
For chrissake...can't a man just play a round of golf on Sunday without the world cratering?
Apparently not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc
idk. can a man play a round of golf without neo cons making a big deal of it?
Hope he golfs better than he bowls.
Why? He doesnt do either professionally only for fun. I hope you do at least something better than your thinking because that is pretty sad.
FOX and slimey Drudge both hoping this Swine Flu turns into a major crisis so they can blame the President.
That's a hell of a thing to say, considering people have died from this. How is that different from conservatives saying that liberals want soldiers to die so Bush can be blamed for it?
The difference is that saying "Liberals" implies a broad cross-section of ordinary americans, most of them decent folks. Saying "Fox" and "Drudge" narrows it to a small collection of scumbags who will do anything for a story, especially if it can be used to smear and liberal or a democrat, even if they have to make-up the supporting "evidence," and who have a history of doing just that. THAT'S the difference. That pesky little thing called TRUTH.
The point is that there's a difference between dishonest partisan hackery and wishing for people to die for political purposes. You can substitute "Code Pink" or whatever for the general "liberals" if you like, but the point remains.
If there's no history of something that unbelievably vile there, then there should be some solid basis for making that very serious accusation. Don't you think?
Ok. I get what you're saying, and have read your points below as well, and YOU DO HAVE A POINT. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. However... Have you considered that for 8 years now we've been told, by your lot, that WE want soldiers to die so that we can proove Iraq is a failure and that we want some reason to hate W. NOW... You are very much correct in assessing that NO ONE (liberals included) wanted sodliers to die. Yet we heard it over and over from Rush, Hannity, Bill-O, Coulter, and company. We've had that nonsense projected onto us, so that other people can see what horrible people we libs are, and (like you said) IT WAS ALL BULLS#!T! So while SaddamHussein's original post may have been inappropriate, please don't have too short a memory about how your side acted with regards to the Iraq war. (Lot's of people died there too!) Admittedly we shouldn't stoop to that level, but there is some hypocrisy in being called out by someone from the side who STARTED it! Just sayin'.
Um, Nice Guy, Brabantio is a liberal (Not to speak for him), he's just being rational, reasonable, and fair, as usual. While it's tempting to quid pro quo, and give back as good as we've got, it's not fair to ascribe malicious intent where it doesn't exist. Plus, your aim is off. If POV or shoes had said that, then yes, major hypocrisy.
Thanks very much! I should have refreshed the page.
My lot? My side? Have I really not posted enough in the last five years here to make my ideology known? And even if I was a conservative, then my criticism of people like Rush and Hannity would still stand. I would strongly disagree with their tactics, so I have no idea why I would be hypocritical for saying anything of the sort.
"Admittedly we shouldn't stoop to that level"
We shouldn't stoop to their level. That is my entire point.
Yeah... I guess I jumped the gun on this, huh? I don't know if I was going after the post or the poster, but it's that whole CONTEXT thing that I missed big time. And to be honest, I don't really keep a list of who's conservative, liberal, moderate or extreme... But maybe I should! LOL. Then I might be better able to infer the context of the quote.
Brabantio - I read your post and saw it a criticism and inferred the context from that interpretation; rather than drawing my interpreation form the context, as is proper. From a different context (the one you obviously intended) we're really saying the same thing in the end. (Don't stoop.) So, my apologies for the attirbution of hypocrisy. I'll have to get "political leanings of regular MMFA posters" started and be sure to refer to it to avoid making an ass of myself in the future. :)
I don't expect anyone to keep a list, of course. It's just that I recognize names and remember their general views, because there aren't that many posters here. I've seen you post often enough that I was very surprised that you would think me to be conservative.
What really flabbergasted me was the fact that I brought up conservative behavior during Iraq in the first place, so obviously I didn't forget about that. If my original post had been something as basic as "that's not fair", then I could see making the point about how conservatives did the same thing. But as I suggested before, the fact that I criticized people on both sides for the same behavior makes my ideology irrelevant. I wouldn't be responsible for the actions of all conservatives.
I appreciate the apology though, very much. Thanks!
Ed...Why the name-calling? Not able to formulate an intelligent response?
First of all...Drudge is a news PORTAL. That site does not create news, just lists it. They are are links to other news sites, such as NBC, CBS, CNN, etc...
Second, FNC does not make up facts. That is ridiculous. Do they share your presumed progressive stance...No. News organizations should NOT take sides. They should report facts from both sides, and let you use your brain.
Like many others on this site, if the story does not fit your view, it does not imply it is made up. :)
...FNC does not make up facts.
Wrong again. Fox sued in court to be ALLOWED to lie.
They should report facts from both sides
Many times there aren't facts from 2 sides. That's when they just make things up.
jstephens005:
"
Ed...Why the name-calling? Not able to formulate an intelligent response?
First of all...Drudge is a news PORTAL. That site does not create news, just lists it. They are are links to other news sites, such as NBC, CBS, CNN, etc...
Second, FNC does not make up facts. That is ridiculous. Do they share your presumed progressive stance...No. News organizations should NOT take sides. They should report facts from both sides, and let you use your brain.
Like many others on this site, if the story does not fit your view, it does not imply it is made up. :)"
Ladies and Gentleman!! Roll up and see this example of the republican hivemind in action!!
Marvel at the ability to ignore reality and, as one bush administration official said, create their own!!
Stand in awe of the power of the repeated talking point long debunked but raised time and again from the bowls of Hades to that far flung field of Elysium where the Main Stream Media has a left wing bias but fox is fair and does not make s**t up!!
This is it my fellow travellers, l give you THE POWER OF THE TROLL!!!
"Second, FNC does not make up facts."
Oh? I heard them say that in 1976, Jimmy Carter was president and unemployment was 12%. How on Earth can you take a news channel seriously when they promote easily refuted disinformation like that?
BTW, if a statement is incorrect, it is not a "fact." It is a lie, an error, or an opinion.
On a serious point l do find your attempt to defend drudge as just a news portal would probably carry more weight if it wasn't for the fact that far too many people quote it as a promoter of stories mainly with a very strong right wing tilt.
Even today with this story of the flu pandemic you have drudge linking to a patently false claim in murdoch's London Times newspaper about people being told to wear masks!! You also seem to be ignoring the symbiotic relationship drudge and faux have when it comes to headlines, and the startling ability for something said on faux by a republican lawmaker or pundit (usually about the perdifery of a democrat) to end up as a headline on drudge, to be picked up by a republican lawmaker who then goes onto other networks to repeat the talking point using drudge as a reference, which is also picked up by rightwing blogs like malkin who all claim that it was a legitimate story because they saw it on drudge. And if you don't believe me about the influence he used to have, read this aticle:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=matt_drudge_rules_their_world
Drudge has a job to do, one he has been doing since receiving all those leaks from Ken Starr and company. He's there to make democrats look bad. Why else do you think that he had this link on his site at the time:
http://newsbusters.org/node/8115
In fact, the pandemic story is the biggest going on right now, but for some reason this part of the story isn't on drudge's site:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/susan-collins-and-pandemic-flu.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/gop-stripped-flu-pandemic_n_191732.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8frm9/senator_susan_collins_is_still_bragging_on_her/
I would say that that was a very important part of the current news cycle. Now what reason would there be for drudge NOT to link to it?
UK - Your first response was crap. Poor taste.
The seond was refreshing. Good to see actual debate. I read each of the links you included. Yes, I agree that Drudge does tend toward Republican biased stories, and does sensationalize the headlines. But, my original point that it is just a news portal stands true. Those articles come from all over, ABC, NBC, CNN...are they all Republican biased?
As for the flu story, I have, obviously, a different view than you. The links you provided are related to the stimulus package. As a conservative, I completely agree with Susan Collins, as should all American citizens. That bill was to stimulate the economy, not prepare for flu outbreaks. Period. If you reduce the story to the baseline, it has to do with spending American taxpayers money wisely. Flu preparations do not stimulate the economy, and therefore should not be in a stimulus package. Is there any argument against that? The HHS department should prepare for flu outbreaks, and they are funded from the federal budget, not stimulus packages. Agree?
If you hire more people to prepare for flu outbreaks, are you not creating jobs? Is the stimulus package not about creating jobs? But lets be fair here - the press didn't report that republicans said funding should be done from another source, they reported that republicans were rediculing the need for it. That reporting included fox news. Maybe you are a true conservative, but we're not here to debate your personal beliefs per se. This is about what republican party leaders are doing and saying, and what the press and the obits are promoting. IMHO the press has abdicated their role as an eye on the government, and what I'm hearing you say is it's ok because ratings are important. Whats next - American President?
I'm not positive, but I believe the money was not for people to prepare for outbreaks, but to purchase the vaccine to stockpile.
That said, by that defintion, really any money spent would require someone to do something...but we both know that was not the intent of the stimulus. It was to affect the banking industry and make credit flow.
As for the press...we agree. Completely. They are falling down on the job, promoting agendas more than watching the government. I absolutely do not think that is OK... I assume you are referring to Fox not running the speech during prime time. That's not the press...that's utilizing the airwaves to allow the president un-challenged time to push an agenda. I'm not for that...But you bet I want those FNC reporters pushing Gibbs and Obama on the issues! And would love to see Couric, Lauer, Williams do the same.
Because FOX wants to air coverage of this event and they want to blame the President. Big difference because soldiers dying was Bushs fault.
Does that mean that anyone wanted soldiers to die?
There's a difference between using something to your advantage and wanting something to happen so that you can use it to your advantage.
I am not talking about soldiers , I am talking about FOX and its bias toward President Obama.
And I'm telling you that bias doesn't mean they want people to die. That's a very serious accusation to make.
Fine, call Bill O and have his FOX security people come to my house.
I have to agree with Brabantino, I don't think anyone in the media even FOX wants people to die from the Flu. What you have said is insulting.
I'd agree they didn't want anyone to die, but they certainly did mock paying for flu preparedness. It's the same kind of intellectually lazy concern for hurricane preparedness and Katrina sure showed us what the result of that kind of response bought us. What's sad is they apparently haven't learned anything from that tragedy, so we are very likely doomed to see it repeated.
The missing information, whether it's mentioning the Republican's huge role in the delay in Sebelius getting approved as HHS Secretary, or the missing context of a comment, or the missing information that a potential conflict of interest might exist, are all standard propaganda moves by FoxNews.
The wing-nuts would have excused Obama's golfing if he had just "cleared a little brush" flanking the 9th hole.
These nuts have a problem with president Obama playin golf but were silent when Bush lied about going golfing during the Iraq war.
Fox also didn't report that the GOP stripped money for Flu Pandemic preparedness from the stimulus bill.
pointofview's rethug talking point's are a bit dated.
So of the 100 days in office, how many has Obama been in the office? I think he has been to Mexico, Iraq, Canada, Turkey, Europe, Trinidad & Tobago and these are the international locations. I mean for the first 100 days, this President does not spend a lot of time in the office. Then you add to the domestic travel, wow this guy makes a travel consultant look like a couch potato. Maybe if he had spent less time on the road and more time in the office he would have all of his cabinet positions filled. SO the Republicans disagree with a nominee, oh heaven forbid Mr. President does not get what he wants when he wants it.
I don't think foreign policy trips count as vacation time.
He's doing exactly what he needs to be doing to get everything working again. Perhaps you'd prefer he stay at a so-called ranch in texas and clear shrubs for the 1st hundred days?
Snoopy,
Looks like the repugs are blooming, well, it is springtime. Obama golfs and thats a crisis, what a laugh.......
Fellow bloggers...why do you believe that Republicans have a problem with Obama golfing? If is this site that has extrapolated that from an AP article. AP is HEAVY left-tilting. There are no republicans over there...
I am a conservative. I have said earlier on this thread that no one cares that he golfed. Certainly not normal conservatives.
AP is HEAVY left-tilting.
Prove it.
Why do we believe republicans have a problem with Obama golfing?
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it...
.
.
.
.
.
Because you brought it up.
No...I was trying to agree with the progressives on this thread. I, a conservative American, do not believe Obama golfing is news-worthy. I darn well know he was working the whole time.
In the same respect, Bush was working during his time at Camp David and the ranch in Texas. And Clinton was working at Camp David and Maine. The presidents of this great country work very hard, 24/7.
Normal conservatives? The irony is delicious!
Marker, what part of conservatism scares you the most? I understand the progressive point of view...do you understand conservatives?
Having been both at one time in my life, I'm quite interested in what you think the progressive point of view is. So far I'm not impressed by your definining opinions.
ConservativeLiberal
Basically, I believe in small federal government, the rights of the individual, power in the states, strong requirement for morality, and education.
Sorry, that post messed up...
Conservative:
Liberal
Progressives believe that our Constitution is a "living" document, that should be evolving. Conservatives believe the foundation of the document was so strong, that the values and guidelines layed out persist even today.
You do not scare me at all. But to suggest that Sebelius is personally offending to most Americans (when she gets a majority in a completely red state like Kansas), to suggest that she somehow personally supports an abortion clinic because she defends the law of the land (health and life of the mother) and actually enacts legislation to significantly LOWER the abortion rate in her state, to attempt to classify the governor of KANSAS as an extreme left-wing pick when you clearly don't know what you're talking about just to support your "team" - that all sickens me. Doesn't scare me, but it does kind of disgust me. It also demonstrates how far to the right the Republican party has fallen and how far away you guys are from ever winning another national election in the future. If Kansas is too extreme liberal for you, what do you have left?
Maybe if he had spent less time on the road and more time in the office he would have all of his cabinet positions filled.
Meeting other leaders? Attending the G20?
YOU are BEYOND PATHETIC!!!!
markbfoot199:
" Maybe if he had spent less time trying to talk to republicans who were blocking his nominees for trivial and political reasons he would have all of his cabinet positions filled."
There. I fixed it for you.
The Repubnuts are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. Do they honestly think they are endearing themselves to the voters with their constant "no" and blocking any and everything they can. 2010 will be a shock to them all.
To the Media Matters Marketing Dept. or equivalent:
Would it not help your site to recruit covertly commenters from right wing sites to post here? You're internet professionals, so I suppose you don't need my advice but I was thinking your people could go to freerepublic and the many others and make comments mentioning information here refuting their arguments and even providing links.
Maybe you don't want that or don't care either way since this site is not monetized for maximum hits as you're non-profit. That's fine, but my opinion from a non-internet expert, for whatever it's worth, is that the bigger and better the comments section is, the higher the regard people generally will have for the site overall. And I would think this would lead to more contributions and a maybe more importantly your articles would have even more impact. The articles would be thought of as being even a bigger deal to some extent IMO. Also a better quality of conservative poster would help the liberal posters to better bring out the truth, and in an easier to read fashion.
Great site nontheless--- just unsolicited advice from one of the unwashed masses.
"Fox omits Republican role in Sebelius confirmation delay"
That's okay. Media Matters omits George Soros' role in it's support and funding all the time.