Fox "News" has been a consistent, long standing advocate of executive power, privileged, etc. A weak government, headed by an all powerful president. How will they manage to change this 180 degrees in the next 2 months?

There's a scene in 1984 when a peace deal is brokered between Ingsoc and Oceana, and Eurasia becomes the new enemy. During a rally, the old hate posters are torn down and new ones put up - the crowd seems not to notice, and begins following the new orders wrt who they should hate and who they should love. A similar transformation is about to unfold at Fox.

How will the Republicans who post at this forum show their own flipping and flopping over the issue of executive power?

I wouldn't call it universal, but generally speaking, I imagine that most Republicans will fall in line and not publicly bash the new president to the rest of the planet like the Democrats have done for the last 8 years. Republicans have more sense than to form a circular firing squad.

LOL, just like when Republicans were cheering for an American defeat in Kosovo under President Clinton?

Jesus, I remember that! They were all over the news calling our troops murders and talking about us killing civilians and air raiding villages! They were marching in the streets to protest Clinton's use of the military to depose a dictator, even though Bosnia was no threat to the U.S.! God those Republicans sure made us look bad! Its easy to turn outsider's opinions against you when members of your own family are calling you baby killers! Lets hope those nasty Republicans have learned their lesson and don't do the same thing when President Obama initiates military action against Iran, or Russia, or Pakistan. That kind of action could really serve to divide and weaken a nation. T

Don't know, but the nation will soon watch it from barracks.

Originally Posted by Mikhail Simkin

Don't know, but the nation will soon watch it from barracks.

It appears we will all be receiving money from the government very soon. If we are indeed watching the news from barracks, at least we will be doing something for our handout.

Fox will change their story. The 43rd, they will claim, used his powers to fight terrorism. Any action taken by President Obama, they will claim with perverted logic, is being used to help terrorism and that it is the job of Congress to provide the checks and balances. They will ignore completely that Congress' only check against a president in war time is that of removing funding for the military; that such action is NOT unpatriotic, but the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore very patriotic.

Subsequently, Fox's ratings will continue on their present course. Why? Reality will come in and slap them hard. President Obama's policies are very likely to be sound, well thought out, and dedicated to making our country stronger. He will demonstrate that a president can manage our country without illegal powers. Yes, this is a prediction, but based upon action: Just today it was announced that he is reviewing all of the 43rd's Executive Orders as he promised to do early on in the primaries.

Republicans are in for a thrashing. They have predicted that our country will fall in the hands of Democrats. That terrorists would rule. They have delivered greater terrorism, a weaker economy, enormous debt which necessarily leads to higher taxes, and trashed our Constitution. Now, it is highly probable that much of that will be reversed and their policies will be exposed for as the true frauds they are. They will then continue their screams for fair treatment -- fair treatment they want for their ideas, but which they rarely offered to Democrats when the roles were flipped.

Republicans do, however, have some good ideas. They also have an Achille's Heel: They believe they have a monopoly on good ideas and define negotiation as an ultimatum issued by them towards others (and, hopefully, with a gun pointed to the head of the person they're trying to "negotiate" with). It is this weakness which will, if not corrected, destroy them. The truth is that capitalism and socialism have good characteristics; as do virtually all of the world's religions. The key thing is not to become so married to what you prefer that you preclude any other discussion. President Obama will bring to the table many of the best characteristics from many of those realms to try and reach a compromise with only one limiting goal: It must be reasonably thought to be in the best interest of strengthening our country.

I'll finish by saying that Fox will still be around for quite some time. There are, unfortunately, far too many people who hate others and feel that they can dictate to others how they ought to live. These people will flock to Fox. Republicans, of course, will say that what I have claimed of them is true for Democrats too and, to a certain degree, that is true. The fundamental difference is this: Republicans want to control you because you violate their beliefs; while Democrats want to control you because you violate other's rights or opportunities. Only one of those motives is remotely moral.

Wow Jeremy, your posts are usually better thought out than that. The points you are trying to make in going after Fox News ignore practically every non partisan polling organization which places Fox in the middle of the road as far as it's viewership and its "Straight News" coverage. Granted, Hannity will still have his airtime, but at least it will be branded as commentary rather than news, which is what MSNBC tries to pimp Mathews and Olbermann as.

Fox/Murdoch figured out American News media a LONG time ago. First off, half the country is conservative, and pretty much every news media outlet has no coverage which presents conservative views. That leaves a niche in the news market which currently Fox is the ONLY news outlet that fills. Secondly, Murdoch realized long ago that Cable News in America is entertainment and thus, has more hot blondes than any of his competitors.

The only way your going to get News Corp to be non-competitive, or even non-dominant, is to legislate it.

Honestly, I read your other post predicting Obama did not need to "Govern to the center" and I had to chuckle. I'm personally torn. On the one hand, I hope he takes your advice and go's the hard left direction Hannity predicted he would. It's about the only thing that would give Republicans a good chance at getting him out of office in one term. On the other hand, doing the intelligently politically expedient thing is the most consistant track record he has shown, and I'm fairly confident he wants a second term, so he may use military action against Iran and Pakistan, and prep to military action against Russia in his first 4 years. He may use tax proposals that do not equate to wealth re-distribution at thee expense of small business.

Either way he goes, it will be a mixed blessing.

One thing made clear by your post is that you don't seem to care too much about what the other 48% of the country who didn't vote for Obama thinks. It seems that is exactly what the Liberals accuse Bush of, so I'm hard pressed to see how a "Jeremy Miller" regime would be any different. Thankfully, I don't think Obama is of the same mind. By the way, George H.W. Bush had a larger mandate in the popular vote.

I don't recall my posts ever being done to receive the approval of others, cbwm.

If someone votes b/c of fear, I do not respect their vote or view.
If someone votes b/c of religious preferences, I do not respect their vote or view.
If someone votes b/c of sole party affiliation, I do not respect their vote or view.
If someone votes b/c of race, sex, or any other non-policy based motive, I do not respect their vote or view.

[All of those groups, however, are allowed to vote and I would never dream of interfering with their right, but I will not offer honor for their votes whether they are for the person/measure I want or against.]

Successful leadership is not defined based upon appeasement of the other party, but, instead, upon the performance of one's implemented plans. The effect of the 43rd's policies is quite evident. The effect of policies wholeheartedly supported by the Republicans is also quite evident. After President Obama's policies have been implemented, their effect will be quite evident as well. The difference will be in the effect. Republicans attempt to distort this truth by claiming that success can come only if they are appeased. I'm not for such appeasement and never have been.

As for your claims regarding Fox, they are the same as mine: they have targeted a specific group and subsequently won't go away. Our difference is that you want to presume that they are "fair and balanced" which one cannot conclude based upon their programming. As for the hot chicks reference, I couldn't really comment except to say that that Greta chick isn't my definition of "hot". I don't watch it enough to know who else is on there.

Now, regarding mandates.

Electoral Votes

     Bush v Kerry: 286 EV to 252 EV :: % difference =  6.3197
      Bush v Gore: 271 EV to 267 EV :: % difference =  7.4349
   McCain v Obama: 174 EV to 364 EV :: % difference = 35.3159

(Source: realclearpolitics.com)

Popular Votes

     Bush v Kerry: 62,040,610 to 59,028,444 :: % difference =  2.4879
      Bush v Gore: 50,456,002 to 50,999,897 :: % difference = -0.5360
   McCain v Obama: 58,876,757 to 66,868,769 :: % difference =  6.3557

(Source: wikipedia.org for the first 2 and CNN for the last [RCP didn't have {or I couldn't find} the historical popular vote]. CNN was used for the last b/c Wikipedia's numbers were flagged as estimates for the EVs.)

[In both counts above, Missouri has been awarded to McCain and the CNN votes added in for that state. All numbers were floored (as opposed to rounded). Percentage differences are expressed from the perspective of the winner.]

Now, where in the past 8 years have the Republicans said that because the Democrats were so darn close in winning that the Democratic view ought to be given weight?

And, I think that shuts up your claim about mandates.

Regarding mandates, I referred to George H.W. Bush, not Dubya. Obviously the point I was making is that the margin you won your vote by does not guarantee you a second term in office. Therefore, arrogance about your margin is misplaced. At this moment in time, in this election your party got elected with 52% of the vote. In as little as two years, your party could and will be loosing seats in congress if they don't do something different than what they've been doing their last two years in office.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Miller

If someone votes b/c of fear, I do not respect their vote or view.
If someone votes b/c of religious preferences, I do not respect their vote or view.
If someone votes b/c of sole party affiliation, I do not respect their vote or view.
If someone votes b/c of race, sex, or any other non-policy based motive, I do not respect their vote or view.

I'll surmise that you assume the 48% who voted McCain voted for one of those reasons, and therefore their opinions do not count. I suppose a reciprocal argument could be made that if you are not acquainted with the issues, the stances each candidate has on the issues, and the results those stances have historically had on our country, you are ignorant and shouldnt vote, or your vote should be disrespected. I suppose we can lump in the people who voted for a candidate based on the color of his skin. Lets also not forget the Democrats who voted along the Party line simply to vote the Party line.

The fact of the matter is, the small portion of the 52% who pushed Obama over the top, voted for George W.Bush last election. Those people will vote Republican again if Republicans give them reason to, or if Obama gives them reason not to vote Democrat. Considering Democrats have only occupied the Whitehouse for 12 of the last 40 years, I would tread very lightly if I were Obama. Clinton(Centerist) policies yielded a second term. Carter(Communist) policies yeilded a speedy exit from the whitehouse.

So far, Obama has been VERY careful with his wording.

Originally Posted by Barrack Obama

"To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn -- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too,"

What I'm getting at is your reasoning has the exact fault you attribute to the Republicans

They believe they have a monopoly on good ideas

At least McCain had the patriotism to declare Obama his president once it was clear he lost. It is more than John Kerry had in him in 2004. I hear Herman Munster is working hard for the Secretary of State position in Obama's cabinet. Putting that looser in otta tell us which way Obama is going to go.

He won by 10 million votes, first of all, and that's a very good margin. Keep telling yourself that the Obama Administration won't do anything during his administration which will be helpful. Ignore that he's already going over the 43rd's Executive Orders, programs, and legislation while declaring that he wants to get moving fast. Thanks for the giggle.

Assuming what I do not say is useless. Just ask. NO -- I do NOT believe that everyone who voted for either candidate voted for one of those reasons. That would be ridiculous. What I meant is that I do not respect those who vote, for whichever candidate, for those reasons aren't respectable (in the area of voting).

I do not respect the votes of views of the named groups because they're useless. As an American, one has the responsibility to investigate the issues. That does NOT mean that one must agree with my view (or anybody elses), just that they be informed.

The voters who voted for a reason should have President Obama's ear. He is choosing to evaluate all sides. That is the opposite of what I claimed of the Republicans, not the same.

Your assertion regarding those who pushed Obama "over the top" (by 6.3%) is false. Data has shown that there was a lower Republican turnout this year and a higher Democrat turnout. That's what put him up by such a high degree.

The rest of your post is just silly, so I'll let it rest as is.

Your implied story is changing. In response to the idea of Obama governing to the middle, you respond with this story about how the people not belonging to the 52% who voted for Obama, may not need to be heard (You cited reasons why certain voter's opinions are unimportant). Now you are saying that those people's opinion would be unimportant, regardless of which party they are in. There is a valid case to be made that there are as many or more people in the categories you and I indicated, who voted for Obama than voted for McCain. This again indicates the need to listen to the other 48%.

Nobody can argue that a 10 million vote margin is small. My point is, its still just 52%. That means 48% of the nation didnt trust you, like you, or agree with you, and yet those people are Americans too.

Regarding who put Obama "Over the top", one can slice and dice those statistics in a million different ways. You say low Republican turn out, I can say high youth turn out(Traditionally a very uninformed group by the way). I can say high black turnout and unnaturally high proportions. The fact of the mater is, no one thing or group of people put him over the top, but without each of those factors, the margin significantly narrows.

Your point about overturning Bush Executive orders is interesting. Stem cell research wont cost him very many if any 2012 votes. Killing domestic oil drilling could cost him the election. There were lots of rabid "Drill Baby Drill" people who voted Obama just because they didn't like other McCain policies, and I'd say the majority of McCain supporters were pro-domestic oil folks. Again, either Hannity was right, or the left will be unhappy, either way, a mixed blessing.