The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

This post originally amused me, now it is starting to frighten me.

From Drudge

Now this has me upset. I am assuming this ABC special is being put on by the news division. Wouldn't a "fair and balanced" report include interviews with Republicans who are opposed to the plan? Then for ABC to not be willing to accept "paid ads" with the other side of the story really makes it seem like ABC is trying to push the agenda as opposed to reporting on it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember anything like this ever happening before.

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 18 seconds later... ----------

You needed to use my sarcasm smiley

 

They did the same thing to MoveOn when they took out ads against the big oil companies in 2008 and offshore drilling. I sent a letter of protest to ABC regarding its policy of refusing to take certain paid political ads from MOveOn, while running the conservative ads on pro off-shore drilling. ABC informed me that they have a policy of refusing whichever ads they want. It's amusing to hear the "other side" getting its turn from ABC.

 

This equal opportunity offending only goes to show that it would be more than a little unfair to accuse ABC of a liberal or a conservative bias. One would more correctly characterize their bias as "douche-bagish" -- and neither side of the aisle holds the sole claim on douche-baggery.

 

Drew - It seems an odd thing to be even mentioning "political biased in the media" in the age of FOX News. The Fairness Doctrine was repealed back in the 1980s:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

 

Yes, it is ironic, and kind of sad. While many stations make great effort to fairly cover all sides of an issue, even going so far as to -- gasp -- fact-check both sides, many more reflect the ideological viewpoints of its owner instead. Things have degraded to the point that even on network news the soup du jour tends to be two gas-bags who read a brief report about the issue a mere five minutes before going on the air yelling the party line at each other. It's cheaper than actually doing real journalism and gets better ratings, too.

 

Actually, I'm more upset about them not allowing the GOP to respond then taking an ad. If I was ABC I also wouldn't have taken an ad from moveon.org ( a left wing extremist group) and they should have the same standard for right wing extremist groups (note I'm not saying the group mentioned in the Drudge report is an right wing extremist group as I haven't researched it).

 

But it wasn't the GOP that requested the ad buy. From your post:

I have never heard of "Conservative for Patients Rights", and you suggested that you did not either. Maybe they are nutjobs...

 

This is the bio of the man in charge of "conservatives for patients rights"
http://www.cprights.org/pdf/RickScottBio.pdf
If even half of it is true he seems to know what he is doing.

 

You may need to adjust your perspective on what constitutes an "extremist". While undeniably partisan, moveon.org is no extremist group. A quick glance at the objectives of Move-on.org and those of the Socialist party -- an actual far-left group (which itself doesn't qualify as far-left when compared to, say, the communist party) --shows that moveon.org isn't even far-left, let alone far-left extremists.

* While I usually agree with its objectives, I also agree with Jon Stewart's impression of the organization.

 

Well I would be extremely impressed with Obama if he swatted PETA.

 

You and me both.

 

There needs to be an Alley dedicated to talking about total effing whackjobs. I don't believe in making animals suffer for sadistic fun, but these guys are idiots to the nth degree. I cannot tell you how little respect I have for these sorts if fools who waste precious oxygen criticizing public figures for such nonsense. I'd pay good money to see Obama swat them!

 

More:

Those of us who support the Obama health care reform were elated and could not be happier that it was Scott who would head the opposition. The guy is a sleaze.

This says quite a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn_Scott

 

Go back and read the second paragraph.

 

Come on, guys! The criticism was clearly tongue in cheek -- and PETA even complimented Obama's voting record on animal rights issues. It should come as no surprise that PETA is going to use each and every opportunity available to them to garner news coverage. There is no outrage regarding the swatted fly.

PETA is just doing the same thing they did when they found out that Roger Clemens didn't know what a vegan was. They had an opportunity to generate some press and they took it. They did it for the same reason any other non-profit does this kind of thing -- to keep their name in the public eye, generate more web-site hits, and send out more Vegan Starter Kits (no, I'm not a member of PETA -- they're too obnoxious for my liking -- but it was information I garnered from their organization [and vetted through separate sources] that led me to switch from vegetarianism to veganism some 7 years ago). PETA uses the tactics they use because those tactics get results. They have successfully lobbied, for example, to get our largest fast food chains to only purchase their meat from suppliers that meet the humane treatment standards of the US, and they have also successfully lobbied to get our government to enforce its own laws.

Arguments that PETA is wasting their time or should "have something better to do" ignore the fact that there are 24 hours in a day. Lobbying for animal rights does not preclude one from following other, more "meaningful" pursuits as well. While they have their share of whack-jobs, as any organization does, there is a method behind the "madness", and that method works.

 

Here you go.

 

Emphasis mine. A representative of the party is not the same thing as the party.

 

TGS - I thought you said ABC could exclude "extremist groups?"

 

Chandos, that criticism on Mr. Scott sounds like something worthy of a presidential campaign: "He has been liked with software used by Iran to block websites on a political basis", "His critics have said this about him:", etc.

It's enough to raise questions, but not nearly enough to call him a sleaze.


On the Health Care reform, though, I've found a new consideration, which should be a real concern. Of course, as we all know, the larger an insurance network, the more powerful it's negotiating position for prices. Now, with that in mind, some numbers from my father's practice (Clinical and forensic psychology):
Regular Billing (PsyD): $100/hr
Most Private Medical Insurance(PsyD): $95-75/hr
Medicare/Medicaid(PsyD): $45/hr
Regular Billling of an intern working on her Masters (Only has a BS degree): $45/hr

Under medicare/medicaid as it exists now, he's getting paid about the wages that a recent graduate from regular undergrad could expect, and he has a Doctorate and is one of the most recognized forensic psychologists in the state. His doctor friends (MDs) tell him the same is true in their practice. Medicare/Medicaid pay out so low that no doctor in the area (as far as my father knows at least) will accept new patients under them. Now imagine that same system, only with the bargaining power of a much larger organization. Especially if insurace is going to be mandated for children, expect a shortage of pediatricians.

Now, if Congress mandates appropriate pricing for procedures, then that may be something else, though I'd be pretty leary of what they call "appropriate pricing".