I didn't say the specified attacks on Bush mentioned above were credible, just as I don't think many of the ones on Obama are.

OK, we'll let it go then.

OK, we'll let it go then.

My contention is that the Fox News approach to Obama tends to give a measure of credibility to some of the more radical attacks on him, such as the "birther" movement and the "Is he a closet Muslim?" question.

 

I don't remember any news outlets giving serious merit to the claims that Bush was responsible for 9/11 and the moveon.org comparison of him to a Nazi.

 

On the other hand, how many times over the last two years has the likes of Glenn Beck compared some of Obama's policies to those of Nazi Germany?

Let's make a comparison here ... were the Bush "attacks" ever considered as credible as the ones on Obama have been, or been espoused by as many people, especially since we have a cable television news network intent on broadcasting any of the anti-Obama stuff that comes down the pike?

 

I would say coverage was every bit as much if not more considering the cable and print media broadcasting the anti Bush stuff.

My contention is that the Fox News approach to Obama tends to give a measure of credibility to some of the more radical attacks on him, such as the "birther" movement and the "Is he a closet Muslim?" question.

 

I don't remember any news outlets giving serious merit to the claims that Bush was responsible for 9/11 and the moveon.org comparison of him to a Nazi.

 

On the other hand, how many times over the last two years has the likes of Glenn Beck compared some of Obama's policies to those of Nazi Germany?

 

Ever watch Olbermann?

Ever watch Olbermann?

I watch Olbermann, but I'm not referring to the commentators on both networks ... I'm referring to the actual "news" coverage.

 

The percentage of those that subscribe to the "birther" beliefs and the Muslim question are testament to the points I am making.

I would say coverage was every bit as much if not more considering the cable and print media broadcasting the anti Bush stuff.

Was any news outlet giving serious merit to the anti-Bush claims, other than the notion that he may have misled the public about the presence of WMD in Iraq?

Was any news outlet giving serious merit to the anti-Bush claims, other than the notion that he may have misled the public about the presence of WMD in Iraq?

 

If I recall correctly, MSNBC talked about the Bush/Dan Rather fiasco non-stop.

 

Bush being blamed for Hurricane Katrina got tons of play by both CNN and MSNBC as well.

My contention is that the Fox News approach to Obama tends to give a measure of credibility to some of the more radical attacks on him, such as the "birther" movement and the "Is he a closet Muslim?" question.

 

I don't remember any news outlets giving serious merit to the claims that Bush was responsible for 9/11 and the moveon.org comparison of him to a Nazi.

 

On the other hand, how many times over the last two years has the likes of Glenn Beck compared some of Obama's policies to those of Nazi Germany?

 

I watch Olbermann, but I'm not referring to the commentators on both networks ... I'm referring to the actual "news" coverage.

 

The percentage of those that subscribe to the "birther" beliefs and the Muslim question are testament to the points I am making.

 

You sure about that?

It's amazing what those forwarded emails can teach you, isn't it?

 

As to those fancy east coast elitist schools, I guess George W. Bush falls in that category?

 

Yes. It was the lesser of evils voting for him. At least he had business experience, stood up for his country, not bashing it and gave us tax cuts.

I didn't like his unconstitutional educational plan and drug plan that is an unfunded program on the states. Plus his poor attempt to guard the border with Mexico.

If I recall correctly, MSNBC talked about the Bush/Dan Rather fiasco non-stop.

 

Bush being blamed for Hurricane Katrina got tons of play by both CNN and MSNBC as well.

As I remember it, much of the Bush-Rather coverage was about the veracity of the documents that CBS used in its story.

 

Bush wasn't blamed for Katrina ... he was criticized for the government's response to it. You don't think that was a valid issue to discuss?

You sure about that?

Yes ... I know the difference between commentators and reporters, and having watched both MSNBC and Fox News over the years, there is a difference in their approach.

As I remember it, much of the Bush-Rather coverage was about the veracity of the documents that CBS used in its story.

 

Bush wasn't blamed for Katrina ... he was criticized for the government's response to it. You don't think that was a valid issue to discuss?

 

He most certainly was blamed for NO not being properly prepared, then he was blamed for the extent of damage, then he was blamed for the government's response, etc., etc.

Yes ... I know the difference between commentators and reporters, and having watched both MSNBC and Fox News over the years, there is a difference in their approach.

 

There is no difference between Olbermann and Beck. They are one in the same, just from different sides.

There is no difference between Olbermann and Beck. They are one in the same, just from different sides.

Would you like to list Olbermann's "bogus" claims?

On the other hand, how many times over the last two years has the likes of Glenn Beck compared some of Obama's policies to those of Nazi Germany?

 

1) Comparing Obama's policies to those of Nazi Germany is not the same as calling the man Hitler, or at least calling him a Nazi, as happened with Bush.

 

2) I'm not a huge Beck watcher, but it seems what he generally does is show how the justification for Obama's policies coming from liberal leaders both inside and outside his administration draw reasoning and support from many of the same sources that were used to support the policies of tyrannical regimes such as those of Hitler, Stalin & Mao.