there’s been a cottage industry, the last couple of decades, devoted to polls that prove one side is the dumber of the two. If they’ve succeeded in making anyone feel better about their beliefs, I guess they’re doing someone some good.
Hey… while y’all are breaking the necks off the champagne bottles, celebrating Aile’s departure, save one to toast seeing the backside of Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
She gave real meaning to the word ‘bias’.
I feel sorry for her, though. She kind of reminded me of Bagdad Bob.
And now she’s the scapegoat. Debbie, get away from this and enjoy your life!
I’m not sure why people think Ailes advising Trump/joining his campaign would be ridiculous.
From today:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706
I agree. They’re buds, peas in a pod, two of a kind. I’m sure he’ll be part of the group in no time.
Today, we’re left with the choice of believing Trump’s in bed with the Russians…
… or Chuck Todd.
Disturbing as either would be, and only a fool would think they both couldn’t be true, Todd sharing a pillow next to him is somehow a little less disturbing.
Sure, could be both. And now I have a strong urge to take a shower!!
Bye
and
Ailes joining the campaign would be no less surprising than the fact that Wassermann Shultz was just hired (yesterday) by the Clinton campaign some five hours after the email scandal broke.
That world is uber small and people mad at each one hour ago can easily “pretend” to be friends if someone’s skills are needed.
Main reason I left Wash, DC - hated my kids going to school with these people’s kids. Felt so fake because it is. Even my kids picked up on the falseness of it all.
No surprises here at all.
Hmm…for some reason the old Life cereal ad with “give it to Mikey- he hates everything” is coming to mind… https://m.youtube.com/watch?autoplay=1&v=34wJt3pRY0w
She is serving as an “honorary chair” so probably not a paid position. Colossal misstep nonetheless.
Choosing Ailes to be a campaign advisor may have gotten more complicated…
This seems non-sensical to me. She was a Democratic politician in a political position as head of the Democratic Election Committee and he was in the news business. Aren’t you biased in favor of the things you advocate for, especially if it was your job? He was in the news business, where there is at least a nominal expectation of truth and fairness in reporting of stories. That’s not to imply anything about his network one way or the other, it is up to each person to decide if Fox was relatively unbiased in reporting news stories. Op-eds are a different matter. And no discussion that bashes Fox or bashes the other networks will be allowed, I am sure, as a violation of the rules of this site.
My point is that of course the expectations are different, given their very different positions. Whether those expectations are realistic in this day and age is a different matter, and would make a good thread, such as “Should we expect news outlets to even have the claim of being unbiased any longer?” I don’t have time to regularly participate in such a thread, but if anyone thinks it is interesting, feel free.
"Choosing Ailes to be a campaign advisor may have gotten more complicated… "
In any other time, I would have thought that Washington Post article was a fake, because it sounds so ridiculous. My favorite line, " So, it’s too bad. I’m sure it was friendly." Yeah, I’m sure it was REAL friendly.
Must be working on the female vote.
" My point is that of course the expectations are different, given their very different positions. Whether those expectations are realistic in this day and age is a different matter, and would make a good thread, such as “Should we expect news outlets to even have the claim of being unbiased any longer?” "
I don’t know. They all hang on to the claim of being unbiased, though it seems quite the illusion. When I watch something, I am clearly aware of what their general point of view is, and am impressed when they present things that appear unbiased. Certain reporters seem to maintain their neutrality, which always amazes me.
I’m not Fox bashing, but it’s been interesting to me, watching every now and then during this election cycle. They seem to be quite torn with how to treat Mr. Trump. As he is a center left guy, and not even remotely a conservative, some of them have had a tough time jumping on the bandwagon. They have been gradually jumping on (and some have gone in full bore), but it sure has taken awhile.
Tip-toeing in gently here. Catahoula was saying that DWS’s bias was clearly to Clinton in favor of Sanders within the DEC. And as @fallenchemist indicates, why would there necessarily be any expectation that she would not have a preference for the Democratic candidate. That differs from the smarmy behavior that dethroned Ailes. DWS had a preference for a particular candidate who she thought was best for the party. She didn’t engage in what Ailes did-- though apparently they both have a preference for women 
And come to think of it… I don’t have to tip to in gently-- I started this thread
Only if you are a standard operator in this field. However, Trump is not a standard operator. See them together all the time in Palm Beach and they do have very close mutual friends as well.
Trump is not known to throw his close friends overboard based on allegations in the standard way - that is why his friends really like him.
The majority of his friends are longtime ones (15 -20 years and more). People can disagree with him, but interestingly enough, his friends from all stripes say he is as loyal as can be. Rare in this arena - but then he is not of this arena.
Therefore, this may not be as crazy to him, as it seems to others, not to throw is friend overboard based on allegations. And the fact that Ailes was on the out with the owners of FOX for some time (did not get along with Murdoch’s kids fro a few yeas now) means that Trump was not surprised by his departure and the allegations were used as an excuse to get rid of him at this time.
Have not a clue what this paycheck thing means, as in Washington world that means absolutely nothing in terms of being remunerated.
Having lived in this world. honorary chair still means all expenses paid (all food paid for, all lodging paid for, private car service, use of the private jet to do campaign business, and all the other perks). So what if she does not get a paycheck - her perks, which she does not have to pay for allows her to live rely for the time with campaign without having to earn money to pay for those things herself.
Had a couple friends serve as honorary chairs of senate campaigns for major candidates and the joke was they made more money (by things that they got to do and use) in that time period than being CEO of their companies, even though they were not paid a dime.
Great typo!
“Tip-toeing in gently here. Catahoula was saying that DWS’s bias was clearly to Clinton in favor of Sanders within the DEC. And as @fallenchemist indicates, why would there necessarily be any expectation that she would not have a preference for the Democratic candidate. That differs from the smarmy behavior that dethroned Ailes. DWS had a preference for a particular candidate who she thought was best for the party. She didn’t engage in what Ailes did-- though apparently they both have a preference for women”
You’re on a roll, today, jym. Would not have notice that hilarious typo, either. 
That is a question I have. I thought their job was to get a Democrat elected, not to provide a fair, equal footing for anyone and everyone. The job is to win the election, and if they have one candidate they feel they can win, and another they feel cannot win, wouldn’t it be their obligation to assist the winning candidate over the others? Kind of think these organizations can do everything the way they want to. I doubt there are any legal guidelines.
Yes, an analogy between the two fails on a level or two. On the other hand, it’s fairly apt in regards to bias. Possibly perceived bias in the case of Ailes, proven bias by Wasserman Schultz since the DNC charter requires it remain impartial to all democrat candidates.
Would not be the least bit surprised if there were similar type emails in the Republican election committee communications as they weren’t exactly all in favor of Trump being their candidate.