The RNC just wants to make sure the discussion adheres to their frames.

By going ballistic before-hand ABC would need to "defend itself" against the impression that it is producing an infomercial.

What is the best way to do that?

Here's the question I would like asked of Obama:

If there is a public insurance program, would premiums be based on covering costs for the government to break even, or would they be set to ensure that private insurance companies can continue to give the same service they currently do without losing profits?

The answer should be obvious, but it would certainly frame the debate, pitting the concerns of the citizens vs the corporations.

Poor bizarro-GOPers. They can't help it; they were born with a silver MSM in their mouths.*

They are going to go absolutely berserker-ish, now that they're losing control over the media. Maybe they could take a lesson from their BFF Ahmadinejad, and try to shut the country down!

*...and a tip o' the hat to a most wondrous of ladies, Ann Richards, for founding the quote that I've paraphrased above....

I'd be annoyed if ABC hosted this Social Security discussion without challenging and/or fact-checking any of Bush's arguments, but I wouldn't know this until it aired.
A major news source not doing fact checking????
surely you jest. It couldn't happen.

This is part and parcel of the right's long-time media strategy. They are applying pressure with charges of bias, etc. in order to pressure ABC to over balance--effectively moving where ABC will situate the centrist/moderate position in their framing and choice of citizen interlocutors. Despite whatever polling Gibson et al are reading, the RNC has good reason to believe ABC will over weight the RNC's complaints for fear of being branded biased and in White House's pocket.

Obama already starts behind the eight ball with Gibson who believes households with income in excess of 200K are middle class.

To be fair, they really should also devote an hour to the GOP health care plan ... uhm ... what is it, again?

The RNC only has a few tools in its toolbox; ginning up outrage through demagoguery, misrepresenting the facts of the matter, and fabricating frightening scenarios based on outlandish suppositions. This how they have always governed. They don't know anything else: such as, illuminating a simple topic with simple truths. That is unknown to them as a tactic.

hot dman! so the morons will present yesterday's "republican health plan" on the teevee while president obama holds his town hall and addresses questions about health care.

double hot damn! let those morons dictate all day long and "frame" all day long.

the vast majority of us will be payig attention to what kind of Health Care Plan is going to come out of this.

I might think the RNC and far-right activists are afraid of a substantive exploration of health care policy.

What they are afraid of is ABC News only giving one side of the story. ABC confirmed these fears when they announced that they would not give an opposing viewpoint any airtime. Nor are they even accepting advertising from anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

That said, are we really supposed to believe that the network will allow the American public to ask real substantive questions, or are they going to filter them out and leave the softballs?

I thought news shows presented the news. This is not simply presenting the news.

And yes, I think if a major news network had given Bush this type of forum for his tax cuts or his Social Security reform or even the prescription drug reform, that many liberals would be just as outraged.

If the Replicants are so concerned about having their voices heard, maybe they should demand that the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated.

Of course lefties are thrilled that The One gets his own infomercial. You love that the GOP's excellent healthcare plan is getting no coverage. It's too threatening to you.

By 2016, the fallout from your healthcare fiasco will put the Democratic party in the wilderness for a generation.

ABC doesn't have the courage to ask the President or the administration hard questions about this government health care fantasy. They do not want to be singled out for destruction like Obama has attempted to do with Fox news.

Is it okay for a president to try and destroy a network because it criticizes him?

Nope, ABC is on its back waiting for the Administration to do its thing.

ABC doesn't have the courage to ask the President or the administration hard questions about this government health care fantasy. They do not want to be singled out for destruction like Obama has attempted to do with Fox news.

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. Can't find good comedy like this on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

Perhaps Larry KRUDlow's main worry is that substance abuse treatment will be opened to the public and he might have to rub elbows with the riff and the raff.

Let's see:

Right wing interviewer, totally out of touch - yep
Right wing frames in place, single payer and public option nowhere to be found - yep
Right wing outrage to tilt the pile - right on schedule.

This could not reflect the corporate agenda more perfectly without letting Roger Ailes run the show.

To be fair, they really should also devote an hour to the GOP health care plan ... Hoosier Paul

Hoo, they can do that! That's the fairness doctrine in action. And they're against that totally, you know. Unless it benefits them. They can't be seen talking about that. Just won't do.

I thought news shows presented the news.

When was the last time you watched a news show, PGut?

Typical of the GOP. Health care reform is an American issue that goes beyond party politics. The opposing view would be policy-centered...not party-centered. What the GOP is upset about, is that the typical American in this town hall meeting format won't be given Frank Luntz-approved copy points with which to frame their questions.

Another quite substantive difference in watching a long-format discussion with George W. Bush about Social Security and a long-format discussion with Barack Obama is that a Bush interview would lend no additional understanding and no depth to the policy discussion. The man lived and died (politically speaking) by soundbites.

Obama's press conferences have uniformly added detail to our understanding of his way of thinking about policy, the directions he wants to go, nuances that may not be immediately apparent, historical parallels, and he even does this crazy thing where he sometimes acknowledges honest critiques and then speaks to them (unsustainable budget deficits, for instance).

I'm sure I would have made snarky comments if ABC had done a 2005 availability with Bush on social security, but my attitude would have been rooted in the understanding that Bush would add nothing to the discussion beyond his shrill repetition of soundbytes. My underlying question would be, "What's the point?", while with Obama and health care, there's a great deal of education yet to be done to impress upon Americans that while the GOP is railing against the deceased Soviet healthcare system, Democrats are considering implementing elements of Canada's or England's.

Yeah, Charlie Gibson really worships Obama, doesn't he? Especially policies that might take more taxes from people like, er, Charlie Gibson....

Poor George Will whining on C-Span about this, earlier this morning. Charlie Gibson complaining - You should pull up the old Brinkley, Will, and Roberts ringing their collective hands on Brinkley's Sunday morning show about Clinton "taking their hard earned money". Even Sam Donaldson was worried that he wouldn't be left with enough for new hair pieces, while he was counting his tax writeoffs for his ranch in New Mexico.

The RNC just wants to make sure the discussion adheres to their frames.

Yup.

By going ballistic before-hand ABC would need to "defend itself" against the impression that it is producing an infomercial.

Kind of like the shriekers art Hot Air yammering about the Fairness Doctrine to the point where the Democratic FCC nominee disavows it in advance.

Or the fautrage about investigating Bush for his crimes that led Pelosi to "take impeachment off the table" in advance.

I wish I could say I was confident the Repukes' tactics won't work again.

Workin' the refs again, I see. And, as other commenters have noticed, it'll probably work. I predict that ABC will concentrate more on "gotcha" questions than substantive ones. Of course, the real question is whether they would have done that regardless of the Grand Hypocrisy Party's ravings.

I'll simply note the irony that this reaction is from the faction that goes ape-poop about the very idea of a return to the fairness doctrine.

Since when do republicans favor the "Fairness Doctrine"?

What Tammy Bruce knows about fellatio wouldn't fill a dental dam.

It's nice to see Cokie Kudblow's back on the nose candy, and he's mainlining it straight from Drudge's ass.

What they are afraid of is ABC News only giving one side of the story. ABC confirmed these fears when they announced that they would not give an opposing viewpoint any airtime. Nor are they even accepting advertising from anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

Yes, it's too bad that there's not some kind of government policy that would require broadcasters to present opposing points of view. Maybe the policy could be called, I don't know, the "Fairness Doctrine" or something like that. I think you should call your congressman and start agitating for one now that we have such an egregious case right here in front of us.

The media happily give people like Dick Cheney access to argue for their agendas without putting any Democrats in the room to challenge them.

So why are the Republicans claiming that giving the elected president the same privilege as a termed-out has-been is unfair? The reason is because it often works. Often when they complain to the press, the press buckles (easy enough because the heads of the corporations that own the major media outlets are almost all Republicans).

I'd be annoyed if ABC hosted this Social Security discussion without challenging and/or fact-checking any of Bush's arguments, but I wouldn't know this until it aired.

No, but when it comes to the media's challenging Republican lies, I think you could assume it would happen.

What, is the RNC advocating for a, well rule maybe, that would, hmmm, balance things out? Like an Even-handedness Manifesto. No, wait, maybe a Fairness Doctrine.

Nah!

Maybe the Repugs should invoke the Fairness Doctrine...oopps that was rescinded years ago and it the Repug that have fought to kep it that way!!!!

Tehee:

"ABC doesn't have the courage to ask the President or the administration hard questions about this government health care fantasy. They do not want to be singled out for destruction like Obama has attempted to do with Fox news."

Inquiring minds want to know: what evidence do you have that Obama is attempting to destroy Fox? I'd like to see specific statements from Obama or his appointees, please. With cites if possible. OTOH, citing something someone has said on a blog doesn't exactly count, capiche?

I got an email the other night from a reader who asked me if I'd be annoyed if, in 2005, ABC hosted a discussion/forum on Social Security with President Bush at the White House."

As I remember it, EVERY MSM outlet at the time bought the Administration's bull that Social Security would "run out" in 2014.

Am I wrong?

What Republican Health care plan, Charlie?

Politically, our side would do well to help publicize the RNC's complaints, because they are so ludicrous on their face. When has an interview with the president ever been in any way improper? It's completely absurd, and a new low for their hyperbolic hysterics.

I sense a certain amount of projection here, but I cannot fathom what happened to the self-reflection that one would expect. Bush always favored Fox News who might as well have been sucking his cock on the air, and they see this as some kind of similar propaganda piece. We didn't bitch and gripe in this way in advance when they did it, but their cognitive dissonance seems to allow them to pre-emptively attack ABC for preparing to do the same thing, without acknowledging their own side did the same sort of thing. It's very, very strange.

Sorry. There ain't no free lunches in this country. And don't go spending your whole life commiserating that you got raw deals. You've got to say, 'I think that if I keep working at this and want it bad enough I can have it.' Help me! Please help find sites for: Baby congratulations cards. I found only this - 1 source auto breakdown insurance. Kirkland ellis llp asset finance securitization. Risk sensitive asset allocation - a discussion, midwest finance association meetings, chicago, march. Best regards ;-), Myron from Mali.

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Great. Now i can say thank you!