Look who Newsbusters calls a "moderate"
November 11, 2009 11:59 am ET by Jamison Foser
Newsbusters' Matthew Balan complains:
CNN's Candy Crowley neglected to include sound bites from conservatives during a report about Sarah Palin on Tuesday's American Morning, other than from the former Alaska governor herself. While Crowley did acknowledge the widespread support that Palin has among conservative Republicans, she only used clips from moderate commentator David Frum, Democrat Bill Owens, and colleague Wolf Blitzer. [Emphasis added]
David Frum has worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush, a senior fellow at the right-wing Manhattan Institute, and an editor for the right-wing editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. He has been an advisor to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign and a contributing editor to National Review. He is a resident fellow at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, and serves on the board of directors of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He supported John McCain's presidential campaign, and has written books titled "Dead Right," "What's Right: The New Conservative Majority and the Remaking of America," "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush," "Comeback: Conservatism that can win again." And he co-wrote a book with Richard Perle.
But Newsbusters' Matthew Balan says Frum isn't a conservative; he's a moderate, and that CNN's report therefore failed to fearture any soundbites from conservatives. Oh, except Sarah Palin.
Another, more sane, way to look at the report would be to say it featured clips of two conservatives, Frum and Palin, and only one progressive, Democrat Bill Owens.
Oh, and that Owens clip? Here it is, in its entirety:
CONGRESSMAN-ELECT BILL OWENS: Thank you very much.
Oh, the bias!
The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less
Media Matters: In which Glenn Beck hosts talk of tickle fights
I stated fact. David Frum is NOT a conservative, nor is he moderate. He also publicly stated that he thought Palin was pretty much a nitwit. He is a neo-conservative which is a completely separate ideology from either conservatism or liberalism. Believe it or not, masked thumbs-downer person, there are actually more than two political ideologies in the world. Amazing, I know, but them's the facts.
I think what a lot of people forget is that people are not the sum of their political party. If you identify as a Republican your view of what makes up a "conservative" is probably different than what the person next to you thinks. The same goes for Democrats, depending on the person, their views will be more "liberal" or "conservative" than the guy next to them.
I see the third grader [I'm assuming that it is pc because that's about his/her comprehension level] has hit again! LOL!!!!
In the spirit of your distinction, a "conservative" is a republican who voted against Bush in 2004. There aren't enough of those to warrant maintaining the distinction.
So to keep things simple, neo-conservatives are now conservatives. The one hundred or so "conservatives" now left without a label will just have to come up with a new one.
Let's keep our facts straight.
http://www.progressive.org/feb03/comm0203.html
Technically, however, if you look at the PNAC's document "Rebuilding America's Defenses for the 21st Century," of which David Frum was a signatory, the outline for that term was used there more than 18 months before Bush uttered the words in the SOU address.
"We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself." Rebuilding Americas Defenses, Sept. 2000
I'm thinking it was probably a joint effort by a bunch of neo-conservative [not conservative] wackjobs.
To quote Dave Neiwert -- discussing Judge Napolitano's cries for 'nullification' -- "I can't tell you how bizarre it is to see arguments I used to hear coming from the mouths of Montana Freemen like LeRoy Schweitzer in the 1990s -- arguments that led to him embarking on an 81-day armed standoff with federal authorities, and resulting in him spending the rest of his natural life in a federal prison -- coming from supposedly mainstream talk-show hosts on Fox News only 13 years later."
and finally, someone says "There is a reason Fox has left CNN in the dust. It's called credibility." wow... i mean, i personally dont care for cnn's programming as much as the next guy (i do take them seriously, though), but to claim that "Fox has left CNN in the dust" because of ratings has absolutely nothing to do with credibility. we have all sang this song for too long, so i hate to repeat myself, but it just amazes me when people STILL, after all this time, go down this dead end road of rationalization. they just never give up on beating a dead horse. can you imagine if they had low ratings? what would they have to brag about with fox?