"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
A rich man in a poor man's shirt
Imagine how the media would react if a multimillionaire, East Coast, big-city, thrice-married presidential candidate who was a progressive Democrat said his most recent music purchase was opera, his favorite fitness activity, golf, and added that he doesn't drive -- he navigates.
Or if a progressive Democratic candidate who had launched his political career by marrying into a wealthy and politically connected family, then promptly running for Congress, revealed that he has pet turtles named "Cuff" and "Link."
Or if a progressive Democratic candidate who was the son of a governor, who has a net worth of around $200 million, whose own campaign staff was concerned he is seen as not tough enough and that his hair looks too perfect ... imagine if such a candidate said that if he weren't running for office, he'd probably be chief executive of an auto company and whose staff boasted that the difference between him and the president is "intelligence."
The media would have an absolute field day, yammering endlessly about how the candidate is too "soft" and is an elitist, an arrogant know-it-all with a misguided sense of entitlement who is hopelessly out of touch with the rugged regular-folk who live in Michigan and enjoy NASCAR and country music and drive pickups. There would be a real danger of Chris Matthews literally exploding on live television, unable to contain his incredulity that such a clueless candidate could possibly think a Pennsylvania steelworker would care what he has to say. (Then, with the Klieg lights turned off, Matthews would head off to one of the glitzy balls that he frequents, maintaining his place on Washington Life's "Social List" -- or perhaps he'd take a quick trip to relax by the pool of his vacation home nestled among the dunes of Nantucket. Railing against cultural elites on behalf of the Working Man is tiring, after all.)
But when the three leading (for now) Republican presidential candidates reveal their fondness for opera (Giuliani), have their pets named after fashion accessories (McCain), and boast that if they weren't running for president, they'd probably be running an auto company (Romney), it passes without notice.
So when longtime lobbyist and Hollywood actor Fred Thompson -- a man who once rented a red pickup truck in order to campaign in Tennessee as a man of the people -- indicated this week that he would seek the Republican presidential nomination, we knew how the media would describe him: Authentic. Folksy.
Let's back up a moment: Thompson didn't even drive the rented pickup, as The Washington Monthly reported in 1996:
Finishing his talk, Thompson shakes a few hands, then walks out with the rest of the crowd to the red pickup truck he made famous during his 1994 Senate campaign. My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school's small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer.
The pickup was, literally, a rented prop designed to help a wealthy actor/Washington lobbyist/trial lawyer play the role of salt-of-the-earth populist.
But Chris Matthews and the Beltway pundit crowd don't encounter many actual working-class voters as they stroll the dunes of Nantucket. A wealthy lobbyist/actor who rents a red pickup truck to play the role of a regular guy strikes them as "authentic" and "folksy." Mark Halperin wrote this week that Thompson won his first Senate race "after driving his trademark red pickup truck all over Tennessee."
It wasn't "his" and he didn't "drive" it, of course, but the illusion of authenticity is all that matters to the pundit class. Thus a wealthy lobbyist in a rented pickup is folksy and authentic. (A Nexis search for "Fred Thompson and (Thompson w/20 folksy)" returns 40 hits since January 1. Several mention the red pickup; only Wonkette bothered to mention it was rented. The Washington Post assured readers that "[t]he signature red pickup truck from Thompson's Senate campaigns will be dusted off.")
On Hardball last night, Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan swooned over Thompson:
MATTHEWS: I like the fact of how he responded the other day to Michael Moore. He's got a cigar. Of course, he can't light cigars in his home. Nobody can with their wives around. But he sat there with the cigar. But it was refreshing to me to see a politician with a cigar.
[...]
BUCHANAN: Well, you're right. There's this great naturalness to this fellow, and he was not -- he's not programmed in any way and he's fresh as he can be. I think he moves right into the front tier.
[...]
MATTHEWS: I can tell you, as a reporter, covering him back when he ran against Jim Cooper in that uphill race in Tennessee -- I called him up. I said -- I was doing like a column then -- and I said, "Can I see you?" He didn't have a title then. "Can I see you, Fred?" He says, "Yeah." He said, "Where do you want to meet for breakfast?" He says, "Where are you staying?" I said, "At this hotel." I was staying at, like, a three-star hotel. He says, "OK, I'll meet you there for breakfast." No flacks, no staff, no pomposity. He shows up. ... He seems like the real thing to me.
Matthews previously gushed over Thompson's "movie star" looks and "daddy" image.
Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald details more media fawning over Fred Thompson:
[T]he illusion of manliness cliches, tough guy poses, and empty gestures of "cultural conservatism" are what the Republican base seeks, and media simpletons like [Newsweek's Howard] Fineman, Halperin and Matthews eat it all up just as hungrily. That's how twice-and-thrice-divorced and draft-avoiding individuals like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh become media symbols of the Christian "values voters" and "tough guy," "tough-on-defense" stalwarts.
And it's how a life-long Beltway lobbyist and lawyer who avoided Vietnam, standing next to his twenty-five-years-younger second wife, is held up by our media stars as a Regular-Guy-Baptist symbol of piety and a no-nonsense, tough-guy, super-masculine warrior who will protect us all.
Read the rest here.
And what of another wealthy Southerner who used to be a trial lawyer? One who doesn't rent props to hide his good fortune? The pundits channel Holden Caulfield and declare John Edwards to be a big phony. Just this week, Bill O'Reilly ("I have no respect for him. He's a phony and is in the tank for special interest to damage this country. Edwards is going nowhere, but deserves to be called out."), Dennis Miller, and Tucker Carlson ("Is Edwards an appalling phony, I guess is my question?") described Edwards as "phony."
The rich trial lawyer/lobbyist who rents a red pickup, not to drive, but to use as a prop? The media tell us he's folksy and authentic. And the rich former trial lawyer who doesn't hide his good fortune? He's a phony.
If you don't think that makes any sense, think about the apparent rationale that leads journalists to conclude that Edwards is a phony: his policy proposals to fight poverty. He's rich and wants to fight poverty, so they say he's a phony hypocrite. As we have explained, that simply isn't what "hypocrite" means -- it isn't as if Edwards is running around saying everybody should be poor, then going home at night and swimming in gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. That would be hypocrisy -- and that isn't what Edwards advocates at all. He wants to combat poverty. Hypocrisy is generally considered one of the most damaging qualities a politician can exhibit. Political reporters certainly behave as though that is the case. And yet they demonstrate an absolutely stunning lack of understanding of what hypocrisy actually is.
And because they can't take 15 seconds to visit Dictionary.com, the media obsess over Edwards' wealth. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Carla Marinucci wrote last week:
Democrat John Edwards has eloquently established his credentials as an advocate for the poor with a presidential campaign focused on the devastating effects of poverty in America. But the former North Carolina senator's populist drive has hit a series of troubling land mines: a pair of $400 haircuts, a $500,000 paycheck from a hedge fund, and now a $55,000 payday for a speech on poverty to students at UC Davis.
The problem now facing the Democratic presidential candidate is whether the pileup of headlines, including the latest regarding hefty fees from university speeches reported Monday by The Chronicle, threatens to obliterate Edwards' dominant campaign theme.
This was, to be kind, a bit disingenuous. Perhaps Marinucci was too modest to mention it, but that report by the Chronicle about Edwards' "hefty fees from university speeches" was written by ... Carla Marinucci. So we have a reporter who writes an article about a candidate, then two days later writes that "the pileup of headlines ... threatens to obliterate" the candidate's message -- without mentioning that she was responsible for one of those headlines that she uses as an example.
Marinucci, continuing directly, wrote:
The former senator, who has been portrayed as the champion of the poor and the son of a humble mill worker, now faces the possibility that voters will have a different image: that of a millionaire trial lawyer who talks one way and lives another.
But Marinucci didn't indicate a single way in which Edwards "talks one way and lives another." Presumably, she's talking about the (not really) hypocrisy of being wealthy while fighting poverty. Later, Marinucci seemed to equate Edwards "problem" with Al Gore's 2000 campaign:
Former Vice President Al Gore regularly was the subject of stories suggesting he was an exaggerator and often fudged facts; the theme became so prevalent that opponents accused him of boasting that he "invented the Internet'' -- a statement he never made.
Marinucci's statement that Gore's "opponents accused him of boasting that he 'invented the Internet' " conveniently whitewashed the role the media played in that smear against Gore. It wasn't just Gore's opponents who falsely accused him of boasting that he invented the Internet, it was the media as well. Indeed, Carla Marinucci was a frequent participant in the smear, both by writing it in her own words and by uncritically quoting Republican attacks on Gore:
Marinucci, 5/10/99: "Vice President Al Gore has visited Silicon Valley dozens of times. He has raised millions of dollars from technology leaders. He has been such a presence on high-tech issues that he recently took credit for 'creating the Internet.' [...] 'We know that Al Gore invented the Internet,' said [Republican presidential candidate John] Kasich, in a not-so-subtle dig at the vice president's self-proclaimed tech leadership. 'What we can offer is to keep the government's mitts off this town.' "
Marinucci, 5/20/99: "'Well, it's true I did not invent the Internet,' said [Republican presidential candidate Dan] Quayle, in a dig at Vice President Al Gore, who recently made the claim after he was asked about technology. 'But I did invent spellcheck.' "
Marinucci, 6/16/99: "[Democratic presidential candidate Bill] Bradley's connections with real people included their questions ('How's it going down in Silicon Valley?'), comments ('You know that Gore invented the Internet') and more questions ('Who are you again?')."
Marinucci, 6/18/99: "'Gore does have an advantage over me -- I did not invent the Internet,' quipped [Republican presidential candidate John] McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, referring to a statement the vice president made during a recent TV interview."
Marinucci, 6/19/99: "McCain also tried to make the case that Gore -- who has made 55 trips to California and numerous fund-raising and political stops in Silicon Valley -- doesn't have a lock on the hearts of high-tech leaders. 'Although I didn't invent the Internet,' he said, in a dig at a remark Gore made during a recent interview, 'I have a keen appreciation for the incredible impact that this is having on America and the world.' "
Marinucci, 6/30/99: "In a clear dig at Vice President Gore, the Democratic front-runner who once took credit for creating the Internet and has pledged to 'keep the prosperity going,' Bush said that Democrats 'no more invented prosperity than they invented the Internet.' "
Marinucci, 11/8/99: "'(This) is not your father's Republican Party,' said the [Republican National] committee's deputy chief of staff, Larry Purpuro, who said [then-RNC chair Jim] Nicholson is now mulling plans to open an Palo Alto office for the party's Silicon Valley interests. 'Al Gore may have invented the Internet -- but Republicans are making it work.' "
Marinucci, 9/21/00: " 'Al Gore just can't talk straight,' said California GOP Chairman John McGraw in a statement. 'He claims he invented the Internet (and) inspired Love Story, and his latest whopper takes the cake,' he said. 'Time and time again, Gore proves he'll say or do anything to get elected.' One Sunnyvale GOP protester echoed the sentiment with a sign: 'Internet inventor, doggy drugs: what's next?' "
But now Carla Marinucci claims it was merely Gore's opponents who lied about him. In fact, Carla Marinucci lied about Al Gore, and Carla Marinucci uncritically quoted Republicans doing so without telling her readers the truth. Carla Marinucci and countless other journalists like her.
And now Carla Marinucci writes articles that equate media coverage of John Edwards with what she acknowledges were false claims about Al Gore (though she doesn't acknowledge her own role in those false claims) ... even while she herself writes articles that contribute to that coverage of Edwards ... and, though she equates the coverage of Edwards with the false attacks on Gore, she doesn't suggest that there is something wrong with the coverage of Edwards, but with Edwards himself.
And while repeatedly suggesting that Edwards' wealth in some way conflicts with his policy proposals -- and that headlines about the purported conflict threaten to "obliterate" his campaign theme -- what has Marinucci told her readers about what, exactly, Edwards proposes to do about poverty? Not a damn thing. She hasn't written a single word this year about Edwards' actual poverty proposals. Just about how "headlines" (on pieces she wrote, by the way) about his wealth threaten to overshadow his policy message.
And just as they portray wealthy conservative candidates who rent pickup trucks to fit in with rural Tennesseans as folksy and authentic while declaring Edwards a phony hypocrite, the media largely ignore the wealth of conservative candidates when writing about their policies, even though they frequently manage to work a reference or 12 to Edwards' wealth into stories about his policy positions.
Take Rudy Giuliani, for example. The media suggest in their coverage of Edwards that the candidates' personal finances are a relevant and important part of news reports about their policy proposals. This week, the Associated Press reported that Giuliani "blasted [Hillary] Clinton's proposal -- which she had pitched Tuesday in New Hampshire -- to let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire while citing his own support for eliminating the estate tax and reducing the capital gains tax."
Now, Rudy Giuliani is a very wealthy man. His tax policy proposals -- extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminating the estate tax, and reducing the capital gains tax -- would save himself money. Perhaps a great deal of money. Yet Giuliani's wealth wasn't mentioned in the AP article. He is proposing policies that would line his own pockets, and the pockets of very few other people. Yet the media make no effort to estimate how much he would personally profit from his proposals. Nor do they even mention the fact that, as a very wealthy man, he would profit at all.
Yet John Edwards proposes raising taxes on himself and very few others, and the media treat it as scandalous hypocrisy.
Coming from a group of people who think a lobbyist in a rented pickup demonstrates folksy authenticity, this nonsensical approach to the candidates' finances and policies perhaps shouldn't surprise us. But it should trouble us.
I'm reminded of the old saying, "The hardest part of acting is being sincere. Once you learn how to FAKE that, you've got it made!"
Fake sincerity. Bogus "compassion" for the "compassionate conservative". Bush's ranch, purchased like a prop for a school play. Bush in a borrowed flight suit. Now Thompson in his rented little red truck, all "folksy" and everything.
It's all fake. It's all IMAGE over any substance. It's all to FOOL the gullible, to deceive the hapless rightwing voter, to sell them an illusion as if it were REAL.
If the rightwing can just FOOL ENOUGH DUNDERHEADS, then they MIGHT be able to disqualify enough valid Democratic voters to pull off a win somewhere in 2008. Some birds, after all, with brains the size of peas, are easily distracted by shiny and twinkling objects. This typifies the rightwing voter strategy; treat them like blithering idiots. (by the look of some of the rightwing posters in here, the GOP have their target audience nailed.)
I'm also reminded of an even older saying, in fact LOTS of them. splinters in their eyes, planks in YOURS. Tossing rocks in glass houses. Healing thy self. Yours ALSO stinks. And my own mom's, "you just worry about YOU."
Fake sincerity? "I feel your pain." "I'm not just some Tammy Wynett, standing by my husband." "I have never worked harder on anything in my life than I have on this. (this one was utilized more than once)" Fake sincerity? Are you serious?
I would not argue that any "conservative" can even understand the compassion I see in every sentence you wrote. Years ago, someone told me something rather profound and quite significant here. The sin of conservative philosophy is that it doesn't distribute the misery equally. The sin of liberalism is that it does. I wish liberals would stop bitching about the way everyone else is CONTRIBUTING, and perhaps CONTRIBUTE something.
"Folksy"? Like Hillary's drawl. Or name-a-Democrat having their picture taken attending church, while screaming foul at the MENTION of God or a visible sign of a "sincere" faith. F A K E ???
The reason Democrats can't be accused of "image over substance" is because they don't HAVE any SUBSTANCE. The entire 2004 Dem. platform, "Not Bush". Every Dean quote, claiming otherwise begins, "Well, I'll tell you what we WON'T do". Apparently it was still too wordy though. So in 2006 it was further reduced to "change"; though I am not sure if "Not Bush" was too long or too complicated. Substance? "Our agenda for the first 100 hours is"; B.S. "O.k., not the VERY first 100 hours. We'll start counting in just a minute"; B.S. We're going start working a 35 hour week"; B.S. "We're going to be open and transparent"; BOVINE FECES, They can't even fulfill a promise to just CHANGE! Change ANYTHING; perhaps something they were so outraged by when "others" did it.
Oh, and those "valid" Democratic voters; aside from the "VALIDITY" of THEIR votes TOO, don't forget that you Democrats also court and encourage illegal aliens to help YOU with INVALID (but counted) votes. It's been video taped; deny it all you want. And the auto response will certainly be claims of voter "fraud" and "suppression" that you can't actually "show"; but claim as fact. TRUTH? We DO KNOW and have PROOF that Acorn's Fl. registration drives simply didn't submit the ones marked "Republican" (suppression?). The get out the vote cars with their tires slashed were Republican, and the one doing the SLASHING was a Democratic candidates SON!
I am Libertarian NOT Republican; and I am SICK of BOTH turd sandwiches AND giant douches. I do not belong to any "organized" religion; but just read your own post. I DARE you to find a Christian of ANY kind who WORKS as hard as YOU to be as rude, offensive, disrespectful, bigoted, arrogant, uncivil and nasty. No matter how much I disagree with Republicans, too many Democrats are just miserable unpleasant people. If I agreed with you, I STILL couldn't stand being around you.
I can hardly wait to see what name I get called first.
It's too bad that Tex gave examples of what he was objecting to, and has given countless examples of what he objects to over the many months I have read here, along with many other liberal posters here.
You, on the other hand, threw out insults without examples. You, on the other hand, have no credibility. People who feel the need to gain credibility by stating their political leanings (I'm not a Republican, but I'm going to shill for them just like a real Republican would) actually lose credibility by their assertions about their political affiliations!
Liberals, and liberal policies, don't distribute the misery equally. Democrats do have plans, and did discuss those plans quite a bit. If you didn't hear them, you must have purposely ignored them.
And lastly, someone who calls names and insults others like you did in your post should refrain from suggesting that others might be out of line for calling you names, you numbskull! People like you who dish it out, then say what you said are some of the biggest hypocrites around!
Oh Gawd Sue is back.
New name, same delivery, personal attacks and all.
Please cite SPECIFICALLY:
1. A single Democrat proposed solution for ANYTHING.
2. A single EXAMPLE of the "name calling" you acuse me of.
I look forward to more FACTUAL discussion.
Ta ta,
what's wrong with "not bush"? sounds like a huge improvement to me.
Well, ignorance is supposed to be bliss.
If it were true, you could explain it, rather than assert it. You know, that scientific method you invoke when convenient, but don't actually apply to yourself.
Wnd we will continue to reduce 2 patheticly poor choices to one unopposed increasingly bad choice and "not that". Sorry, but "no it's not" is a childish tantrum not a challenging opposition.
I still want to know why I SHOULD vote Democrat. The only thing your ENTIRE argument does is support my desire for a better choice. The bar is 6" off the damn floor. Instead of demanding that I simply accept on faith that you can jump higher, why don't you just JUMP HIGHER. This is getting absolutely pathetic; good thing I've given up hope that Ben and Thom's experiment will survive this next generation.
Sorry for continuing to try and make you "think". I'm trying to give up.
you've already been given examples of several democratic proposals that differ completely from republicans. so if ignorance is bliss, then you're very happy. i not saying you have to like the democrats, but as of now they are the only viable alternative to the republicans.
Yes Democrats ARE the only viable alternative. And I am ready, willing and in SEARCH of SOMETHING, ANYTHING to vote FOR, get iit? I'm simply asking the Democrats to take just a little bit of that HALF of everything they say, do and THINK focused on convincing everyone that Bush is no good and maybe, I don't know, stop SUCKING WORSE.
Bush's decision to go into Iraq was bad, I didn't agree at the time.
But the Democrats proposal, a NINTEENTH U.N. sanction, after EIGHTEEN CONSISTENT FAILURES is just pathetically STUPID; actually BELIEVING the crap your saying defines you as INSANE.
It gets really psychadelic if you take away all the stuff those sanctions were about; the details you liberals can't be bothered with like a guy who wanted to be BIGGER than Hitler, killing tens of thousands of people exterminating entire villiages with those weapons you KNOW he didn't have,invasion, trying to goad Israel with hopes of starting WWIII,
But wait? If the only reason that we went into Iraq was 9-11, then proposing a U.N. sanction is WORSE than insane. They aren't in another reality; their in NUMEROUS other realities. And those Democrats that voted based on THAT. You wanna let THEM run the country. Man, they told me that acid back in the 70's would do this.
Do something > make mistakes.
Act STUPID, play make believe and just assume everything will be fine.
I'm STILL leaning towards risking some mistakes. You better go ask Dean what YOU should do. You've gone this far. He might even tell you how his talks are gong with the tooth fairy about funding the Dem.s health care "PROPOSAL".
for a guy who emphatically claims that he's "libertarian not republican", you do a swell job of defending bush. you have all the "why we needed to invade" talking points down pat.
I sure wish Democrats could comprehend that pointing out what makes them WORSE, is not a DEFENSE of Bush.
Just like all that attacking Bush you think SUPPORTS you, DOESN'T.
If he is an ass, how does that prove YOU AREN'T an ass?
I don't want Bush. I just don't think Democrats are better.
Republicans don't care about the poor, fine.
Democrats can't just raise the minimum wage even thought they have the votes and COULD, oh yeah and PROMISED, because they are using the issue and won't pull it out of their "strategy" game.
You insist that's better in some way. I just don't see it. I see you breaking promises and NOT doing good that you easily could. Why is saying you will do good then not doing it, better than NOT saying you will do good, then not doing it?
I have a real problem with Sandy Berger using Clinton provided clearance to destroy primary source information related to a report our national defense will be relying on. And it troubles me that I haven't come across a single Democrat who can stop attacking Bush to even acknowledge it, let alone say anything "critical". I am sorry, but I just don't believe very many Democrats even WANT to know about really nasty, dishonest and "bad" things done by members of their party. I don't CARE what Bush did. I want you to clean out some of YOUR OWN garbage.
which is it? "i don't want bush. i just don't think the democrats are better"? or, "yes democrats are the only viable alternative"? or you a registered member of the schizo party?
Where do you see mutual exclusivity?
I DON'T want Bush. The DEM.s AREN'T BETTER.
And the pitiful state of our nation really is they are the only viable alternative. Once again, the most balanced presentation of social issues is South Park.
And I KNOW they are my only choices. But I STILL don't want EITHER a Turd Sandwich NOR a Giant Douche. You can even pick which is D and which R.
You go back to your food fight; and I'm going to try and learn the fiddle. I just don't know how to make it any clearer. YOU ARE BOTH WORTHLESS and incapable of governing any free or just society. I can't find ONE WORD to say it all for you, I'm sorry.
lets see. the republicans and democrats are the "only choices". and the democrats are the "only viable alternative". but they're no better than bush. according to your logic, why even bother voting democratic. because they're no better, but to say they are a "viable alternative" implies a difference. hope you're better at the fiddle.
OlK. YES there IS a difference.
1. Prevent abortion
2. Incarcerate for not opposing homosexuality.
YES THERE IS A CHOICE!!!
AND I STILL DON'T CARE WHICH BASTARDIZATION OF MY LIBERTY I GET!!!!
apologize for the OBVIOUS typo above. and sure it will become THE subject. And people will be jailed, coucelled and if necessary restrained for "not liking" gays.
Again, sorry for the typo.
Forget about the typo. The insanity of the strawman is ludicrous enough. Perhaps you can cough up a single example of ANYONE, ANYWHERE, advocating incareration of those who dont like gays? I am betting you can't
libertarians everywhere thank you for your fine example of incoherence. it's been fun.
I understand, to some extent. I am not a Dem and have a lot of problems with them myself most likely different ones than YOU for instance your talking point about Berger is a LIE I have a real problem with Sandy Berger using Clinton provided clearance to destroy primary source information related to a report our national defense will be relying on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that never happened he took and destroyed COPIES, so he didnt deprive National Security of anything. What he did was wrong and I am upset about it. He DID plead guilty to doing so, but it is NOT what you claimed he did [link to www.washingtonpost.com] Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism. (did you notice it said COPIES?) Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost.
As for the minimum wage I dont know what you are talking about the House AND Senate passed a minimum wage bill and Bush signed it in May
http://www.gneil.com/info/fedminwage/default.asp
On May 25, 2007, President Bush signed legislation that increases the Federal Minimum Wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over the next two years.
Maybe if you knew what you were talking about Dems wouldnt look so bad. Perhaps getting too much bad information is one of the things that has you thinking Dems are worse than the GOP. I have been mad a Dems for years but to me they dont seem anwhere near as toxic as the GOP for every Sandy Berger I can raise you a Duke Cunningham, Ney, and Abramoff.
SOLON:
Re; the Berger papers, COPIES destroyed while originals remained.
It was the same with Hillary and the missing Rose Law firm document of billable hours. The exact same document was in the GOP's hands, since they got Vince Foster's copy. No new information in Hillary's missing copy, unless of course there were margin notes. (Of course, when her copy turned up to wide GOP claims that NOW they had what they needed to pin crime on her ... nothing of the sort happened. There was no "there there", as the pundits of the day were fond of saying.)
It's interesting that the GOP is still so very interested in papers from the Clinton Administration, when the Bush Administration is the most secretive, least cooperative, and most protective of any papers associated with the White House. They recently said the American People have no right to know WHO the Vice President has been meeting with in his official residence. It's such a blatant double standard, it's now become an outright embarrassment to be a rightwinger.
You talk a lot about stupid. Perhaps its on your mind since you see it every time you look in the mirror. Of those nineteen sanctions most of them had to do with WMDs which we KNOW he didnt have when we invaded. Also yes we know he DID have them earlier since we have the reciepts. Saddam was a bad guy but he hadnt so much as sneezed in anyones directions since the last Gulf War. Meanwhile Israel has violated TWICE as many UN security counsel resolutions as Iraq, we KNOW they have WMDs and the have invaded Lebanon twice since 1982. I doubt we will invade them anytime soon. When Saddam DID have WMDs, and was committing crimes against humanity like in 80 and 88 he was our strong ally. Rumsfeld and Raygun LOVED HIM. So to use what he did THEN as an EXCUSE, not a reason, to invade, now that DEFINES stupidity. I understand being unhappy with Dems join the club. However your talking point strong logic bereft excuses for Iraq are STUPID.
SOLON:
Don't forget, at the exact same time the White House was clinging to UN sanctions as an excuse, the White House was ALSO committed to get authorization from the UN to invade Iraq, and then it turned out they probably wouldn't get it, so they dropped the effort.
Throughout this time, the NeoCons were making great noises about how IRRELEVANT the UN was, and serious calls were being made for the US to drop out of the UN, and ship its headquarters out of New York overseas. The NeoCons had NO USE AT ALL for the UN ... with the single exception that they believed the full might of the American Armed Forces should be pressed into service to enforce (selective) sanctions and orders OF the UN. Blatant contradiction? You bet. Republican Schizo behavior at its finest.
On the nose again Tex. Good points in both posts
That NINTEENTH sanction would have fixed EVERYTHING. Sure wish we'd done that. Kurd's want our help, they can move to the Sudan.
Israel has violated twice as many sanctions and we havent invaded them. The war was morally unjustifyable. Your ramblings make very little sense. The sanctions had kept Saddam contained. Even Rice and Powell had said this. He wasnt a threat to us or to his neighbors who opposed the invasion. Ya got nothin.
There are several DemocratIC proposals. Raising the minimum wage, a solution to the problem of easing the burdens on poor workers there have been several DemocratIC solutions to the health care problems. The ReNAMBLAcans have disasterous solutions. Like invading IRAQ because 15 Saudis, led by a Saudi fanatic attacked the WTC. Or on the economic front. Their solution to a surplus was give the rich a tax break, their solution to a recession was give the rich a tax break sneeze around a ReNAMBLAcan and their solution is to give the rich another tax break. You dont really want a discussion or even know what a fact IS. Spouting rightwing talking points without a shred of substance isnt a discussion its bellowing into the wind.
There were lots of examples of name calling and insults in your post. Go back and read it again. Several posters below mentioned a few of them. If you can't figure it out, it's because you haven't got a clue, and nothing we try to do can help numbskulls like you who refuse to open your eyes to reality!
If you don't know about Democratic initiatives and proposals, it's because you tried to avoid them. I already explained this to you. How is it that you missed it?
True Libertarians don't feel the need to repeat the insulting Republican meme that the adjective is "Democrat", instead of "Democratic". People interested in a discussion don't misstate the opponent's group's chosen name, because they are not afraid to correctly identify them as being "Democratic". If you're trying to pretend you're a Libertarian, come back with another screen name and stop with the Republican talking points, and you'd get a lot further.
Gee, if there are REALLY so many, how come ya can't just cut and paste ONE of them to SHOW me your right. You sure love TELLING me how right you are.
That minimum wage which is the ONLY proposal supporting all the claim of how many examples I've been given. And WHY aren't those POOR WORKING PEOPLE making more money like you SAID they would? The votes are their. Your party just gets too much benefit using them for leverage to just take 15 minutes and a couple of pages and JUST PASS A BILL.
Health care AIN'T a proposal with NO MENTION of FUNDING, it's a pipe dream.
A DISCUSSION. You talking about the kind where I ask you to give a SINGLE example from MULTITUDE of name calling you ASSERT. And you DON'T. Just repeat your DEMAND that they are there simply because YOU SAY thay are?
Or the kind where I ask you to give a SINGLE example from MULTITUDE of name calling you ASSERT. And you reply with as little as a SINGLE WORD or get generous and grab a couple from ALL THEM possiblities, and do the RESPECTFUL and HONEST discussion kind of thing where you SHOW me your right, and don't even HAVE to tell me.
As I said, you had plenty of examples of name calling and insults.
As far as ignorance, goes, you're a poster child for it.
The Speaker of the House only controls what goes on in the House. The House did pass many initiatives, just like she said that they would.
The Senate is a more deliberative body. They have to pass similar legislation, and then that legislation has to come back to a conference committee to hammer out any differences. They have done that.
Pelosi did not say that there would be bills signed in those first few weeks in the House. She did what she committed to do.
If you don't know that, it's not because the information was not out there for you to look at. You had to purposefully ignore that info, just like you ignored the fact that your post was full of insults and name calling, numbskull!
I just got a "look below" and "understood" your message. WOW!!!
Your ENTIRE reference source is "hows about...youre a blitthering idiot"
Count EVERY ONE of the SIX words as separate insults; "lots of examples is STILL ABSURD. I'll even let you pretend the adjective is a SEPARATE insult so you can at least make believe it's plural; I know how important your "feelings" are. IT WAS QUOTING TEX NOT ME.
A single quote of SOMEONE ELSE"S name calling, and YOUR VERSION IS, and I QUOTE YOU "There were lots of examples of name calling and insults in your post"
I've had enough of this ABSURD freestyle, make it up for convenience, I don't HAVE to prove I'm right, because I KNOW I am, and you CAN"T prove you are right, because I KNOW you aren't.
HERE, LET ME HELP YOU. YOU REALLY ARE A BLITHERING IDIOT!!!!
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROVING BOB CALLS NAMES:1. Now, YOU highlight BLITHERING IDIOT that one if you want to capture those exclamation marks for effect; it's still only ONE example though, so no "lots of", not even an "s".2. Press Ctrl-C (I can't help if your a MAC, but they are supposed to be easy)3. Now click the blue - Reply to this comment below.4. Press Ctrl-V (again if windows). It's kind of proper to insert and opening " and closing", but we're just working on substance today.5. Last, and I think you'll even like this part, try using a barb instead of a name. Even something as simple as SEEEEE can communicate your verbal "check-mate". Firm, acertive, definite; but not rude or disrespectful. But if you are uncomfortable, maybe something like DO SO won't stretch the comfort zone.6. And with everything you've got; click that Post button.
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!
You have just PROVED that I CALL PEOPLE NAMES. REALLY. Didn't just SAY you did; you REALLY DID. Now you get to feel an EARNED sense of accomplishment. It's probably going to feel different; more "real". THREE WORDS. The only name calling was SUBSTANCE. Bet you've NEVER done THAT before.
Go on, give it a try.
I think that in addition to you being a person who calls names and insults people and then denies it, you're also a person who's easily befuddled.
I never mentioned "blithering idiot". Blithering idiot had nothing to do with my comment. It was in reference to your post and the contents thereof. The fact that someone else mentioned "blithering idiot" and that wasn't your comment doesn't change the insults and name calling that you did do!
I refuse to capitulate to your demands that I document your insults and name calling. The fact that I fail to take orders from you does not mean that the insults and names don't exist!
****
****
You are right. "Namecalling" is inaccurate. It is pure ad hominem though. Not really much difference.
I will support BOTH in dictionary definition if you like. Or, you could listen to about a half hour of Air America and "letters to the editor" from one issue of the Utne Reader, Then try and show me how it's NOT unpleasant and rather miserable.
All seems infected that the infected spy, As all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye. Pope
Perhaps you are just such a miserable and unpleasant human being that you see it everywhere. No way you can substantiate such a subjective opinion.
hows about...youre a blitthering idiot. like all bragging libertarians, you think youre wiser and brighter then everyone else....but its interesting that everyone ive ever met spmehow....didnt test well in school, had week SATs and in every quantivived way are much weaker then the pretend. example fore scored 1400 plus on his college boards, how bout you?
Who is Fore? Did you mean Gore?
Tim, you come here and attack the intelligence of a poster by leaving an incoherent post full of misspellings and grammatical errors and expect to be taken seriously?
Let me guess your SAT score was 000
Did you notice the F and the G are right next to each other on the keyboard? Let me guess you are too stupid to tell a typo from a misspelling right?
There were grammatical errors and misspellings, but it was not incoherent, and on a site like this spelling doesn't matter if it's coherent.
Maybe you couldn't understand it because you think that the lowest score you can get on the SAT's is 000.
The lowest score one can get on the SAT's is 200 on each section, so on the old test, the lowest possible grade is 400, not 000. Gore scored so high he was in the top 95% of all test takers.
You aren't intelligent enough to craft an accurate insult!
1. I'M NOT the one who SAID "blitthering idiot", TEX did. And what the hell does Gore's SAT score have to do with ANYTHING
bragging Libertarians? About WHAT?
Wiser and brighter? Don't really know. Don't really care. I don't give a damn whether you think I'm smart or not. The SIX words that were ON TOPIC quoted TEX's name calling as PROOF of mine. WOW. I'm sure glad I only scored 1368 on that SAT. Though I can also throw an ASVAB overall of 98.9%, Aced Advanced Algebra and Calc I, but only B+ in Calc II WHILE a JUNIOR in high school. Qualified and nominated to the Naval Academy (though declined), Graduated H.S. 5th or 6th out of just under 200, I've got all kinds of awards, plaques, mag. mentions, pretty papers and a bunch of trophies too.
I don't care about your assessment of nominal SAT scores amongst Libertarians. I'll play whose is bigger with you if you want. But why don't you put Gore's penis back in his pants and use your own.
Wanna acuse me of name calling, Could you borrow enough intelligence from Gore to quite ME?
You're still in high school? I have to think you are, considering you're pulling out high school grade scores as a supposed bolster for your argument. If you're not in high school and you're dragging out old grades...? That's really, really sad.
As for Libertarians, it's been my experience that self-proclaimed Libertarians tend to be some miserably elitist people, the Randian variety of them even more self-righteous than the garden variety Libertarian. As much as I don't care for the stereotypical NE Democrat, the Libertarians can be so very much worse.
Yeah, the reference to GORE's SAT score as argument was CORE to substance though.
"No matter how much I disagree with Republicans, too many Democrats are just miserable unpleasant people." -getntoobed
While the above quote is among the least significant sentences of a childish tirade, it's worth noting its inherent miserable unpleasantness.
If Dean's supposed, "not Bush," strategy was so ridiculous, why was it so successful. Even more germane, why do none of the current rightwing candidates mention Bush's name while invoking Reagan over and over? Don't make the mistake of giving your enemy a baseball bat only to be suprised your foe brained you with it.
Anyway that's enough credit lending to the points of a meritless diatribe. Instead, contrast and comparison of left/right morality is always a good reminder, to me at least, why I am a lefty.
The fundamental worldview of conservatives value discilpline and authority. This leads them to honor violence, hierarchy and punishment
The fundamental worldview of progressives value empathy and responsibility. This leads them to honor participation, equality and rehabilitation.
That's about all I wanted to point out, go ahead and forget it.
The fundamnetal view of"progressives" involves "responsibility?"
I guess you've started your own progressive splinter group or maybe i'm ignorant on this.
Assuming it's the later, what kind of "responsibilty" are we talking about here?
Mutual responsibility. As in we're all in this together, as in the common good.
Got it. So you're responsible for me and I'm responsible for you?
Am I responsible for myself or am I covered by this "mutual insurance?"
It has become fashionable to repeat Cains words to God when he asked Am I my brothers keeper? They forget the answer to that question is supposed to be YES. Not in the sense we watch him to make sure he acts the way we want but that we should assure that if he is hungry he can be fed, if he is hurt he can be tended. If you dont CARE that your neighbor has to eat dogfood in order to pay his rent or buy his medication what kind of person are you? Lets try to remember that Ebeneezer Scrooge is not a role model except in the context of REDEMPTION.
Thank you, SOLON. Well stated.
Never said "not Bush" was ridiculous. I pointed out that "none of the above" when there are only two choices is NOT really a "choice"; alternative, yes. But maaaaan??? Choice??????
a) XY and Z
b) Not XY and Z
or "Rock lyrics" for $100 "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Well, that's JUST as good as what YOU are offering. What a menu.
Let's try analogies. They often help me adapt concepts
Marlboro or Newport vs. Marlboro or whatever I give you.
Coke or Pepsi vs. Coke or what ever I hand you.
Do you at leas see where a reasonable, equally intelligent individual just MIGHT, maybe THINK about preferring the first choice? Maybe even consider treating THEIR personal opinion as maybe "valid", even if you can't accept it as EQUAL to YOUR personal opinion?
I thing a reasonably bright TEN year old would understand that is just YOUR frame. The Dems have made many proposals. Their proposals are often half measures. I often have problems with them but just because YOU dont know what they are doesnt mean they dont exist or anyone who CARES couldnt FIND the difference. YOU may think the Dems define themselves as not Bush but the obvious reality is when Kerry ran Bush was the encumbent when an encumbent is running he is always the issue and making the case your candidate is better is sound strategy. The same with the 06 congressional races saying do you really like what the party in power is doing? THEY are screwing up all over the place is sound strategy. The Dems say all the time what they stand for. What their proposals are anyone without the attention span to listen or read the actual specifics have only themselves to blame
Before challenging us to find a personal attack, you call Democrats "arrogant" and "bigoted," among other terms. Those are personal attacks.
The column is about Republicans not understanding the meaning of the word "hypocrisy." Being rich and saying we need to help poor people is NOT hypocrisy.
Take time to look up the term, and look up personal attacks while you're at it. Maybe you'll learn something today instead of trolling with GOP talking points.
No they are NOT. Bigoted? Wanna count the ALL Republican, Libertarian, etc. references. And neither "lapdog" nor "rightwing" have ANY meaning other than subjective, inflamitory and void of any substance. NOTHING is right OR wrong because YOU call it either.
Arrogant? Let's see? I've been told to go prove myself wrong, and several responses have spent paragraphs telling me THEY DON'T NEED to give me an example, IT'S there because they SAY it's there, Yeah, ARROGANT.
BWahler ...
Come on, take a deep breath!: We're happy to have you here.
Your forgot to flush yourself down the toilet. It's NOT Democrats that dominate the MSM moron, it's corporatist, warmongering, bigoted Nazi Republicans..
I forgot to add that Liberterians are the Republican Party's Useful Idiots, that's all they are good for, the Republican's second-banana rightwing fascist jackbooted stormtroopers.
bwahler1976 (PART I RESPONSES):
Bawler (dry those tears), your post was extensive, so I’ll respond by referencing paragraph number, rather than reprinting pertinent portions of your post.
1. Your rebuttal (listing “other phrases”) amounts to a tedious “Oh yeah?” Nothing of substance.
2. In another “distraction/Oh yeah?” … you attempt to attribute “fake sincerity” to the Clintons. One big problem with your formulation: The ACTIONS and POLICIES of the Clinton Administration demonstrated compassion and concern. Rightwing policy never does. Thus, Clinton demonstrated his “rhetoric” was sincere, and Hillary too (The GOP was HORRIFIED that her Health Care Plan might help those in need), whereas in the case of Republican Fake Sincerity, it is contradicted every time by what they DO.
3. An ad hominem attack on me (that’s fine), followed by the botching of a quotation about “distributing misery.” This kind of asinine rhetoric appeals to “dittoheads” who like their philosophies bite-sized and simplistic, but if given any scrutiny, falls completely apart. For example, your little talking point/quote suggests that taxing Bill Gates will cause him “MISERY”. This is easily contradicted by the fact that Gates and his father testified to the GOP Congress imploring them NOT to revoke the inheritance tax. See, not all citizens are rightwing zero-sum greedheads, who equate taxation with “punishment” and “theft”. That is just the Rightwingers who have no brain (such as, apparently, yourself). True patriotic citizens fully understand that taxation is a price to be paid to live in this great land, and a price they gladly pay. It's OUR land, and responsible people will pay for its upkeep.
As to the topic of “distributing misery”, another example is that “K Street” is chock-full of lobbiests whose entire job is to keep ANY social responsibility from falling on the wealthy, while passing responsibility (and suffering) for social problems on to the middle class and the poor. These lobbiests are very well paid, and their deep pockets provide SUCCESS in this “misery distribution” when the GOP is in power (and also, admittedly, to a lesser degree under Dems).
The POINT is, MISERY is constantly being shoveled on everyone but the very wealthy, by their great efforts and expenses to AVOID any misery (manipulating the laws). Since this distribution is already being energetically manipulated, for you to suggest that “liberalism” does it exclusively and unfairly is both boneheaded and disingenuous.
As to your admonition for Liberals (such as, let's say, UNION workers) to “contribute” something, I would be glad to compare who WORKS harder: A liberal coal miner, or a conservative CEO. (the CEO gets paid over 4000% MORE than the coal miner … does he really work 4000% harder? Really?)
BAWLER RESPONSES, PART II
4. You confuse a desire to honor the Constitutional separation of church and state, as being somehow “FAKE.” FYI, this separation is NOT meant to protect the government from all that good, moral church influence. It is instead to protect RELIGION from the fatal effects of having religion usurped by government … such as the religious persecution our founding fathers rebelled against in our Revolution. America doesn’t WANT this melding, but Rightwingers just can’t get that into their pious self-satisfied self-righteous brains.5. Here, you make the Republican talking point that Democrats “don't HAVE any SUBSTANCE.” Yet so far, you have accused Democrats of wishing to “spread misery” and of “screaming” to keep religion out of public/political discourse. You seem very afraid of these ideological and POLICY positions … as you (mis)interpret them … but the POINT is, you ascribe sweeping social changes to Democrats in power, while proclaiming they have no “substance”. These are blatantly contradictory talking points, BOTH wrong, but BOTH are what you claim.FYI, every debate and compaign is about a “COMPARE and CONTRAST” discussion. The CONTRAST part involves telling how your opponent is WRONG on the issues. Thus, it is entirely proper to focus a campaign on “NOT BUSH”, because a change from his disasterous policies is a platform that most of America WANTS. Even a change to doing NOTHING (which would require no "alternative" to be proposed.) Why you think it is an illegitimate thing to criticize those currently in power, with the results of their policies clear for all to see … well, it makes absolutely no logical sense.6. If you are correct that illegal aliens are voting to put Democrats in office, then this is a CRIME and can be prosecuted. Tell us where these prosecutions have happened? You claim there is “videotaped PROOF” of this practice. This would assure prosecutions. Where have they taken place? EVIDENCE to backup your charge, if you please.As to trading dirty tricks, it would be helpful if you would just list who’s doing these dastardly deeds. For your side, we have Karl Rove and Lee Atwater and G. Gordon Liddy as a starter list of those who ADMIT to interfering with the democratic process. What’s YOUR list?7. The definition of a Libertarian is someone whose million dollar retirement home’s value has NOT been decimated by a pig farm moving in next door. Such “Libertarians”, if faced with such a happenstance, quickly become strong advocates of zoning laws. I have no respect for Libertarians; their philosophy may be fine on paper, but in practice, it is entirely unworkable … and they KNOW it.More yadda yadda ad hominems about how “rude” I am … that’s fine … and also that you find me “miserably unpleasant.” Truman put it best. When asked why he was tagged with the nickname “Give ‘Em Hell Harry”, he said, “I don’t give ‘em hell. I just tell the truth, and they THINK that’s hell.” Rightwingers such as yourself are offended by the truth, and there’s nothing I can do to change that.
Darn it. Tex - you appear to insist on "having a life" - thereby depriving us of more of this vein of scholarly eloquence. Wall argued, yet as polite as Olbermann when he insists on referring to Bungle as "Mr. Bush". More frequent examples of this would do well to replace much of the bombast and low "humor" in which *I* trade, and perhaps others could learn as well.
TEX, the Constitution does NOT say, "separation of church and state", and back when READING it was part of grammar school, it was called "FREEDOM OF RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PRACTICE". "Separation" is a DNC bumper sticker that has displaced the meaning without all that mess of the "amendment process". The Ten Commandments are common to The Bible, Torah and Kuran; or between 2,500 and 3,500 "chuchs" (i.e. Church of England, ORIGINAL INTENT AND MEANING). And you know what? For 200 YEARS even the ATHIEST kinda liked 'em, just on the philosophical level. They really didn't see "A" church being ESTABLISHED.
Out of curiosity, is that the only thing you have to say to his long and detailed response?
Some principles of religious morality are common among other religions and legal standards. Some are not. There's no law about lying outside of federal investigations or while under oath (or similar circumstances) or about honoring your mother and father, or coveting. Why is that? The obvious answer is that those things do not affect society, unlike murder or theft. A society has to protect its members and discourage acts like that because otherwise, a system that has no such laws risks utter chaos with endless murders of revenge and/or preemption ("I thought he was going to kill me, so I stabbed him in his sleep...better safe than sorry"). As I've said before, it's not as if Moses announced "thalt shalt not kill" and the general reaction was "WHAT? Why the hell not?". This is something that societies can conclude is unhealthy for their existence without any religious influences.
In other words, just because there are some similarities between laws and religious rules, that does not mean the laws stem from them;the ones in common both stem from societal needs.
Regarding separation of church and state, you yourself cited the phrase "original intent". What did Jefferson say about "separation"?
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society...We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."
That's an interesting bumper sticker, the only one I've heard of designed for horse-drawn carriages.
O.K. TEX let me try. And I've wandered from the topic. If you wish, suggest a relocation or tell me and I'll leave.
But PLEASE. This is about YOU (DEMOCRATS). If you WILL NOT talk about YOU, without a SINGLE MENTION of "THEM" , I'll say bye and you can all go back to telling each other how wonderful you are. I'm serious. If you CAN NOT write 2 or 3 paragraphs without one "Bush", "Republican", you are nothing but spoiled children throwing tantrums; And I'm going to find some grown-ups to talk to,
"Perspective" I have a problem with (not saying you are wrong. Saying that if you think someone "touched" you inappropriately, you DON"T start screaming RAPE and MURDER:
Risk that your phone conversation MAY be listened to, Nazi, Big Brother, Secret Police. Yeah, Someone just tried to wipe out you ENTIRE RACE; They just EXTERMINATED your WHOLE VILLAGE; EVERY adult MALE in your FAMILY was just taken away in the might and EXICUTED. Your mom, sister, wife, daughter all just got RAPED. Oh, and YOU just got put in and institution for TALKING about it.
If you want to talk, TALK. If you want to SCREAM and STOMP and YELL and kick "THAT'S MINE! I want, I want, GIMME! I HATE you. THAT'S NOT FAIR". I don't give a damn if you only want a glass of water (YOUR glass of water) ; you're giving me a headache. Go in the other room.
THEN:
YOU LEGISLATE THOUGHT CRIMES!
Bias, Hate and Rage are all THOUGHTS: It's wrong to HIT you. It's NOT wrong to hit you because you are black, gay. And if you are going to tell me it is MORE wrong to hit him for being black than me for my wallet; pal, screw you. This is going to the mat. And I'M not the one DENYING anyone's "civil rights". EXTRA PROTECTION? That is EXTRA DEFENSE, not SANCTION. MORE POLICE, NOT MORE JAIL TIME. And if the LOCALS ain't enforcing the LAW (DOING THEIR JOB), you don't NEED to make it illegal. IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL!!! You MAKE THEM STOP. i.e. The most recent Dem. SOLUTION I know of; The National Guard to Alabama. And before you start pointing out the "imperfections" (ain't perfect. Won't EVER be perfect. It's DAMN better than anything you've done since.), I'll make a bet with you. You go look for a "white only" school in Alabama and I’ll go look for some "hate". Let's see who finds something first. Half measure, remedial actions, band-aids? Try FIXING the PROBLEM, instead of causing MORE problems. You do not NEED to deny MY rights to protect ANYONE else's.
I'll leave it here for now. Again, if you will NOT look at yourself, you are not capable of producing any society I care to share. I know that I've already lost society. I'd kind of like some intelligent conversation while the ship sinks though.
BTW, Bill Buckley and Patrick Moynihan disagreed JUST as much. But somehow, everyone got smarter and things got done; oh, and most of us even liked each other. We JUST disagreed on the best WAY.
"But PLEASE. This is about YOU (DEMOCRATS)."
This is actually not true, and I'll also add that there are fewer Democrats here than you'd probably expect. This is not about Democrats, it is about (1) Conservative misinformation and (2) Context. Our political reality has made these two parties so entertwined that it is useless to discuss Party A without being able to compare and contrast to Party B.
Conservatives will love the opportunity to talk just about Democratic failings with no political context - operating outside of context is, indeed, the conservative talking head's key weapon in both attacking the opposition party and in generating excitement in their core base of supporters who would rather not.. well.. do much thinking.
Thinking hurts. I admit that, and I'm not being witty or sarcastic. Political realities and political choices hurt my heart, hurt my head, as it's going to do for many people when we're not living in anything approaching a Utopia.
Thinking, however, is necessary if you wish to be fully informed even if you do still wish to stay partisan. In order to think well, you need all of the information available on the topic you're thinking about, and that includes taking things in context. In terms of American political parties, then, you must take in the context of not only history of the party, but also the context of juxtaposing Party A with Party B. In other words, this is not about ONE party, and it never will be. We cannot point fingers at Democrats for their votes on the war without mentioning the Bush administration's careful lies, jingoism and propaganda beating the drums of war. I can recognize that context and THEN blame the Democratic representatives for their spinelessness, but demanding that we remove all of this from its context is absolutely useless in any intelligent conversation.
Well, as far as the first name you get called, "hack" comes to mind. Nice South Park reference.
How about "uneducated"? You site some great examples of Hillary NOT being folksy. Good job.
Now why don't you actually try to READ what was written, to save yourself, your mother, and any unfortunate mongloids that will be spawned from your loins the embarassment you must bring to them on a daily basis.
See, ya got a point when THE MEDIA calls Hillary "folksy", until then you are a complete moron, proving YET AGAIN why anyone that calls themselves a "libertarian" (read:too chicken to admit they are a republican) is the lowest form of life on the planet.
Here's a little SAT like question for ya to answer, and see if you can get above 600 combined this time, nimrod.........
Libertarianism is to political science like Intelligent Design is to.......
a)Science
b)Screw it, all government sucks, and thinking is too hard, so I like Ron Paul
c)Pass the joint
If you can handle a COMPLEX thought. Libertarian TENDS (perfection occurs nowhere, exept you image of self of course.) to agree with the economic liberty CONCEPT described by Republicans and the social liberty CONCEPT described by Democrats. And YOU bastardize GENUINE "liberal" philosophy as much as any other party does their philosophical concept.
Here's one? You know what the "objective" of Communism, Socialism and Capitalism are IN CONCEPT?
Communism seeks EQUALITY.
Socialism seeks EQUALITY.
Capitalism seeks EQUALITY.
All, in concept, with EQUAL legitimate CLAIM. See, ONE WORD usually ain't ENOUGH.
Communist seek equality of CONDITION. Socialism seeks equality of RESOURCE SHARE. And Capitalism seeks equality of OPPORTUNITY. And on paper every ONE of the is PERFECT and BEAUTIFUL.
Communists have a RIGHT to a job; but YOU do NOT choose it and you WILL do the job they GIVE you. Socialist DO have a right to services. But YOU do not choose your doctor, lawyer, dentist, etc. You take what you are assigned; get a bad one? oh, well suck it up. Capitalist have a RIGHT to SUCCEED and accomplish what ever they can; but you CAN fail. If you are also a miserable person and no one likes you? You may even starve.
And once upon a time, we were ALL trying to find the BEST way. Now you just want to WIN. I could SHOW you thousands of reasons why life was SO much nicer for EVERYONE back then. (go ahead and point out that "blemish" of say 100 blacks dead and I'll agree it's wrong and show how 10,000,000 OTHERS, even the POOREST had BETTER lives) Real life "George Jeffersons" (SUCCESSFUL bus.men who were black) living next door to Al Franken would LONG for those "peaceful" and more RESPECTFUL days next door to Archie.
Honestly the tug of war has torn it up so bad, I don't even want it any more. You can have America.
>>I am Libertarian NOT Republican; and I am SICK of BOTH turd sandwiches AND giant douches.
Oh, that explains it. Just save us a few paragraphs and call us America hating statists right now.
You nailed it Tex ...
Thomas Frank in "What's the Matter with Kansas?":
"Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, farther to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower."
Chris Matthews what a Neo-con. I hate Chris Matthews now. Ty MMFA
Stunning, just stunning. Jamison Foser and MMFA - well done.
Foster:
This is actually the most compelling argument I've ever read of yours.
Yes, I think the media gives the Dems the appearance of being week on everying, while giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt.
But, you have to keep in mind where the Democrat party has gone in actuality over the last 30 years. This is no longer the Party of FDR and JFK. It is no longer the tough guy Union party supporting the working man.
Instead the liberals have become the Progressives and stand for Environmentalism and Feminism and contain several small subgroups pushing political correctness.
When the Dems go back to to a party of Principles of protecting the working man, supporting unions, and become tough on foreign policy (Tip O'Neal)...the media will change its tune.
I mean, just today, Bigalla was "Happy" with the Democrats he has running now.
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com
But, which candidate is the tough guy who will stand up for the working man?? It certainly isn't a trial lawyer with pays $400 for a haircut.
"But, which candidate is the tough guy who will stand up for the working man?? It certainly isn't a trial lawyer with pays $400 for a haircut."
Actually, that's exactly the guy who will do it. You seem to have missed the entire point of the article, and now you're falling back on repeating the same nonsensical and thoroughly destroyed "hypocrisy" talking point.
JFK, FDR and Thomas Jefferson were all rich. With a very few notable exceptions (MLK) it is always a wealthy idealist who stands up for the working class. I could care less that Edwards is rich - I love that he made the bulk of his money fighting the corporations for the little guy. I hope he enjoys the hell out of every penny. He typifies the American dream.
He scares hell out of the rethugs - that's why you won't see favorable coverage anywhere in the corporate media. This is a guy who started out with nothin and earned every penny. Give em hell, John!
Their pattern is to attack the strengths of the strongest opponents.
Edwards is rich. He could be just like them, and advocate for increasing the wealth of the wealthy while providing the bare minimum for those in need.
He doesn't. That's one of his strengths! That's why they attack him.
He looks good. It's not a great advantage to be good looking in order to be successful, but it never hurts. It will influence the opinion of some people, and it might be a deciding factor with some shallow voters, so they attack him for his good looks. What's he supposed to do with his natural good looks? It's not a character flaw, but they act like it is. He has money, so he got a good hair stylist to come to him, and a reasonable cost for those services is $400. Most of us aren't going to have haircuts like that, but if he can afford it, and he can, what does it say about his character? Nothing!
Oh Gawd Sue is back.
New name, same delivery, personal attacks and all.
This is posted in the wrong place, it should be under George aka Sue's post above.
- NotThatGeorge / Saturday June 2, 2007 12:10:47 PM EST
Wow, paranoid much?
I notice you didn't deny it. Interesting.
Paranoid? No not me, I have a cross to ward off your evil presence Sue.
If I recall correctly, Sue tended to capitalize a lot of words, much like Tex does. I'm not seeing that trend here, or any other obvious similiarity.
It could be true, but it would be nice if you provided some tiny piece of evidence to back up your claim.
1. I deny it, and you claim that my denial proves you are right because I could never admit the truth.
2. I admit it (which would be a lie, by the way), and you claim that my admission proves you right.
3. I correctly accuse you of being paranoid, and you look like a paranoid numbskull.
I'll choose # 3 every day of the week, thank you just the same.
As a victim of Sue and her hate, I do not see a similarity between Sue and NotthatGeorge. Sue and later Ellie was the most hateful poster ever to come on MMFA.
It's a longstanding "talking point" to simply dismiss Democrats as having no ideas, of being ineffectual and ideologically adrift.
Yet, this does not explain why Hillary is portrayed as SATAN by the Rightwing, a horrid radical feminist communist LIBERAL who will destroy our society. See, a person with no policy ideas and no ideological principles SIMPLY COULD NOT and WOULD NOT DO such a thing.
So, it's the big contradiction in rightwing rhetoric. They want to dismiss Democrats as irrelevant and non-entities, but at the same time they are railing against the candidates as if a Liberal Hannibal is careening over the hill astride rampaging elephants of destruction to society as we know it. O'Reilly's hysteria over the "Secular Progressives" is just one example of this irrational fearmongering.
It can't be BOTH, yet the rightwingers feel comfortable trying to have it both ways. Pish, posh, another weak ineffectual Democrat, WHO IS SO RADICAL THEY WILL DESTROY LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!!!!
LOL
Edwards is the guy that will do it?
And what in Edwards past would lead you to believe that he's the answer?
His extensive experience in government and international affairs? His philanthropic history of helping the needy and less privilaged(sp?)?
Wait, I know. It's his speeches. You might want to second source that...
I think the bar is set pretty low for the next president. I am no fan of Edwards, but as long as someone has a pulse and doesn't beat his dog in public, he/she is more viable than the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Wow, LDoren.I believe that you (unlike many of the conservative posters here) actually read the item, judging by the beginning of your comment.
I believe you understood at least some of it.
But it didn't last long.That shiny $400 haircut turned your head right back into a sieve.
And if it was you (may have been another) who recently posted regarding Chris Matthews liberal Democrat status, you might want to at least read the part about him one more time.
Wow.
There is no such thing as a Democrat Party there is a DemocraIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party
What a moron ..... get yourself off to Baghdad, outside of the Imperial Greenzone and make yourself useful.
Well I am willing to admit you must be an expert on morons what with your lifetime of experience being one. Since I utterly oppose this war I dont think I will be joining up to fight it. Why dont YOU find a high bridge and do the world a favor try bungee jumping with a rubber band
He's a moron because he calls posters on their faulty use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic"?
He's not the one using "Democrat" when the adjective should be "Democratic".
Either they're morons or they are purposefully using the wrong word. If they're doing it on purpose, he's not a moron for calling them out on that behavior. That's a smart thing to do. Too many liberals let the rightwingers deceitfully frame debates in the past.
NTGeorge, I think some of the replies ended up out of sequence here, I was confused as well.The moron comment may have been directed at an earlier post.
I'm quite sure Katz was intending that for LDoren, especially when you look at the trend of their other posts.
That makes sense I was shocked considering his other posts. It did show up as a response to me. If it was not supposed to be then I profusely appologize Katz. It was a non sequitar if posed to me.
Since it was apparently my moronic misused "ic", I'd like to try practice my communication skills (if it had only been an "is", I KNOW there's a tolerance for some fuzziness there). I've also re-evaluated my own "point" as well as "baggage". I apologize for my contribution to nothing more than mutual destruction. While I try to lower MY mental wall, I would also like to "communicate" the first domino which was never expressed; though essential to my part in the conflict. I will also consider other belief systems if offered.
Hypocrisy deals with motivation, intent and ya sincerity (which I should have recognized as a trigger). Fact is, I do not believe that "WHY" you stop at the stop sign, don't steal or "comply" with the social contract of consensus has ANY functional significance to the governments oversight of social order. Moral atheist, fear of God, to avoid punishment, or because your magic 8-Ball said to; absolutely no perceptable difference to any legitimate interest of government. Voluntary is PREFERRED over coerced because of its consistency and efficiency; but still not a fundamental factor or concern to governing. I probably should have passed on the very subject. If it does not cause an action or situation that violates me, you can say, think, believe and understand me to be ANYTHING you wish; and it can be for color, height, weight, hair-line, or color of my eyes. And if you cause damage to what is "legally" mine, a few "why's" MAY mitigate, but NO "why" can make it "o.k.".
I understand though, that this is a "perspective". Very pragmatic, functional and more concrete than one which requires knowing the thoughts of another. When "FAIRNESS" is progressively being allowed to override "JUSTICE" I get very uncomfortable with the amount of subjective, arbitrary authority with no shred of Constitutional authority. But it IS a perspective. To be honest, it also scares me that every historical instance where legal authority has been infected with authorization to coerce thought, it produced a chapter of unforgettable human tragedy in our history books; pick your motivation and make it as sincere as you like.
I will also identify, but not apologize ONE BIT, for a violent reflexive and very "sincere" DISDAIN for ANY application of the words Hitler, Nazi, Big Brother or Secret Police; and find dictator, oppression and many others surreal exaggerations (please allow any slipped in "you"s to be generic broadcast, not personal).
I know a Romanian who lived under Ceausescu. Over a beer I worked up the nerve to ask him this; "Have you ever lived in genuine fear?" His mouth could have said rumplestiltskin; the look I saw in his eyes does not HAVE words. I have SEEN original personal photographs of cordwood stacks of bodies so high and so long it was difficult to believe, but too close to the photographer to be abstract disconnected "history". And those guys from back in Viet Nam, the ones really damaged? Find one and ask him to tell you what it was that HE SAW that destroyed him (and I'll bet it won't something done by an "American"). SO, the sense of personal significance relative the ENTIRE REST of HUMANITY this expresses is VULGAR beyond expression. And I'll direct MY compassion at THOSE being used for the soapbox. There has never BEEN a phone call that should produce a feeling of kinship with holocaust survivors.
Didn't say it can't be discussed; just not as a GLOBAL scale violation of humanity itself.
If I can't successfully find a way to EXCHANGE IDEAS (assuming someone cares to) while ignoring the arguing I'll go away.
Thats DEMOCRATIC party,
LWHOREN
Get your shiite straight
Well done Mr. Foser. It is indeed troubling that the pundit class in this country cannot see how steeped in nonsense they really are. Giuliani advances policies that favor him and a very small segment of the population and yet that is deemed as not politically relevant. Edwards advances policies that hurt him and actually favor a larger segment of the population and yet he is crucified for it.
The corporate media is truly draining this country. As a Canadian who has been living here for four years now , I cannot help but feel sorry for the majority of the people in this country. Canada is by no means perfect, but at least democracy seems to mean something there. Guys like Matthews and Carlson and O'Reilly are laughed at in Canada. And yet, its really not funny. It is troubling and sad.
The main problem with all punditry is the dedication to the most superficial of qualifications of the subjects of their discussion. Haircuts, singing voices, age, more haircuts, jaw shape, blackness, even more haircuts. This has to be because of a lack of any in depth research, at all, into the history of ideas and actions of the person in question.
Also, if the MSM has a problem with a wealthy man talking about poverty, I challenge them to find someone who they might believe has real credibility as a person living in poverty or even the middle class, and let them have 30 minutes everynight to talk to pundits, politicians, speakers for the progressive, conservative, and neo-con factions of DC. I'd like to watch that show. Imagine: Tyler Perry Presents...Madea in DC.
I just wanted to give one perspective on one small thing that's really important. And that's about McCain's turtles. Now, I think John McCain has lost his way. I think he's like a movie director that's past his prime and some think they should give him the Oscar even though he hasn't done anything great in years. He's a total politician. If that's not damning, I don't know what is.
So here Media Matters gives a scenario that if a Democrat had named their pet turtles "Cuff" and "Link", they would be painted as elitists by the Right wing smear machine. However, there's a huge problem here, and it involves trivia.
Regardless of how you feel about Sylvester Stallone, he did write a movie that was nominated for ten Oscars and won three. In it, a blue collar Philadelphian triumphs and becomes a boxing world champion. And what are the name of the pets that this "man of the people" lives with? Cuff and Link. Two turtles named Cuff and Link.
Trivial trivia? I don't think so. Go ahead, Google "cuff and link" and see what you get. The problem here is twofold. The first is that Media Matters doesn't seem to be doing the journalism itself, while lambasting the press on a daily basis. The second is, ironically, that Media Matters not only construes a blue collar point of reference as elitist, they then seem to appear to be out of touch with popular culture, which leaves them vulnerable to the same charge.
Now some will say, oh, the Left knows about the Rocky reference, but if a Democrat had the turtles, it still would be misconstrued by the Right. C'mon. Really?
When looking at criticism of the right from the left, it is important not to gloss over when we make mistakes. Some will disagree—it's all about peace and love—but we want to be fair. We want to be what they're not. Am I right?
While I do agree that if McCain namd his turtles after Rocky, then the argument about McCain's elite turtles is not quite as relevant. However, if it were a Democratic candidate who named his turtles that, the MSM would jump all over said candidate, and, like everything else the MSM does, they would provide no subtext or explanation. They would simply bash the candidate for the turtles' names. I think that's the point of the argument made in this post -- not necessarily how McCain's turtles were named, but what they were named.
"they would provide no subtext or explanation. "
Like Media Matters has done here.
No, you're just so used to eating Rush Limbaugh out of the baby food jar on your high chair that you don't understand when you are being told the truth. I assume, as you are a Retardican, that you cannot possibly have had the patience or ability to read the entire article.
My hunch is that it's very simple--Foser either is too young to have seen enough times to remember the turtles' names the first Rocky movie, or wasn't as charmed by it as those of us who remember that Rocky's turtles, bought to impress Adrian, were named Cuff and Link. So one of Foser's examples isn't as good as the others because of his not knowing the likely origin of these names (and how unoriginal McCain apparently is). That does not weaken any of his points, which are well-founded. There are a dozen other examples that could be cited.
Once again, MMFA--great work!
How ironical that rightwing Roman Catholic con Matthews was so deeply offended by Clinton's misconduct, certainly more that he is by Bush's lying, murderous, preemptive holocaust of Iraq and..... at the same time he was so busy being offended by Clinton his hero Giuliani was having a flagrant affair with his mistress living with her in the same house, Gracie Mansion, right under his wife's nose, you know Giuliani's then wife, Donna, the woman Giuliani's mafia lawyer, Raoul Federer who was on the pundit shows at that time Giuliani's wife a "a stuck pig" Yeah this is the same outraged at Clinton, rightwing hypocrite Matthews, who has also never condemned the obscene sexual abuse of little, trusting children entrusted bu their families and communtiy for their spiritual education by Catholic priests who were the worst pedophiles and perverts in the name of God in the world.
Excellent, well written article!
Sorry, but I broke into a laugh when I got to part about Matthews swooning over a politician and a cigar. He does seem to swoon over things doesn't he...like the fit of Bush's flight suit?
Matthews: "....But he sat there with the cigar. But it was refreshing to me to see a politician with a cigar."
Since Matthews was one of Clinton's biggest critics, I couldn't help but think about pres. Clinton and his cigar.
Also not mentioned was the idea that Barack obama's smoking is a political liability, while Thompson's smoking is "refreshing".
HBL......exactly! I had forgotten that they have been all over Obama about his smoking, or not smoking.
Not to nit-pick, but there is a difference between smoking cigars and cigarettes. I don't think either should be a genuine liability or benefit, but one image is quite different than the other.
I disagree,
Smoking cigarettes can be viewed as "cool and refreshing" just as much as cigars. You see it in movies and advertisements all the time.
That's one way you see it. You also see it as a nervous habit, something people do to "look cool" because they think they need to do that, and something people can't quit and are basically subservient to. It's much more associated with something that people of lower classes do, as opposed to smoking cigars. You don't see any of those negative connotations associated with cigars, much more perceived as a casual, accepted activity, even to the point of being used in celebrations.
It's like two people are drinking, but one is drinking vodka and the other champagne. They are simply not the same thing, and carry different images. One is more accepted historically, and one is more easily spun into a negative.
I know what you mean, Brab. Still, "image" is the key word there.
Absolutely, the image should be ignored either way, as I suggested. Neither one has anything to do with governing.
But you didn't say that "it should just be ignored", you said that the "image" is entirely different. I am merely saying that either one can look appealing.
I did suggest they should be ignored, as I said:"I don't think either should be a genuine liability or benefit". With that comment, I'm obviously saying it shouldn't be a factor either way - it should be ignored. While it's possible to view cigarette smokers in that positive light, most of that perception is long gone, and they are largely pariahs. While the cigar fad came and went a long time ago, it's not looked down upon nearly as much in general.
To clarify, I think it's ridiculous for Matthews to play Thompson's cigar-smoking as some great benefit to him, but it's not really a case of inconsistency or hypocrisy because of the difference between the general views of the two different types of smoking. It's a laughable comment by Matthews, but not for any reasons having to do with Obama's cigarette-smoking.
I'd say it does actually. It IS hypocrisy, smoking is smoking... Don't cigars have a reputation of smelling bad as well? Like I said, if put in the right context, smoking cigarettes can be appealing to voters. Especially blue collar workers, union guys, construction workers etc.. who work long hard hours and tend to smoke cigarettes to relax after a stressful day.
I never ceases to amaze me that people don't see that MSM and people that own them are aligned with the republican party. If you think for a second that if the Democratic party would suddenly support the working man the MSM would treat them differently your delusional. There is hardly any union anymore thanks to Ronnie RayGun and insane Republican domestic policies not because of lack of support from Democrats. What does tough foreign policies mean? Starting wars with countries that are no threat to us? PLEASE.
Yeah! Hell, a MSM with any "fairness" would have demanded that Webb take that gun he violates FEDERAL FIREARMS LAW with and SHOOT Bush for asking "How's your boy". Especially when he asked AGAIN! I mean, REALLY! Webb TOLD him what his opinion was about Iraq policy. Why did he ask about the kid again?
All THIS MSM did was not even QUESTION how neither Tim Burton nor Pixar could make "how's your boy" offensive enough to invoke violence. But I guess that just proves how unfair they are to Democrats.
Yeah! Hell, a MSM with any "fairness" would have demanded that Webb take that gun he violates FEDERAL FIREARMS LAW with and SHOOT Bush for asking "How's your boy".
What? Webb did accidentally violate federal firearms law. How can any thinking person then suggest that those who overall support Webb think that his violation of that law demands that he shoot Bush? Delusional thinking at its best! Bush was challenged on his remark because of the context of that remark. I know quite a few Libertarians, and none of them support or supported Bush's invasion of Iraq. This has nothing to do with the fairness of the mainstream media. Leave it to a delusional person to link the two!
It's a Republican talking point, long since debunked on this site, that liberals want to silence free speech. Suggesting that we'd support silencing that free speech by shooting Bush for his offensive remark is delusional.
Excellent, Mr. Foser, simply Excellent.
Red pickup truck = shotgun and "one of them there huntin' licenses". By the way, did the pickup truck have a gun rack in the rear window? If you don't know, the investigation has not gone deep enough yet.
Considering that the "red truck" was a RENTAL, I highly doubt that, unless of course, they STAGED one on there to make it appear that the truck (and its driver) was authentic.
A pickup truck without a gun rack in the South would be a known setup (oops, did I just sterotype a group of people, my bad).
Thank you MMFA and Mr Foser. This was exceptional!!
Thompson maybe the Republican candidate that the people who supported and financed a folksie Goerge Brush can get behind.
An x federal attorney from Arkansas and close personal freind of Mr. Roves has signed on with Thompson.
Another excellent artical Mr. Foser, uncomfortable memories of past actions and words splashed across the phospher screen.
As shown on a close thread Shrub is getting some heat on his, I can't really call them plans, for golbal warming, from some media. I'll take it as a potential sign that the next presidential media evolution does not have to be the same old nightmare. The fight for fair coverager is best descibed with a few appropriate explitives.
For the larger view, its possibly trite and from an underground comic, I'm ok with that.
FIGHT THE OPPRESSOR!
Thanks - I think - for opening this can of worms. Too bad that it must be opened - it would be so much nicer if the lid were kept on it - but the issue of Corporate Media dictation of the narrative of the 2008 election must be examined if that dictation is to be countered.
I wish it were as malicious as you believe. But it is far more sublime, and fatal.
Both Journalism and Education have corrupted the very integrity of their profession. Both now claim "activism" does not compromise thier objectivity or performance. Most of our information is now provided by those who can say to our face, I intend to persuade you, but that won't affect my objectivity, HONEST.
Pass me the cool-aid.
Where's all those progressive Democrat candidates the article talks about? I see lots of right-wing conservative Dem candidates, but only two progressive ones and they get NO airplay, only the right-wing conservative ones ever get mentioned. Trying to paint the mainstream Democrats as progressives....more conservative disinformation.
There are no right-wing Democratic candidates.
Your partisanship is showing, RedKing. It's too bad you cannot be fair on this issue. You try and try to say that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same, but they're not.
Only Kucinich and Gravel are liberals and even Gravel stated he felt scared or creeped out by being on the same stage as the right-wing war criminals like Clinton or Obama. Face it, the Dem Party is conservative in the main, with a very small percentage of liberals in it's ranks. This is political REALITY.
REDKING:
Your constant battlecry that Dems and GOPers are "the same" because both are "conservative" needs some clarification.
Let's begin by defining in broad terms the extremes of political possibilities. On the left is Communism, a system whereby the theory places all means of production in common ownership. No private property, no profit motive, no competition ... only communal living where, again theoretically, everyone gets what they need from "the state."
On the right is Tyranny. Rule by elites, who control all the wealth, and a nation under tyranny populated by serfs or peons who own nothing, scrape out a subsistence living by working the lands of their "betters" FOR their "betters, and no rights, liberty, or freedoms. All is dictated, and the vast majority own nothing.
In America, we have a democratic republic. THE PEOPLE have the power, and it is exercised by electing representatives. Our economic system is CAPITALISM, which sets the political debate in America already on the RIGHT side of the spectrum. The Left AND the Right in America begin with some major assumptions which effectively eliminates the left half of the argument. Liberals in America are Capitalists, who participate in competition, profit taking, celebrating open markets (if FAIR), ownership of private property, and a desire to improve position over time by making ever more money. It is extremely rare to find an advocate of Communism in America, and when you do, that person is NOT a "Liberal". He or she is a Communist. Huge difference.
So, I understand where a true Communist would believe that both parties in America, Republicans and Democrats, are essentially "ALIKE" because both frame debates from the baseline of a "rightwing capitalist society". Neither side wants to change our economic basis.
If one is NOT a Communist, then it becomes clear that the Parties are wildly different. Republicans are top-down, trickle down, elitist supporting Plutocrats at heart, and wish for strong governmental support for a class society of haves and have-nots. With such ideological rhetoric as "self determination" and "personal responsibility", the rightwing articulates their belief in the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, every man for himself ... and if you have problems keeping up, it's just natural you will be picked off by predators. "Failure" is defined by rightwingers NOT as any circumstance, but instead by character flaw. The underlying belief is that human beings are fundamentaly BAD, and that the signal that evil has been overcome is MONEY; the more money you HAVE, the more VIRTUE you can claim.
Democrats are bottom-up, socially responsible citizens who believe that everyone can succeed, GIVEN THE CHANCE. Democrats advocate helping hands for those in need, and believe a nation as rich as we are can afford to provide minimal care ... food, shelter, medical care ... to EVERY citizen. It's not that our poor or our needy DESERVE or are ENTITLED to such care, it's that those of us who CAN help SHOULD, to define ours as a compassionate and caring nation. The underlying belief is that people are fundamentally GOOD, and that our NATION will be good only when all can realize their potential. VIRTUE is in deeds, rather than capital acquisition.
Self interest seeks good fortune for only oneself, while enlightened self interest seeks good fortune for THE NATION.
In broad strokes, these are the motivations and goals of the two parties in America, and they are wildly different, even though they share the same baseline of politics of the RIGHT; capitalism.
I'm gonna have to send you a mousepad to sign...because you and Solon are my heros :D
No, it's not political reality.
It's your false framing that does your argument no good.
When you generalize and falsely frame your opponents your argument gets distorted by that dishonest characterization.
There are some Democrats who are more liberal than others. There are some Democrats who are more like the Green Party than others. There are some Democrats who are more libertarian than others. There are no right-wingers who are running for the Democratic nomination for President this year.
Didn't Edwards 'rent' some poor person's backyard in New Orleans from which to make his announcement for the Presidency? His own backyard was not well-suited to the event. What with those tennis courts and all.
The difference is that Edwards didn't try to pass the New Orleans back yard off as his own. Thompson gave everyone the impression that the red truck was his.
If you don't call yourself a hypocrite, you should begin to do so.
Thompson rented a truck for a photo op, then wouldn't even ride in it for more than a few blocks before abandoning it!
On the other hand, John Edwards has a long history of activity like this. He did not use this backyard in a hypocritical fashion. That makes his totally different from Thompson. From the Povety News Blog
CHAPEL HILL -- Former Sen. John Edwards has left the UNC Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity he founded three years ago to make a second run for president.Edwards gave up the UNC job Thursday, the day he made official what he had long hinted and was revealed a day earlier when his campaign accidentally went live with his "John Edwards '08" Web site, that he will be a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.Edwards chose the back yard of a victim of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans' devastated Ninth Ward to declare his candidacy Thursday."We need to ask Americans to be willing to be patriotic about something beyond war," he said.He said that will include a National Call to Action Day on Jan. 27 where Americans can contribute their time to help enroll children in government health care programs, fight for an increase in the minimum wage or other efforts.Edwards, an extremely successful trial lawyer in North Carolina who built a personal fortune on the strength of some highly visible personal injury awards, served one six-year term in the U.S. Senate after being elected in 1998. He did not seek re-election to the Senate in 2004.In his letter of resignation to Jack Boger, UNC's law school dean, Edwards outlined what he saw as the achievements of the center he helped create and which is housed in the law school.The center's achievements, Edwards wrote, include holding conferences and panel discussions and, in April of next year, publishing a book of essays from a variety of scholars called "Ending Poverty in America."Edwards, a native of South Carolina who grew up in the mill town of Robbins in the Sandhills of North Carolina, graduated from UNC's law school in 1977.In his resignation letter, Edwards said the center had managed to raise enough funds "to ensure that the Poverty Center remains a permanent part of the UNC family and will be able to continue its work for many years to come."
Thanks for doing that! Normally, *I* wind up plumping for Edwards, but 'tis nice to have it done for me!
You're more than welcome. I was waiting for my wife to get her hair done for a wedding we went to, and couldn't pass up the opportunity.
I didn't pay too much attention to Edwards announcement, so I was curious about how far from reality the post was about renting a back yard. I also didn't know about his work at UNC. I'm not ready to make a decision about who to vote for, so I'm not as up to date as I could be on all the particulars about all the Democratic candidates. I lived in upstate NY until a few months ago, so I know about Hillary and that's about it.
Edwards' appeal to me arises from the fact that he is of humble beginnings, totally self-made, and made his in the course of seeking some form of justice for those too poor to attract one of the "big-name" firms, whether suing negligent doctors (at least according to the verdicts and settlements) or criminally negligent Corporations. And, he had to win to get paid, or even to recover expenses. There simply aren't any resumes approaching his in the running in either party.
So - Edwards from among those running - although no gastric distress in voting for any of the likely nominees; Gore IFF he jumps in, but still no distress even if he doesn't garner the nomination. A few of my bucks and a little of my time is a small enough contribution that I could just write it off to improving the Party, and line up behind the nominee.
(Policy aligns me more with Kucinich, although even he is a bit too far right for my perfect candidate - but fat chance that even with everything I could provide, he would win any delegates at all.)
On some of the Sunday morning talk shows today, they were talking about candidates that can win versus candidates that might meet any individual's ideal criteria.
I don't expect to get a candidate that meets my ideal criteria.
I do expect the MSM (I'm a dreamer, I know) to fairly cover those candidates so that I, and other interested Americans, can properly judge them. This week-end round-up by Foser is all about that - how the MSM is not providing what they should be providing to gain and retain the public's trust.
One critical paragraph from Foser's piece was this one.
"And while repeatedly suggesting that Edwards' wealth in some way conflicts with his policy proposals -- and that headlines about the purported conflict threaten to "obliterate" his campaign theme -- what has Marinucci told her readers about what, exactly, Edwards proposes to do about poverty? Not a damn thing. She hasn't written a single word this year about Edwards' actual poverty proposals. Just about how "headlines" (on pieces she wrote, by the way) about his wealth threaten to overshadow his policy message."
Is it any wonder that some of the numbskull rightwing posters on this site claim that Democrats have no positions on issues other than "not Bush", and that there are no Democratic alternatives? Marinucci hasn't written about Edwards' proposals, but has written about the Republican talking points about Edwards' hypocrisy.
He's not a hypocrite. Rich people can spend their money and still try to improve the quality of life for poorer people. Edwards has done that. He recently resigned a post at UNC that was created to fight poverty in the USA.
Wow, so you mean John Edwards gave financial help to a poor person in New Orleans while announcing his candidacy for president, based on a campaign to help the poor?
What a hypocrite.
Jamison,
Great story. If you want this to become an albatros for Thompson before his canidacy even begins, find out more about the truck. What was the year make and model? What was it worth at the time of the campaign? And how much did the campaign pay to rent it?
Just curious,
David
And when they parked in the driveway, did they prop it up on concrete blocks and remove the wheels?
ummmmmmmmm, could you please get those guys to run? i'd sort of like to see chris matthews' head explode on live tv.
hell, you just can't find entertainment like that anymore! :)
Bout time Michigan got a shout-out. And yes, I'm rugged and like country music, but I do not drive a pick-up. NASCAR? Don't hate it, don't love it.
Have a nice day.
Go Pistons!
Indeed, GO PISTONS! Although I continue to hope that we will wind up like the Deputy Mayor in Die Hard, observing that "we're gonna need some new officials". The next time LeBron lays that forearm shiver on Hamilton, I would like one who could read the rule on "pushing off". Or that dive he took toward the basket, where the only contact involved was him hitting the floor - but he still got the call. Oh, I guess I should just be happy the Pistons made the playoffs, and winning two is pure bonus.
EXCELLENT ARTICLE!
I have passed this on and the impact is impressive!
Nothing could have been better to clean up the false images put out about Edwards than for Thompson to enter the race so that others could see what a true phony is, one helped by the corporate media.
If the Republican party wanted to give their voters a real choice at a populist they would have helped Duncan Hunter, but a real populist is the last thing they want blue collar Republicans to even get a glimpse of.
If memory serves, Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) had two turtles that he named "cuff" and "link."
I watch Matthews and I’m always astounded, as his guests even at times seem to be but cover it politely, by his sophomoric analysis. This guy is so easily amazed and put into an almost child like stupor by the latest big flashy superficial lure and not afraid to express it. It was once said that politics is showbiz for ugly people. If that’s the case, Matthews is truly the gossip columnist of the beltway with about the same depth. But he is entertaining in the way Alicia Silverstone’s character was in the movie Clueless.
Why is it that the Republican candidates are always trying to make themselve out to be like the average American?
A Repbulican candidate's profile:
He's had eight jobs, now it only remains for him to double the list and make it sixteen. He's been a bartender, he's made pottery, he sold fish on the street corner, he's done bakery, he delivered newspaper at the age of 36, he's made small trophys for little leagues, he's been been a street hawker and now he makes little flasks. If he can only suck up to women he'll be on his way to the presidency.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the answer to MMFA's question is that the Chris Matthews of this world will continue to ignore things like this from Republicans and throw them up in the faces of Democrats until Democrats get on their shows and defend themselves and point out that Chris and his ilk are one-sided, ill-informed, and biased. Once there is a danger of Chris and his spluttering cable TV friends looking dumb (or so dumb that even the cable viewer can see it) then they will stop. We have all forgotten Governor Dean's lesson: fight back, be proud, stand up and stop acting like we are grateful anyone is even having a Democrat on the show.
"The illusion of authenticity is all that matters to the pundit class."
And why should we expect otherwise? Illusions are all they know.
Remember what George Orwell wrote in "1984:"'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'
God bless Jamison Foser ...
For exposing Chris Matthews yet again.
What a miniscule piece of filth this man is.
What a fantastic article!! I've taken it upon myself to write and harp consistently about this constant conservative millionaire's brainwashing assault on the sensebilities of our nation via C-span, NBC, Fox (they're hopeless) and not nearly as often, CNN. The buffoon Matthews is one of the worst as I've written every time I get a chance. I've written various Democrats and the useless DNC, begging them to boycott these partisan cable shows. They boycotted Fox and were supported and applauded for it. Media Matters for America should have its own television show for at least !!!!, an hour each week where it is given a free, unhindered hand to expose the hypocrisy of the MSM. Media Matters is all that matters to me anymoe, , it is all that counts in bringing the truth to power in the rightwing civil war that is being waged against this nation.
So i conclude, according to the republicans logic. Only poor presidents can help the poor.
I can also conclude, especially according to the last 6 years that the republicans will stoop to any level without shame. Even when their lies are public knowledge.
how much do you think he spent on the boobs for his trophy wife?
Chris Matthews runs his show by the seat of his pants. One minute he's drooling to Dan Bartlett that he should audition for host of Matthew's own show, and the next minute he's wetting himself with man crushes on 'Daddy" Repug candidates. He's nothing, if not fickle. Mc Cain and Giuliani are scratching their heads on how fast they were dissed by Matthews once Fred (Reagan?) Thompson ruminated strongly that he's in the race. 'Matthews, we hardly knew ye." Almost every guest is a Repug syncophant, and it's a rare sight to have any Dem, much less a Dem woman able to get more than a word in, edgewise. Matthews skewers the Clintons, then he salivates and hopes to "get" them to a live interview. He's venom behind their back, but honey and mollasses when Hillary actually showed up. Time to get a real pro to host that time slot. Bye CM.
Small critique to an excellent posting... John McCain's naming of his pet turtles as "cuff' and "link" is likey not a sign of elitism.. it's at worst something of a rip-off. Those were the names given to Sly Stallone's character's pet turtles in the original "Rocky" film.
VC
Given that Chris Matthews admits he's a liberal democrat who worked for both Jimmy Carter and Tip O'Neill, what is the point of this post?
I realize this entire site was created to fool people into thinking that conservative media bias is the real problem, and that liberal media bias doesn't exist, but you'd have to have a two-digit IQ to believe that.
Well, having just read the comments posted on this site, it seems that...actually, there's no polite way to finish this sentence, lol.
Have a nice day. : )
Yeah Matthews worked for Democrats WHAT 30 yaers ago back when Micheal Weinerdog Savage was still a radical lefty. That prove WHAT? I would respect your two digit IQ statement except I dont think yours is that high. better put some money away to hire someone to water you and turn you toward the sun twice a day. There IS conservative bias in the media of course it isnt only stupid people that miss that its also very brainwashed people like yourself. Did you think coming in here and regurgitating the propaganda parrot talking points given you by Hannity or Limbaugh or whoever makes you look like anything but a dolt? This site isnt fooling anyone its not trying to which is why it so heavily documents all its points. Of course like a typical brainwashed koolaid infused wingnut you dont need any facts you have an ideology. Facts just confuse your substandard brain. You so much prefer the lies that reinforce your delusional fantasies.
Roger, if you read Matthews quotes in the item, and still believe he's a liberal Democrat, you may not be ready for this site.
If you believe that the media is liberal, well, that's a little more subjective, but tends to suggest that you want to believe certain things, and that you get your information from comfortable sources that reinforce that.
Have a nice day, and please come back when you have something relevant to post.
HuntingtonBeachLefty,
I enjoyed this line of yours:
"Roger, if you read Matthews quotes in the item, and still believe he's a liberal Democrat, you may not be ready for this site."
We obviously disagree about Matthews, but it's pretty funny that since I don't agree with you, I'm "not ready for this site".
Your point is pretty clear: you don't want dissent on this blog, and anyone who disagrees with you isn't "ready". Why lefties insist on proving how intolerant of other's views they really are, I'm not sure. But you really should think before you post.
(The following is divided into several posts due to the 750-word constraint.)
Regarding this laughable notion that the media are biased to the right:Were you people saying that a few years ago when the only conservative media sources were the National Review magazine (read by how many people? 150,000?) and George Will for four minutes a week on ABC? (This is still the full extent of conservatism on ABC, the occasional John Stossel report aside.)Do you really think that talk radio, Fox News and the Washington Times have fixed the problem, the one you never thought was a problem when guys like The World's Most Trusted Man, Walter Cronkite, who only found the guts to admit he's a far-lefty AFTER he retired, ran the show at all the nets? The arrival of Fox New made the other networks conservative? Why didn't anyone complain about the conservative bias at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and before Fox arrived? What on earth is the difference between Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw? Dan Rather and Katie Couric? None. You didn't whine about conservative bias in the media pre-1996 because you loved the fact that all nets, most papers and most local news stations tilted to the left. Now your monopoly has taken a hit, and you people can't handle it.You like diversity? No you don't, or you wouldn't care about Fox at all. "Diversity", to a liberal, has nothing to do with a variety of opinions; "diversity" to a liberal means that the leftist point of view must be the only point of view allowed, but it MUST be expressed by a variety of genders and races. As to the amusing obsession with Fox, please consider how you would have felt if ALL the nets were conservative, and then came one upstart net ready to offer, for the first time, a variety of liberal points of view. You'd be pretty happy with that network. Yes, Fox tilts to the right, but that's called capitalism: people wanted a network that didn't tow the liberal line 24/7, a network was created to meet that demand, and it is still a decade later crushing CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.
I posted much of this on another thread a few weeks ago, so if something doesn't seem to apply to this site, that's why: There are more liberals at Fox than there are conservatives at all the other networks combined. Hell, on ABC, you can hear George Will speak for a total of 4 minutes every week. That's pretty much it for the conservative viewpoint on ABC, lol. Off the top of my head, here are a few lefty names from FNC: Mara Liasson, Ellis Hennican, Gerry Ferraro, Nina Easton, Cici Connolly, Estrich, Colmes, Rivera, Greta, Kondracke, Juan Williams, Neal Gabler, Gen. Wesley Clark. And the conservatives at all the other nets? Hmm...G Will, Novak, Scarborough, John Stossel once in a blue moon on ABC, and Tucker who suddenly discovered his libertarian roots when he was forced to leave CNN after the Clinton News Network cancelled the only two news programs on which we could watch righties, The Capital Gang and Crossfire. (Yes I understand that you’re programmed to say “if they work for Fox they’re not really liberals”, or progressives, or whatever you call yourselves today...tell that to Ms. Ferraro, Mondale’s running mate.)
Part 2
That's how lefties like their news, barely a righty anywhere. That's why they hate Fox. In their closed off, arrogant minds, conservatives have no place talking about or delivering the news. They simply shouldn't be allowed to do so. Why is it that I watch every network on tv--often just for the humor from the paranoid, simple minds like Olbermann--but lefties, who claim to be the champions of all viewpoints, can't watch Fox at all? I thought they liked hearing all points of view? I enjoy Hardball, Countdown, CNN's so called "news", but lefties, the tolerant ones, lol, can't bring themselves to watch a few conservatives on tv. How poetic...and pathetic.The people who run this site obviously watch in a silly effort to prove FNC tilts to the right (congrats, your the 31,374th group of people who have effectively proven something we've known for over a decade now! how proud you must be!). But at least they watch Fox (which is more than I can say for most liberals), though it does seem to be an unhealthy obsession, devoting an entire website to proving something established as fact years ago.People grew so tired of nothing but lefties on the news that it had to change eventually. It's why tv news ratings are down dramatically. It's also why, when the latest list of newspaper circulation numbers was released, only 4 or 5 major papers in the US saw their readership go up (Murdoch's NYPost, USAToday, WSJournal, and two others...the NYTimes, WaPo and the rest of the lefty papers--all down in readership). Why are more and more people reading the NYPost and fewer reading the "newspaper of record", the tired, sagging old gray lady? Is it because the Times' "news" stories are often just opinion columns disguised as news? Is it because columnists like Dowd and Krugman are allowed by their editors to lie and make up anything they please as long as the lie hurts the GOP? My favorite was when Dowd altered a Bush quote to make it seem like he said Al Qaeda wasn't a threat anymore. She truncated the quote with an ellipsis (...) so the reader didn't know that W had only said that the members of Al Qaeda who were dead or in jail weren't a threat anymore. The poor sheep who only get their news from the mainstream media thought Bush delared Al Qaeda was no longer a threat. A lie of omission is fine at the NYTimes, so long as it hurts a Republican. The NYTimes, All The News That Fits Our Views!Every network but Fox has been caught inventing phony news stories which for some reason always seem to hurt the GOP, the corporate world or the US military. But the lefties can't trust FNC simply because they allow conservatives on the air, heh. Liberals have long been the most closed-minded, intolerant people in America, and this site is homage to that indeed.In 1992 ABC News planted reporters in Food Lion stores years ago, making people think the Food Lion employees were selling rancid meat, dropping food on the floor and wrapping it up for sale without cleaning it off, etc. They lied to the world, saying these were the revolting actions of typical Food Lion employees. Of course, these morons worked for ABC News. A multi-million dollar settlement was reached a few years ago, even though Food Lion probably lost close to a billion dollars in stock value.
NBC tried to bring down General Motors with a story so laughably lame that it's still incredible to me that they allowed it on the air. NBC Dateline had a story in the early 90's about how GM trucks were blowing up due to faulty gas tanks. What liberals have against the businesses that bring them the tax revenue they (and the GOPers) love to waste, I'll never know. Anyway, someone at GM was clever enough to videotape this Dateline idiocy, and when they played it back slowly they noticed a lil spark near the gas tank right before the trucks blew up. Well, the reason they kept blowing up is that NBC had attached fuses to the gas tanks, lmao. This would indeed tend to make a truck go up in flames. The president of NBC News, Michael Gartner, and three producers as I recall, were all fired.
Part 3
We all know about Dan Rather's fake memos, and it still makes me laugh that he defends them to this day by saying "no one has proven they're false", lol. I still haven't proven that I didn't sink the Titanic, blow up the Hindenburg, or kill Nicole Simpson or JFK, and I thank God every day that Dan Rather hasn't come after me. Using his, umm, reasoning, logic, whatever the hell it is, I am guilty of all these things, since I haven't proven I'm innocent. I truly feel nothing but pity for the sheeple who still defend Rather ("the memos were fake but the story is true").CNN invented, with the help of the always amusing and occasionally treasonous Peter Arnett, a story about how we were using nerve gas on our own troops, defectors supposedly, in experiments in Laos. Unfortunately for Peter and CNN, the "sources" he used made it very clear that it never happened, and that only Arnett made the claim. He was fired, yada yada. What can you expect from CNN? The story was completely fabricated, and the NYTimes called it a "flawed" story, lmao.I could go on and on, since the Newsweek story about the Koran being flushed down a toilet actually got people killed (no evidence for that at all...the damn book wouldn't fit anyway, try it some time). The NYTimes kept that pathological liar Jason Blair on staff for quite some time even after they knew he was making up his news stories routinely.Fox, I'm sure, has reported things that aren't true, like all the nets, but they've certainly never been nailed inventing phony news stories.And yet, Fox News is the only network you people can't watch.
By the way, please consider that the reason you feel the media are biased to the right is because you, unlike most Americans, are so far to the left that all media sources seem conservative to you.
It is to laugh...
----"Chris Matthews admits he's a liberal democrat"----
We await your link to a reputable source where Matthews "admits he is a liberal democrat".
Dave, he's admitted this on his show. Aside from that, the anecdotal evidence is endless so I'll post my favorite Matthews quote:
Matthews, Oct 2005:
"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing. If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."
I guess he's one of those rare "conservatives" who has not only worked for Jimmy Carter and Tip O'Neill, but also thinks bin Laden isn't evil and simply has a "different perspective". Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not a rugged individualist but I play one on TV.
Folks! Come on!
What a great article, demonstrating in specific detail how two prominent media personalities (Matthews and Marinucci -- both of whom get labeled right along with the rest of the media as "liberal") often engage in serious abuses of objectivity and failure to uphold upright standards of reportage -- and all you can do is bicker about who is stupider, Democrats or Republicans??
Come on!
Don't get derailed. How about a serious conversation about the media in this campaign season? How about a serious debate about honest reporting?
Keep your eyes on the ball. If you want a silly insult-trading game, go to CNN.com, or one of the infinitude of general political blogs out there. Don't debase this site with such inanity.
Actually, recent comments have been much better.
(I'm sorry that I didn't finish reading them all before I commented. My mistake.)
Its not a completely unfair characterization. This site has quite a few pretty smart people posting. So you get both. Good insightful commentary and petty namecalling. As someone who does both I wasnt all that insulted by your first post.
wonderfully written and expresses exactly "what a tool" Matthews is.
I wish the Washington punditocracy had a "Q School" similar to golf where they had to maintain a standard of quality or "re-qualify."
I'd send Matthews, the Fox and Friends crew and Hack-In-Chief Fred Barnes back there. It could be a week-long playoff with those making the most stupid, illogical, patently false, intellectually dishonest and disingenuous remarks sent packing to a local cable chat fest in Lincoln, Nebraska. (no offense Nebraska).
Jamison Foser's "A rich man in a poor man's shirt" is a masterpiece, which should be reproduced in anthologies so that Americans will start to understand how suckered they are by the actually fascist "liberal media." What can be done to free the American nation, short of executing the people who hire and fire the fronts we know as "news" people?
Yes, Carla Marinucci really sucks as a political reporter.
You should see her sometime on Bay Area TV when she's talking about Ahnult. She gets really strangely giddy, giggling like some prepubescent school girl, almost incoherent, just about drooling. Well, okay, the drooling is an exaggeration, but it's really, really freaky how in LOVE with Ahnult she is. It's sickening, truth be told.