Who is McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson? And will the media tell us?
SUMMARY: The media largely ignored the
hiring of Terry Nelson to serve as campaign manager for John McCain's
presumed bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, and with few exceptions, those
that did report on Nelson's hiring have largely overlooked Nelson's
connections to various Republican scandals.
In mid-March, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hired Republican operative Terry Nelson as a senior adviser to his political action committee. More recently, McCain aides disclosed on December 7 that he had tapped Nelson to serve as his campaign manager for his presumed bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.
But not only have the media largely ignored this recent development, those who reported on it have largely overlooked Nelson's connections to various Republican scandals. Most recently, Nelson was responsible for a television advertisement attacking Senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford Jr. that many criticized as racist. Last year, the indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) on campaign finance-related charges alleged that Nelson was the conduit for money transferred through the Republican National Committee (RNC) between DeLay's political action committee and Republican Texas House of Representatives candidates. Questions have also been raised regarding his knowledge of the 2002 New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal. Moreover, Nelson's consulting firm employs a former adviser to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose 2004 campaign tactics McCain himself called "dishonest and dishonorable."
Both CNN's The Situation Room and MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann briefly reported Nelson's hiring on December 7, as did weblogs at The Washington Post and ABC News. Further, articles on McCain in the December 11 issue of Roll Call [subscription required] and the December 18 issue of Time noted that McCain had tapped Nelson as his campaign manager. And in his December 12 "Media Notes" column, Post columnist Howard Kurtz excerpted a December 7 blog post by Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Dick Polman on Nelson's hiring. But of the few mentions in the media of this development, a Media Matters for America search through December 12 found only three -- Time staff writer Karen Tumulty, Countdown host Keith Olbermann, and Kurtz -- who have made any reference to his controversial past.
Approved attack ad on Harold Ford criticized as racist
As head of the RNC's independent expenditure unit in 2006, Nelson approved a controversial advertisement attacking Senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN). The ad featured a scantily clad white woman posing as someone who "met" Ford "at the Playboy party." As the ad concluded, she looked into the camera, purporting to address Ford, an African-American, and asked him to "call" her.
As the Los Angeles Times noted, "Critics said the ad ... plays on fears of interracial relationships to scare some white voters in rural Tennessee." An October 26 New York Times article quoted Vanderbilt University professor and political advertising expert John Geer saying that the spot that it "is playing to a lot of fears" and "frankly makes the Willie Horton ad look like child's play." Former Republican senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen, on the October 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, said the ad made "a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment," and NAACP Washington Bureau director Hilary O. Shelton also denounced the advertisement.
The uproar surrounding the ad ultimately led Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to fire Nelson. Wal-Mart had hired Nelson's consulting firm, Crosslink Strategy Group, in 2005 "to help burnish its image after a wave of attacks from organized labor and liberal groups," according to The New York Times. As Media Matters for America noted at the time, The New York Times reported that Nelson "has worked for various Republican leaders, including President Bush and Senator John McCain of Arizona"; in reporting that Nelson "has worked" for McCain, the Times obscured the fact that Nelson still worked for McCain.
Implicated in DeLay scandal
In September 2005, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) was indicted on charges of conspiracy involving alleged illegal corporate contributions into the Texas state elections. Specifically, the indictments accused DeLay of, in 2002, conspiring with two aides, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, to arrange large corporate contributions to the RNC that would then be sent back to various candidates for the Texas legislature.
While Nelson has not been charged, both the conspiracy and money-laundering indictments allege that, as deputy chief of staff of the RNC at the time, Nelson received a $190,000 check from Colyandro in September 2002, along with a request that the RNC fund seven particular candidates for the Texas House of Representatives. The RNC subsequently carried out this request, issuing $190,000 to the seven candidates on October 4, 2002. From the money-laundering indictment:
(4) on or about the eleventh day of September 2002, in Washington, D.C. the defendant, James Walter Ellis, did communicate with Terry Nelson, deputy chief of staff of the Republican National Committee, and did request and propose that, in exchange for their receipt of a contribution of a certain sum of money from Texans for a Republican Majority PAC, the Republican National Committee and the Republican National State Elections Committee ... make political contributions to several candidates for the Texas House of Representatives that were supported by Texans for a Republican Majority PAC;
(5) on or about the thirteenth day of September, 2002, in Washington, D.C., the defendant, James Walter Ellis, did tender and deliver aforesaid check and did cause the aforesaid check to be tendered and delivered, to Terry Nelson and the Republican National Committee;
(6) on or about the thirteenth day of September, 2002, in Washington, D.C., the defendant, James Walter Ellis, did provide the said Terry Nelson with a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House of Representatives that were supported by Texans for a Republican Majority PAC ... to whom the defendant, James Walter Ellis, requested and proposed that the Republican National Committee and the Republican National State Elections Committee make political contributions in exchange for the committee's receipt of the proceeds from the aforesaid check, and that contained amounts that defendant, James Walter Ellis, and Texans for a Republican Majority PAC suggested be contributed to each of the said candidates.
Implicated in NH phone-jamming scandal
During Nelson's tenure as RNC deputy chief of staff, one of his subordinates, RNC New Hampshire political director James Tobin, conspired with several GOP operatives to obstruct the Democrats' get-out-the-vote effort in the state by jamming the phone lines they used on Election Day, November 5, 2002. On December 15, 2005, Tobin was convicted on one count of conspiracy to commit the commission of interstate telephone harassment and one count of aiding and abetting the commission of interstate telephone harassment. He later received a sentence of 10 months in prison, two years of probation, and a $10,000 fine.
While the degree to which Nelson was aware of Tobin's scheme is unknown, his name did appear on the government's witness list during the Tobin trial, as the weblog Talking Points Memo documented.
Consulting firm connected to Swifties
Nelson's consulting firm, Crosslink Strategy Group, counts Chris LaCivita among its employees. While working for a separate Republican strategy firm in 2004, LaCivita was a paid consultant and media adviser to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who launched a smear campaign against Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) based on lies, factual distortions, and baseless attacks on Kerry's Vietnam War record and personal life.
At the time, McCain called the Swift Boat Veterans' campaign "dishonest and dishonorable."














paid for all the legal bills of james tobin in the new hampshire phone jamming scheme.
battle garb...........
Media Matters: you're really upsetting the media's lazy "McCain-Straight Talk Express" meme, you know.
While Media Matters makes some good points regarding the msm's fawning descriptions of McCain, it seems that here some of their points are dubious. Let's take the criticisms one by one: 1) "Approved" an attack ad "criticized" as "racist." --The ad indeed was inappropriate and viscious--but MMFA doesn't point out that many, including Harold Ford himself, do not consider the ad to be racist. So should the msm note that Nelson approved an ad that some, but not Ford himself, considered to be racist? Maybe, but dubious. 2) Implicated in DeLay scandal--He was not charged with anything, so why should this even be mentioned? Even those charged haven't been proven guilty of anything yet. 3) Implicated in NH phone-jamming scandal--From MMFA: "While the degree to which Nelson was aware of Tobin's scheme is unknown..." if it's unknown, why should the msm speculate? Maybe they should, but dubious. 4) Consulting firm connected to SBVs--the consulting firm had ONE employee that was connected to the SBV's--he was not even a member. The attempt to paint McCain as a hypocrite requires a stretch so far that the argument breaks. In short, mmfa is right most of the time in showing the msm will not offer appropriate criticism of McCain. Here though, it fails.
The fact that the 2008 election is nearly two years away, this hiring is less than a week ago - well, this is quite a stretch to uncover some media bias here at all. McCain and others will probably go through half a dozen campaign managers between now and then, coupled with the strange bedfellows that politicians wrestle with back and forth, makes this much ado about nothing.
>>"What's the problem here?"<<
The problem,obviously (to most of us) is that all of the additional information you listed-whether damaging or exculpatory-was ignored or withheld, even the caveats you cited.
The media "witheld" information that mmfa deemed they should have mentioned. My question is why did mmfa deem this information worth mentioning? My first post was intended to show that it is not, in fact, worth mentioning as it would amount to pure speculation and conjecture.
It is NOT "pure speculation and conjecture" to state facts. And the facts ignored by the media regarding Nelson are as Media Matters cites. It is not speculation if the media says that many people consider the ads racist. It is not conjecture to say that questions have been raised or allegations charged by some.
No one is saying or advocates saying that Nelson has been proclaimed guilty on all counts.
My point, which you seem to have missed, is that the media can report all the facts, if that would make you happy, including the additional information that you cited above.
Dave - I agree with you... relaying factual information, by definition, is not conjecture. Am I missing something, or does this sort of argument come up time and again with the posters here? Seems folks really struggle with the idea of reality versus opinion. Relaying this guy's past work and affiliations is in no way conjecture or opinion.
I concede your point that these incidents can be mentioned as facts. But I'm curious: why didn't MMFA not note the exculpatory information that I raised in their own writeup of this account?
of the consulting firm was a paid consultant to the swift boaters. i agree that there is no definite proof here of anything but it's sort of a lay down with dogs get up with fleas kind of thing.
What "exculpatory" reasons? Just because some people don't consider the Ford ads to be racist doesn't mean they were OK. Of course they were racist.
MMFA's point is that this guy is in bed with the worst elements of the GOP, and McCain hires him. And that the media goes into adulatory giggle fests every time the senator's name is mentioned, and never critically analyzes anything he says or does.
The rules seem to be different for McCain, and that's MMFA's point. They right. It's called bias.
"the media goes into adulatory giggle fests every time the senator's name is mentioned, and never critically analyzes anything he says or does."...by carlileb5935
=====
Who are you talking about here, McCain or Barack Obama?
While it's TRUE that the media seems to give McCain a pass, their crush on Obama is MORE of a "giggle fest" by far. Where is ANY critical analysis of anything he says or does?
The media is biased. BUT they have their darlings from BOTH sides of the aisle.
What exactly are Barack Obama's credentials? What has he accomplished? He was a State Senator. Then he won an EASY election over a throwaway GOP candidate [Alan Keyes]. Yet the media is drooling over the guy AND he's being touted as a possible Presidential candidate in 2008.
And you think McCain is the media's sweetheart? Think again. He's got stiff competition.
IF the rules seem to be different for McCain, well rest assured that at least thus far, Obama is also the lucky recipient of those SAME rules.
>>Where is ANY critical analysis of anything [Obama] says or does?
You're not looking very hard if you don't see ANY critical analysis.
The Chicago Tribune, for one, has published critical articles on Obama, including his recent purchase of a connection to a crime figure, among other stories. And you can't listen to anyone talk about Obama without mentioning the potential liabilities of his relative lack of experience, his age, his middle name and his race.
Give the right-wing noise machine a chance to ramp up (particularly if Obama decides to run) and you will see PLENTY of --not just critiques- but Obama-bashing, as their past, disgraceful, mud-slinging record with Gore, Kerry, Clinton & Co. clearly shows.
Only recently, a Media Matters item highlighted Melanie Morgan's branding of Obama as a "Halfrican".
They're just getting started.
Just today, at Townhall.com, there's this: "Trouble is, there's nothing "new" or "different" about Barack Obama." The Barack-slams begin.
[link to www.townhall.com]
Critiques of Obama are deserved, just as with any other politician. They are there, if you look, and an abundance of criticism is just down the pike.
The ad was racist. I guess Harold Ford doesn't know racism when it stares him right in the face. Man you guys have such contempt for the man it really is quite despicable.
While I grant that there is much uncritical 'giggling' about Obama, it's still a novelty thing. But the favoritism towards McCain has been going on for years, and the honeymoon STILL isn't over. It probably will never be-- he is the conventional media's annointed pick for '08.
Ford is not the best judge of the campaign material lodged against him. Nobody would be, and he's not in a position anyway to make accusations of 'racism'-- he'd come off 'uppity if he did.
Just because something may be fact does not mean that it can't be misused. In particular, selective use of facts can be used to make false insinuations or assertions. A recent example that comes to mind is the use of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season by some to assert the non-existance of global warming.
My issue with IO's post is more on the facts themselves in this particular topic. On 3 of 4 of the issues mentioned by MMFA, the likely implication the reader may draw seems quite reasonable. Only on the NH issue do I agree with IO's point.
What's my problem with MMFA's reporting of the NH issue? I take MMFA's reporting to imply Nelson may have had knowledge of Tobin's illegal activity. However, the fact that Nelson was never called to testify could lead the reader to an opposite implication.
1) Ok - so remove the "racist" label (though I'm not conceding it wasn't) and you still have an ad that, in your own words, was "inappropriate and viscious." So, is that ok with McCain as long as it's effective?
2) The wheels of justice turn slowly. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Nelson, an "unidicted co-conspirator" was right in the middle of the funneling of funds.
3) Ok...the NH one is weak. That he was on the witness list, but never called makes this issue even weaker. Perhaps Nelson did know what Tobin was doing, but there appears to not even be a suggestion of that.
4) To clear this up, LaCivita was directly involved with SBV and their media efforts, efforts described by McCain as "dishonest and dishonorable." Nelson then hired LaCivita. Hmm...I guess effectiveness is more important to McCain than honesty and honor.
So, I'd say that with regard to their points, MMFA is 3 of 4. That seems to still be a solid case for McCain's hypocrisy.
1) I don't know if the ad was ok with McCain--the fact that he hired a guy who approved it does not necessarily mean he supported the ad. I suppose in your view, whenever you are friends with someone or hire someone to do you a service, you must agree with everything that person has ever done in their life. So care to state your hypocrisy argument again? 2) Figures of speech do not make an argument stronger. The fact that he was not indicted means he was not involved in any wrongdoing. Case closed. 4) Connections to SVB--I suppose McCain should have gone through this consulting firm and conducted a purge of everyone who ever helped/belonged to a disreputed organization. But I suspect he had better things to do. My point: MMFA is presenting these ommissions by the msm as if it were some deliberate attempt to prop up McCain when in fact, revealing the facts does not in any way reveal anything about McCain's character.
1) A business relationship involving the very type of work center to past controversies is completely relevant. That the hiring party approves of the past work seems to be a very reasonable assumption.
2) The fact that he was not indicted means he was not involved in any wrongdoing. Incorrect. There are many reasons that an individual who was involved in wrongdoing may not be indicted or convicted. This could include cooperation on testimony or technical issues related to admissibility of evidence.
4) Your point here is a bit better than the prior two. However, I believe it does further reinforce questions about Nelson's character - and specifically his business character - which is completely relevant to McCain's decision to hire him.
InterestingObserver; The lack of an indictment signifies that the prosecutor in the case judged the evidence of wrongdoing too weak to go forward. This might have been because there was "no involvement in wrongdoing," or because there was a plausible, exculpatory interpretation of the evidence. In such a case a jury is legally bound to accept the exculpatory theory, and it would be a waste of time and taxpayer's money to indict and go to trial. Lack of indictment may indicate, but does not necessarily mean, innocence.
Doesn't anybody know how to spell "vicious?"
Of course Ford had to say that the ad was not racist. He was trying to get elected in Tenn. He couldn't say it was racist because they we waiting for him with another so called "we don't see it as racist" comment. When you are black an living in America you pick your battles. This was one that Ford could not win, if he called the add racist or lose which he did by not calling it racist.
As for the rest they are not choir boys and they know what still works and to them, republicans win at all cost and explain later that they had no part or they are unaware of something that happened. After all in a 24 newshour cycle who will remember!
than you obviously do.
if ford did say it was racist........limbaugh show next day, caller one: "rush this is so typical. just cry racism everytime". caller two: "rush, this is nothing but playing the race card".
Who is he trying to kid? Ford couldn't have said anything, and since when would he necessarily be the best judge on their content, anyway? If he had claimed they were "racist" you'd say he was biased!! And the 'right' would claim he was playing the race card.
Nelson is in bed with the worst elements of the GOP, and McCain hires him. He's a rank hypocrite. And the majority of the media ignores it because they're fans of McCain. MMFA is right.
I'm BLACK. When someone is trying to make a quote "sedudle" remark I usually get it. I dont find racism around every corner but I get it when it's in front of my face.
PS: 72 years of living also helped
I'm BLACK. When someone is trying to make a point about race I usually get it. I don't find racism around every corner but I get it when it's in front of my face.
PS: 72 years of living also helped
That you clearly do not believe that Ford has integrity. You claim that he lied about his true feelings about the ad to help himself get elected. I do not think Ford would ever do such a thing, but that's where we differ. I take it you're not a big fan of the man.
i missed that somehow. and if you don't think every, and i mean every, politician avoids saying things at times, i've got some swampland to sell you. the american people can't accept the truth on most things. that explains the success of guys like reagan and bush, guys who just talk a lot of pablum and cliches.
He POSITIVELY DENIED that the ad was racist, MEFIRST. I'm sure you agree that there is a difference between "not saying the ad was racist" and saying the "ad was not racist." Stop being dishonest. In other words, Pearlene believes that Ford LIED to get elected. I personally disagree with him/her on this assessment.
As am I and I think the ad WAS racist.
Why is Media Matters so obsessed with a RINO Republican like McCain? You guys should be happy if McCain becomes President. He probably agrees with your views more than he does with conservative views.
the ones he holds this week, last week, two years ago, four? get the point? he has a tendency to change.
"the ones he holds this week, last week, two years ago, four? get the point?"
The views that he's held for most of his political career. Only recently has he moved to the right in order to get the Republican base to support him in the primaries. He's nothing more than a political opportunist.
at one time i thought he wasn't so bad, comparatively speaking. and if he got elected and the mood of the country was shifting right, that's what he would do, shift with it. so why do we want him?
...do you even know what that means? Your blanket assessment of all the purported 'liberals' who frequent this site is lame.
>>"He probably agrees with your views more than he does with conservative views."<<
Let's have a show of hands among progressives here who agree with Mr. Straight Talk McCain that we should send 20,000 more young soldiers into the Iraq fiasco.
HELL NO.
No more troops in Iraq.
I would not be happy if McCain wins in 2008. When you kiss that much ass you stink!!!
McCain would most likely be another puppet, like Bush. He rolled over and kissed Bush's ass after Karl Rove viciously slandered him in the Primaries. This suggests that he's not the "tough maverick" that his image suggests, but another political whore. This new campaign manager sounds like a Karl Rove wannabe, so it is very likely that the same power brokers that pull Bush's strings are now lining up behind McCain.
The last thing we need is another mindless, gutless empty suit in the White House.
He's one of the most two-faced liars on the planet. In-depth studies of his words versus his behaviour show that he talks liberal occassionally but acts fascist consistently. He only pushed that anti-torture bill to gain PR points and even then let the president slide on the signing statements...US still tortures and McCain knows it.
He's in the camp of the Enemy, an agent of Evil.
Considering your view, anyone who isn't a liberal is a fascist. No exaggerating or "two faced lying" on that one.
Nice to see you back. On McCain, I do not really trust him as his views seem to slide from right to left and then right again. One example is abortion. In 2000 although he was pro-life he stated he did not believe abolishing abortions completly was a good idea. Now he states he dislikes abortions completly. I think he is a flip flopper and will not vote for him. I was really upset with how he gave up so simply on the Detainee Bill as I was supporting him and the other 4 republican senators on that bill. I am edging towards Obama(I am not a Hillary fan) but if I were to vote GOP it would have to be Rudi Guilianni. He cleaned up New York very well and I respect him for that.
I am no McCain fan as I have said here before - his time has passed, in my opinion, and his convictions appear to be too flimsy for me, it seems his juicy appetite for the Presidency allows him to say just about anything, and cozy up to just about anyone who he feels can help him at that moment.
That being said, the fascist charge leveled at him by the poster above is ridiculous - that was my point.
McCain is a flip flopper but not a fascist. I dislike how he changed so much since 2000, becoming to close with the Nut Job Religious Right, but he still shows some sanity yet. A real fascist would be Pat Robertson...lol
He who sells our nation out to corporate interest and imperialist ambitions, in the name of ultranationalism and racism, is a fascist.
And yes, Tommy, if you aren't a liberal, you tend to support fascism.
"And yes, Tommy, if you aren't a liberal, you tend to support fascism."
So in other words, 80% of the American people are fascists? Wow. You're really going to win a lot of people over to your side with that argument.
that 80% of the country isn't liberal, you need to take that truth detector in for maintenance, because it is certainly malfunctioning.
Of course, you are the "truth detector," not the "truth poster," so that is probably why you posted that tripe.
"that 80% of the country isn't liberal, you need to take that truth detector in for maintenance, because it is certainly malfunctioning."
It's actually even lower than that. The exit polls from the last election showed that 16% of the American people call themselves liberals, 32% call themselves conservatives, and 48% call themselves moderates. 4% didn't know.
And how many people voted in the last election? I didn't realize that we had a 100% turn out!
Now I doubt 80% of the country is liberal but I also doubt the numbers TD cited are accurate. Everyone thinks they have a good sense of humor and are good drivers but that just isnt so. The word liberal has had a PR tsunami targetted against it and the one genius conservatives have is marketing. So many people who ARE liberal wont identify as liberal. Look at the polling on policy issue one by one and you find a country that is about as liberal as Finnland. I talk to people I work with (I tend to work with different people everyday from a pool of about 250. I talk about political issues and then I will ask them how they would characterize themselves politically very few say they are liberal but many SAYING they are moderate are fairly liberal on the issues.
I was talking about the people who actually voted, genius. If you think that all of the liberals just stayed at home, then that's your problem. Maybe you should do a better job of convincing them to vote.
Methinks you've gone a tad too far. Corporatist elements in our society love wedge issues because it has worked in the last few election cycles to increase their power through the gop.
No matter who does it, alienating our fellow Americans stinks. I don't think many of the self described conservatives I know would truly advocate fascism. To support free market practices does not automatically make one wish that fascism ruled. They believe that it will ultimately increase the standard of living in a free society.
You and I may believe that ungoverned corporatism can only result in fascism, but please don't demonize everyone else who doesn't share in that view.
nomination. We have no reason to be happy if the conservative McCain becomes president. The man is my Senator and he is quite conservative. I dont care if he gets the nomination. What I am tired of is the media fawning over whoever the GOP guy is while digging up ANYTHING even if its a lie to attack the Dem. The press crucified Gore for being dishonest when the man was clearly an honest guy, misquoting his comment about the internet to make it a lie when what he DID say is without dispute. Meanwhile ignoring Bush's outright lies. They gave plenty of time to lies about Kerry a decorated war hero and ignored the FACT Bush wasdiqualified from being a pilot due to a deriliciton of duty and going AWOL. How about a bit of balance here.
Solon, I agree the media is fawning over McCain [though I'm honestly clueless as to why] BUT they are ALSO fawning over Barack Obama and while he seems like a classy intelligent guy I FAIL to see what all the hoopla is about. The guy certainly appears to have a bright *future* [barring any missteps]--MAYBE as Vice President or President [someday]. But presently he is simply the darling of the media WITHOUT solid credentials to jump to a higher office.
And yeah Bush didn't have SOLID CREDENTIALS either...and we ALL know how THAT turned out.
bush had credentials. all the wrong ones.
But we're not talking about DUI here...
Great example of the balance requested here. The media loves a darling - maybe it was McCain at one point, now as you point out, it's Obama. Their political affiliation is largely irrelevant - as is the media bias hysteria ginned up by both sides.
We will see if the media continues its Obamamania IF he gets the Democratic nod. The Bush Gore election was a perfect example. They vilified Gore as dishonest while ignoring Bush's outright dishonesty. They LIED about Gore and let Bush have a pass. They character assasinated Dean as crazy when HE looked like he was going to get the nod though they liked him when he looked like an outsider with no chance. The GOP gets obvious deference the Dems get smeared.
That is all from your perspective. Others from different ideologies see it quite differently - they consider the mainstream media quite liberal and far more friendlier to leftward causes than those from the right. They often paint Christians, as an example, as kooks and fanatics akin to Falwell and Robertson - when the truth is their followers make up only a small minority within the religion. As for Dean, he was his own worst enemy - the media can't be blamed for his silly accusations against Bush when he intimated he was aware of 9/11 before it happened.
There was plenty of dish and dirt out there about Bush when he was running against Gore as well, his drinking and the perception that he was a dope.
So the media doesn't prop uo the right anymore than the left, overall. There are always exceptions, but by and large it's probably a wash.
the msm "often paints christians as kooks". on which planet would that be? the media kisses the rear end of most religious leaders in this country.
There are things that cannot be denied outright FACTS. The media LIED when they said (picked up off a republican website)That Gore claimed he invented the internet. What he did say that he took the initiative to create the internet is without disute also even Newt Gingrich and the guy who wrote the sourcecode that made internet navigation possible admit this. Turning a bit of hornblowing into a lie is bad. At BEST this can be seen as an exaggeration so they CHANGED WHAT HE SAID TO MAKE IT A LIE. Another thing that cannot be denied is that while the media was stretching reality itself to call Gore a liar Bush was LYING. outright undenialbe LIES. When he said he hadnt been arrested since 68, LIE. When he said he got dems and Republicans together to pass a patients bill of rights, a bill he VETOED. LIE. When he said by far the vast majority of my tax cuts benifit those on the bottom of the economic ladder though in fact less than 15% of the taxcuts benifitted the bottom 60% of the economic ladder, LIE. So they were twisting the truth to paint Gore as a liar when Bush WAS a liar and never called on it. It can hardly be called just my perception there is no disputing any of those FACTS. The media did NOT play up Bushes outright LIES anywhere NEAR the level they played up Gores exagerations. This is an OBVIOUS double standard. There isnt anyway out of that.
You keep saying the "media" as if it means every single outlet, mainstream or not, out there. Of course there are certain networks, news channels or newspapers more favorable to one or the other - that lean right or left. But for you to consistently say the "media" is making an unfounded blanket generalization when it cannot be done.
The point is you pony up 10 media bias' against the left, and there are 10 more against the right waiting in the wings. For anyone to deny that is living in fantasy land, or under their ideological rock.
Cough up the 10 media outlets and make them the big ones that not only PLAYED UP the issue of Bush lying but actually lied about him and not only pointed out that Gore was NOT lying, because that is just the truth but downplayed his exaggerations. Good luck with that
If you perhaps would peruse some other websites or information on media bias against the right, instead of just this one outlet that highlights it against the left - well, let's just say your viewpoint wouldn't be quite so skewed in your own partisan favor.
There is always another side.
the downing street memo to me. i mean you had a written document from the highest levels of the british government sayint that the proof for wmd was thin so the "facts were being fixed around the policy". seems a bush hating librul media would jump all over that. it was totally ignored.
Nobody is going to pay any attention to a far left propaganda document like that. That document was in about it's third form. It had already been re-interpretted and re-written about three different times before the media got a hold of it. No responsible media would ever report on that kind of left wing garbage.
did not deny it was authentic. he just said it was misinterpreted. sorry you're so uninformed.
Do you EVER know what you are talking about. NO ONE ANYWHERE denied its accuracy.
Britain is far left nut land. They've moved so far to the left that ultra-liberal Tony Blair is considered conservative to most people there.
If it doesnt fit your delusional fantasies on Planet Wingnut. Then it is either a lie or far left which I guess passes somehow for a refutation to you. NO ONE ANYWHERE EVER DENIED ITS ACCURACY. Facts dont mean anything more than something for you to run from. You so much prefer the delusional story you have made up in your head. Here is a clue. Reality is NOT dependent on you believing it
There's just no taking someone like that seriously. Either he's being contrary just for the sake of it, or he's delusional and his mind made up. Oh, for want of a filter feature. :)
If you really think that Britain isn't a far left country, then you are VERY far to the left. Britain is a quasi-socialistic country that has about ten times the amount of entitlements that we have in this country. They have nationalized health care and about a $5 per gallon gas tax. The people who live there have to take the Subway all the time simply because driving costs too much. Up until about a year and a half ago, their police weren't even allowed to carry guns. Tony Blair finally realized that the police needed guns in order to fight crime and terrorists. But private citizens there have virtually no gun rights.
They also have abortion on demand with absolutely no restrictions. They even have the government fund abortion. Over there, a thirteen year old girl who is 8 months pregnant can go get an abortion without even telling her parents. If that's not extreme, then I don't know what is. If you don't think that these views are EXTREME LEFT, then there probably isn't anybody in this country farther left than you.
you said that the downing street memo was "rewritten". total lie.
that you think anything halfway liberal is far left.
When was the last time you were in Britain? Do you even know what you are talking about?
Most people there prefer public transportation for regular use, as they would here if we had decent services in many of our cities. They much prefer their health care system to ours, because it is ATTAINABLE! Europeans love their social services, and think we're crazy for putting up with our cheap, selfish, profit oriented remnants.
"Abortion on demand" is a lie, too, as is your depiction of their wanton need to arm themselves. Do you right wingers ever bother about the facts, or do you just repeat what you hear on the radio from these hate mongers that you all seem to listen to?
"Abortion on demand" is a lie, too"
What exactly is the untrue part? It's a documented fact that Britain has no restrictions on abortion. That is called abortion on demand. Anyone can get one at any time during the pregnancy at any age and have the government pay for it.
do you mean inconvenient truths that conflict with your little fantasy land you think is reality?
Which is why CBS' Dan Rather rushed ahead with forged documents to smear Bush without the slightest interest in checking their reliability.
They were sent to the White House which didnt make any protest. The woman who DID write Killians memos confirmed the accuracy of their content. There isnt any question Bush was AWOL he has admitted making up the time months later. If he hadnt been AWOL exactly what would he have had to make up? And lastly it has not been proven they were forgeries. While I agree CBS should not have run with copies and deserved to get burned its ludicrous to pretend their CONTENT was suspect, it wasnt. You guys got away with making it about the documents instead of what was IN the documnets, you ought to be happy with that.
I AM a media consumer. I read newspapers and watched TV news at the time. I SAW firsthand. From multiple sources. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC. There was NEVER a liberal media bias. I have been hearing this since the 80's and what I know is I am a liberal and I dont see my point of view pushed in the media. It is, as I have said before not so simple as liberal/conservative but more of a business/elite bias. A conventional wisdom bias. It has been that way since I have been watching the media.
I'm the same way. You don't have to do research if you are paying attention to current events and especcially if you surf several media outlets on a regular basis. GoogleNews is the best. I love to watch stories evolve over the world's media. Watch the BBC news and you'll never make the ridiculous claim that our media is liberally biased. They are profit driven whores who manipulate and present events for maximum entertainment value. That is their bias.
"I have been hearing this since the 80's and what I know is I am a liberal and I dont see my point of view pushed in the media."
You may not have heard your ultra far left views anywhere in the media, but I'm sure that you at least heard mainstream liberal views.
The media bias doesnt break down to a liberal/conservative bias. It is a business/elite bias. We get the elite opinion and the business message. That manifests and socially liberal and economically which includes foriegn policy conservative. It will always be that way as long as media is paid for by advertising. You can call me far left but then you just called the whole country of Britian far left. I think its just that YOU are so far RIGHT you would embarrass Atilla the Hun. So EVERYTHING looks far left to you. I think I am pretty much a mainstream liberal. Maybe a BIT to the left of that. However that is a subjective judgement and not YOURS to make. Bottom line I am a liberal and MY views are NOT pushed by the media.
and know very little Tommy. Writing something with conviction doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Liberals are not by nature followers as conservatives are as studies have shown.
or ignorance? Hmmmm. Your perception that the media is liberally biased is flawed. This site should be enough truth for you. But you dismiss what you don't like to see so it fits into your ideology.
>>So the media doesn't prop up the right anymore than the left, overall. There are always exceptions, but by and large it's probably a wash.<<
There are hundreds if not a thousand or more specific examples on this web site of the media propping up the right by using and abusing misinformation-and that's only from the past couple of years. It's all very well documented.
It isn't enough by fact-based standards (not the standards the right operates on) to say "it's a wash"---as if that's sufficient evidence. It isn't. If that's all you have got (and it IS all you've got), it falls way short of making a case.
However lets see what happens if it looks like he will get the Democratic nomination. I also dont see the fawning over Obama. He speaks very well and the media has a tendency toward the cult of personality.However he hasnt been at the National political level very long. He MAY become something special but as yet I dont see it.
Because if you did, you'd realize that the 'McCain is just like a Democrat' line is not just a myth, but a blatant lie.
It's one of the many misrepresentations that the media engages in-- McCain's a 'different kind of Republican'-- and MMFA does a great job of exposing this by comparing all of the media flacking with the senator's real record. For some odd reason, most of the media are shills for McCain.
"For some odd reason, most of the media are shills for McCain."
That's because he is a Democrat in Republican clothing. He criticizes his own party constantly, and the media loves that. It looks a lot better for Democrats when a Republican criticizes his fellow Republicans than when a Democrat criticizes Republicans. That's not to mention the fact that McCain has liberal views on many important issues. For example.
Voted against Constitutional ban on gay marriage, voted to expand embryonic stem cell research, stated that Roe v. Wade shouldn't be overturned in 1999, supports strict campaign finance regulations, voted against ANWR drilling, supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, wants to end the interrogation program, voted against Bush's 2001 tax cuts, and believes that the government should take drastic steps to stop "man made global warming."
McCain is against TORTURE which in NO WAY means he wants to end interrogations. HE was tortured imagine him being against the US visiting such attrocities on others. With that sort of bias I wont bother to even check the rest of your list. What I KNOW is he IS a conservative according to THIS ranking he had the fourth most CONSERVATIVE voting record in the Senate this year
[link to voteview.com]
You wingnuts demand TOTAL conformity. He represents ARIZONA. The state is conservative but in a more libertarian Barry Goldwater sort of way than you far rightwingers can stomach. Keep eating your own. I love it.
"Keep eating your own. I love it."
Kind of like you guys did when you kicked Joe Lieberman out of your party?
joe started attacking his own party for criticizing bush.
says mccain said roe v wade shouldn't be overturned "in 1999". sure, and then last year he said he would sign a bill that would outlaw all abortions in south dakota. hard to tell which clothing he's wearing. i'm still waiting for a little truth out of you.
This is is no way an endorsement of John McCain. but...
Maybe Sen. McCain is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because he believes the Constitution to be a document that provides and protects the rights of US citizens rather than a means of denying protections to Americans.
Maybe he's for campaign finance reform because he feels the current system is bringing about the end of representative government in the US.
Maybe he is against "the interrogation program" because he swore an oath to defend the Constitution and believes that anyone who has ever worn the uniform of the US Military dishonors that uniform if they don't denounce treatment that could be construed as torture. This is a traditional, conservative, American value that is at the heart of our nations heritage.
Maybe he is against tax cuts when our nation has been attacked and our economy is reeling in the aftermath. Maybe he thought that a tax cut while preparing for war was un-American.
These issues that you espouse are not conservative issues but neo-conservative directives. True Republicans do not exist anymore. True conservatives do not exist anymore.
Conservative Republicanism has always been about smaller government, government accountability, non interference in private matters by the government, and fiscal responsibility by the government. Show me instances where present day Republicans or conservatives uphold these values. Tax cuts during wartime are not a sign of fiscal responsibility.
You can define the current administration and their supporters with one word and one word only, jingoist.
"True Republicans do not exist anymore."
So what Republican in the past did you consider to be a "true Republican?" It seems to me like the Republican party keeps moving to the left and towards big government. They're starting to become more and more like Democrats. Maybe that's why you can't recognize them anymore.
That's ridiculous. Are you aware of Nixon's record when in the White House?-- he started the EPA, etc. etc. And have you ever watched his debate with JFK? -- he sounds like FDR.
The Repubs have moved so far to the loony right nowadays that they can't be taken seriously by most people, except those with a religious agenda. It's going to be fun watching them try to regain the center-- if they're willing to.
is even worth commenting upon. He should learn to disagree with civility.
You may be right, but if a talk show goon or some other "rightwinger" says even something the least bit offensive, they are immediately scolded and jumped on six ways from Sunday - while many of these inflammatory comments by posters go unchallenged because they don't have a "national forum".
Pointing out the hypocrisy is part of the discussion.
This is also true of sites on the other end, e.g., Newsbusters. Of course, the roles are reversed. Civility would be nice and generally provides for a more interesting debate, but I guess some people are especially...ummm...passionate about their views.
As for McCain being a fascist, I really haven't given it thought. When someone mentions McCain, more my immediate thought is "political whore." To think I once would have considered voting for him had the opportunity arisen...not again.
This discussion brings to mind my favorite motto of the moment. To paraphrase William Graham Sumner, critical thinking is a habit.
Its ridiculous. He is a conservative with some upside and some downside. Demonizing him is without merit. I wouldnt want him as president but can think of several people worse.
McCain's willingness to allow war profiteering and the privitzation of the military are fascist. His coziness with big corporations and his unwillingness to rail against unfair trade practices is fascist. The conservative ideology of absolutely free markets is fascist. And his lame attempt at campaign finance reform also has shades of fascism. It's a fair comment. Let's not be politically correct and call a spade a spade. I question the integrity of anyone who would cozy himself up with Bush especcialy for political purposes. People gripe about Democrats lusting for the presidency. Willing to do anything to get elected. Meet Mr. McCain who allowed his good name and his wife's get slandered by Bush. He was willing to just keep quiet about the smearing of a fellow vet because it benifited his party. He's a fascist and so is most of Washington.
He has over the years shown the backbone to stick up for his principals when he disagreed with his party. That isnt often since he is pretty conservative. Even lately he has stood up before folding under pressure. He was changed a bit by the slanderous assualt the Bush people made on him in South Caroling in 2000 and by his smelling the Presidency. I mean dont get me wrong. He wont ever get MY vote, but I dont think he is as bad as all that. I dont agree with him being called a fascist.
posts on an internet message board is obviously just as important as what some Pundit tells millions of people over OUR airwaves. You really ought to give that tired and ridiculous talking point a rest. Its ludicrous on the face of it.
If your son or daughter calls a neighboring black child the "N" word to his face, it's no big deal as long as he/she doesn't use a megaphone to shout it louder? Absurd, and you know it.
It's not the volume of people that hear it that's the problem, it's the content.
For you to defend it either way is ludicrous.
the two situations don't even compare. and i have called red king on things he's said many times, as have others.
It's not a side step - many of you use inflammatory and insulting jabs all the time against some politician or talk show host you don't like. And you often do it by using similar schoolyard rhetoric in response to the exact thing you are complaining about - some insensitive and boorish thing they have said.
Bottom line, there is a double standard and it's glaringly obvious. Many of you can stoop to whatever level you want to because you are lowly posters and what your gutter language is somehow immune to criticism from the rest of us. Yet you are free to rail and rant against the topic thread, no holds barred. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, that's your problem.
the posters who responded to redking's post generally responded by saying they didn't think mccain was a facist. maybe you posted before you read them?
SOME posters here calling Republicans "fascists" is actually an improvement. They used to refer to them as Nazis on a fairly regular basis ;-)
The terms "fascist," "nazi" and their derivatives are banned from the public lexicon for the next 12 months, unless specifically describing European events in the early to mid 20th century?
Tired, tired terms.
Fascism describes so well what the Bush Administration has tried to do. I'm sure you've seen the list of characterisitics of a fascist state floating around; it sounds eerily like what's been happening here for the past six years. It's not a slander, just an accurate description.
Pretending they are the same thing is ludicrous on the face of it. There is NO double standard anymore than it would be considered a double standard that graffiti on a wall is not considered slander but the same thing written in a Newspaper CAN.
Tommy. You do your share of subtle jabs and you tend to use strange arguments that often don't pertain to whatever it is your talking about. Then turna round and belly ache when someone doesn't see it your way.
Who is making racist comments here? A better analogy is if you called your sister in law a sl*t a t a family barbaque because you found out she was having an affair that would be one thing IF you took out a full page ad in the LA Times to call her a sl*t it would be another. Keep pretending they are the same thing. Its not even close to a reasonable argument.
The point is if you call someone a jerk for calling someone else a jerk, then you are no better. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that out. Name calling is name calling. It may be less vocal or less publicized in various circumstances, but it's no less offensive.
the worst thing i see mccain called on here, beside fascist which i saw no one agree with, is a political whore. given his turnabout on issues in order to play to the right, i don't see that as any big deal.
I am speaking in broader, more generalized terms regarding poster etiquette and offensive language, not specifically about McCain.
you're blowing smoke? thanks for confirming.
Blow the smoke away from your eyes and you can see more clearly. Tough, but a good learning experience.
i'm gonna slink away and curl up in the corner after the whuppin you put on me with that. i might even have to do a sobbing farewell like you did.
like an insult. What is this the school yard? Lighten up Tommy. A lot of us come here to blow off steam. To rage a little at the machine. Some even pretend they are writing to the right wing slime ball du jour. If it offends you so much flag them. Otherwise it looks like a lot of whining on your part.
Tommy,
You have the patience of a saint. I have to hand it to you.
how many times can you come on here and whine about the same things over and over? doesn't stop our plucky little tommy.
For SmokingCorn
1) Flame&Run. 2) Hit&Run. 3) KarlRoveJr.
...at least as long as I've been reading MMFA. While I tend to agree with your general point, you'll never convince anyone with a generalized argument. Try it over on Newsbusters and see what happens there.
I'm not excusing the lack of civility. I am suggesting that you would have more success restricting your comments to the specific instance.
Do you submit that me calling you a crook because I am mad at you is the same thing as taking out a full page ad in the New York Times calling you a crook? Its ridiculous. Also I I disagree with the very concept, I say its NOT the same thing to just out of the blue call someon a jerk and calling someone a jerk because THEY out of the blue start it. I dont care if we disagree about that its a subjective judgement. what ISNT is the idea that its the same thing to be offensive on a internet website and to broadcast offensive material to millions of people under the AUSPICE of being a professional commentator. To even suggest they are the same is just dumb.
is really a jerk?
And keep it off the air. Keep public criticisms to the FACTS and legitimate complaints if they are going out to a national audience.
did you comment on it?
I violated my own comment! Just make it quick guys and gals.
Sen. McCain is a sellout, from embracing Falwell to caving into Bush on the torture legislation. I can't even see his own party cozying up to him and he's a Senator (unelectable).
He is abhored by the Bush apologists and the merry band of religious zealots called the Republican base. Some on the right actually think only liberals like McCain. Judging from this thread that's another ludicrous proposition. As a Senator he has his voting record to be torn apart by both parties. He has flip flopped on Fallwell and more importantly torture. Something he seemed so determined about and what did his "conviction" get us? Everything the president wanted. McCain has tried what eventually brings down politicians most. Trying to please everyone but pleasing no one.
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that this guy worked for Wal-Mart to combat "organized labor and liberal groups"? I guess we know where McCain stands on outsourcing, huh?
of us that go into any retail chain in America and buy any product labelled "Made anywhere besides the USA."
I really try to buy products that are made in the US. And there's no reason many of our products can't be made in the US and still be sold at reasonable prices. I'll also support local small business over larger corporations, even if the price is more expensive.
It's not much and won't help to stem the tide of cheap slave labor products until we actually do something about it.
McCain has always been fairly anti labor.
Why wound't the media report on Obama? Do you realize the attention the PUBLIC is giving Oboma? The media is actually doing its job by reporting on him because of the record number people that are turning out to his speeches, etc.
Great story from CSmonitor
[link to www.csmonitor.com]
""Right now, he's a rock star. Getting 1,500 people out on a Sunday afternoon ... says something different is going on here," says Jim Craig, former Democratic leader in the New Hampshire House. "
"The buzz about Obama has only continued to grow. He was the most requested speaker on the 2006 campaign trail, appearing with candidates in more than 30 states. He has also sold more than 350,000 copies of his second bestseller, "The Audacity of Hope."
Yes that must be the liberal media playing up the hype.
Do a simple google search, not all of the stories are the love fest you guys claim... 1st listing - CBS news "Nothing New or Different About Obama" Boston Herald "His novelty act won’t be eternal: After 2008, Obama may be stale" MSNBC - "Obama seeks to settle racial doubts" Ynetnews "A US president named Hussein?" Washington Post "A Battle Hillary Clinton Should Relish"
politician that's come down the pike in a long long time. Of course he will dominate the media for years to come. Look what we've had to endure for ages. His underlying message is one of unification, sorely needed after the media's ridiculous red state/blue state mantra of recent years. You bet he's gonna get attention.
But where does he stand on the socialist issues I value. And where does he stand on the economic conservative issues I value?
This intense media attention can easily obscure the bigger issues, and it can also easily burn so brightly that it burns him out.
Just some rambling thoughts here regarding the media's obsession.
As for McCain, I've wondered for six years now, how he could live with the crap Rove & co. pulled. Now with this Nelson chap, it becomes apparent that he's just part of the big odious DeLay machine. Oh well, Jonnie, we used to love your backbone, and we've always admired/respected/appreciated your time in 'Nam. It was nice knowin' ya.