Luntz retracted prior smear of Clinton as "shrill," now concedes it is "passion"
On the June 29 edition of the Public Broadcasting Service's Tavis Smiley, while leading a focus group analysis of the previous day's Democratic presidential forum, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY): "What I realized tonight -- and I've used the word 'shrill' to describe her -- what I realized tonight is that it's not shrill, it's passion."
As Media Matters for America previously noted, Luntz claimed on June 20 that Clinton's voice "turns people off."
From the June 29 edition of PBS' Tavis Smiley:
TAVIS SMILEY (host): Let me ask you a question quick, Frank. This got my attention standing behind the moderator's desk. When Hillary was talking about the Darfur issue, and she said very forcefully, "We'll shoot those planes down" --
AUDIENCE: Yes. Yes.
LUNTZ: Did you like it?
AUDIENCE: Yes. Yes.
SMILEY: I only ask that because, you know, the rub, unfortunately, the rub, in a very sexist world, the rub on women is they can't be tough on military issues. She said that line and delivered it forcefully.
LUNTZ: You know what I realized? What I realized tonight -- and I've used the word "shrill" to describe her -- what I realized tonight is that it's not shrill, it's passion. And when I watched her -- she would begin the answer, be very low key, and she would build. And you'd see the crescendo. I would see the reaction from them. The more that she went, and the more that she showed emotion, when she didn't hold back, the better that she did. Is that right?
AUDIENCE: Yes.
So, it's passion when a Democratic candidate is echoing, nay practically yelling, the Republican refrain of projection of unilateral U.S. military force as foreign policy?
What does that make of those who invoke the Progressive moral worldview of neutralizing genocide with international cooperation?
Luntz is a fraud, he is insinuating his conservative biases upon his respondents.
My understanding is that Luntz is supposed to analyze what audiences think about particular candidates and particular messages. The audience agreed that they liked this message of force statedby Hillary, even if it doesn't match your progressive tilt. That's not Luntz's fault.
Polling results have everything with the framing of the question.
For instance, ask a group if they like higher taxes? Nope, they wouldn't support a tax increase. Ask them if they would like to have free health care even if it meant higher taxes? The answer is overwhelmingly in favor of increased taxes.
Ask a group if they would support a death tax or an estate tax. Same question, different answers.
So, it is a matter of how the question is asked that determines the range of possible answers. The notion of unilateral U.S. militarism to solve international crises is part and parcel of a conservative worldview and Luntz's reinforcing such ideas, from a Democrat, shows a conservative bias. It has zero to do with what I want to hear, it's a simple fact.
Did you like the passion of Hillary's response to Darfur, or did you like the policy ideas in Kucinich's response? People are moved by emotion, even if Kucinich had a better solution, the emotional framing of the question constrains the response.
All the candidates were passionate, none more so than Mike Gravel. Do you think for a second Luntz would frame Gravel's desire to tear down the military industrial complex as passionate or unstable?
At any rate, I haven't yet, but would like to see Luntz's entire analysis for myself.
if you actually read what hillary said on darfur, she said that nato would be her choice to handle the situation, she would set up no fly zones to stop the government from bombing camps and villages in that area and would shoot down those planes that crossed into the no fly areas. if you want to criticize her, fine. but just saying that any use of force is what any right wing republican would do is simplifying the issue.
I watched the forum, I remember Hillary talking about NATO. Why didn't Luntz?
The sentence, "We'll shoot those planes down." is reflective of a conservative world view of unilateral military action. That's all. That is how Luntz is foisting right wing frames upon a leftwing focus group. He ignores the part of her response that deals with international cooperation, a left-wing view, and seizes on the PNAC dictum of hegemony.
excellent analysis, Roundhouse.
Thanks, Mescal!
So when Luntz says "Did you like it?" and the audience says "Yes", how is that framing the question?
No pun intended, but the framing depends on what "it" is. I.e., who knows what people were thinking when they responded that they liked "it."
He chose to emphasize and legitimize a sentence that activates a deep conservative frame. A frame that says our absolute moral authority to use unilateral military action as foreign policy is unimpeachable. That's how asking if you liked it frames the moment.
ROUNDHOUSE:
I just saw the great GET RID OF TAXES guru Grover Norquist on C-Span, and his mantra never changes. He wants to "let" ALL Americans "keep more of their money", because the government is just too damn large.
What he fails to mention is that the vast majority of Middle Class working Americans are JUST FINE with taxation, to have the nation run in a way reflective of a SOUL.
This means, for American's quality of life to exist, there are minimal chores that the government must see to. Like inspecting meat, building roads, providing minimal subsistance to those in dire straits, make sure everyone has access to health care services. Things like that, which keep our city streets from being overrun with those with disease, in suffering, hungry, and desperate.
Also, those Middle Class citizens are agreeable to paying taxes to have environmental concerns addressed, to run our courts, to have Social Security as a safety net for all Americans, and even to provide for museums, parks, libraries, and monuments.
Norquist wants NONE of these things. Norquist is a purely theoretical "MARKET FORCES" guy who believes (because he thinks it in his best interest) that government is bad, government is always wrong, government hampers prosperity. Theoretically, it's OK for Norquit to believe these things, but the primary feature of such thought is that the PEOPLE of America should have no SOUL. If the "Market" does not supply a solution to a problem, then it's not really a PROBLEM.
Sick and suffering with no cash? No Problem ... for Norquist. Strip mining your community and throwing pollutants into the stream? No Problem ... for Norquist. Elderly and frail and no income? No Problem ... for Norquist.
Norquist's SOUL ... and thus his GOD ... is the personal wealth of individuals, and the "exclusive right" to any benefits that go with that wealth. He wants Taxes cut to as near ZERO as he can manage, knowing full well that this benefits the very wealthiest enormously, while actually HARMING the quality of life for the vast majority of middle class Americans, who WANT and often NEED the services the government provides. They are services that an individual cannot possibly arrange, except of course for the very wealthiest.
An individual cannot reasonably sue a multi-million dollar corporation for damages caused by pollution or negligence of that corporation. That's how Norquist WANTS it.
An individual cannot demand fair wages, a safe workplace, or reasonable benefits from a company. That's how Norquist WANTS it.
Caring for an elderly relative with health problems is not the same as it was when most Americans lived on family farms. It can bankrupt the average family. Norquist couldn't care less.
To most Average Americans, their quality of life is a partnership between their own efforts and the combined will of all their neighbors, providing services from government that individuals cannot possibly handle by themselves. To Norquist, the resultant taxes of having a government responsive to problems and needs of the community is only one thing: a drain to the great wealth of the most wealthy ... who, without taxes, would be able to become even wealthier (at the expense of the SOUL of the nation).
So, if you are SOULLESS, then Norquist makes a lot of sense. If you HAVE a soul, you see that Norquist has the recipe to creating a permanent CLASS SYSTEM in America, with the very wealthiest having all advantages, and the rest of us scraping to get by, falling every deeper into poverty and dispair.
No thanks, Grover.
BRUCE:
Your analysis is about right, but your conclusion 180 degrees off.
Luntz stood by his "shrill" and "people hate the sound of her voice" OPINIONS, personal to him, up until he had the data of his own survey in front of him.
Where was the evidence to prove what he claimed was true? Where was the falling-off of support for Hillary as she spoke with her "shrill voice"? Where was the rejection of that annoying voice as she spoke to this crowd of people? It WASN'T THERE.
So, Luntz had to face a hard truth: By his own hand and methods (his "petard") he proved that HE HAS BEEN WRONG all along about this "tone of voice" thing he's been promoting forever. He's been attributing reactions of people to Hillary's voice, as if it was slowly disqualifying her from gaining office, and then this "test" audience shows that his "theory" is full of crap. And in a way he couldn't deny or spin. So he had to admit: "I was WRONG."
And so it always is with Rightwing Rheotic ... it is spouted as God's Gospel Truth, up until the point that it's proven absolutely WRONG. And Rightwingers are wrong about, well, EVERYTHING.
I still don't understand MMFAs problem with Luntz - regardless of his conservative bias. He is an expert in this subject.
You don't see conservatives asking that George Stephanoupolus step down because he was Bill Clinton's Press Secretary.
You don't see conservatives asking for Chris Matthew's to step Down because he was Tip O'Neal's chief of staff.
But, liberals don't even seem to notice when liberals are giving commentary about conservatives.
The only liberals the corporate media hires as commentators are either gelded or moderates.
Luntz is a snake in the grass Republican political operative, and just like the most subtle beast of the meadow, he is not to be respected or trusted.
It's all part of the campaign by the left (the party of speech codes) to shut down free speech.
Right, Leather. Free speech.
Tell it to the "Bong Hits For Jesus" kid.
Ask Brent Bozell who sends the most complaints to the FCC.
Anyone ever see the Luntz segment on the Daily Show? I think it says it all
More like part of exposing the the Republican agenda to pervert language.
Yes Leather,
That is what the left is all about......
Shutting down 'free speech'......
..... and the Fox Noise Channel reports the news without opinion or right-wing bias!
Can you name even one person from the left (or anywhere) that has ever tried to silence 'free speech'?
When Bill O shouts down someone that doesn't agree with him, has that persons mic turned off, or the video feed severed what exactly would you call that?
Or what do you call it when a 'debate' between Sean Hannity or Coulter and (name your lefty) and they resort to smug sentences and debunked accusations as their 'proof' for their side of the debate and the lefty uses 'facts' to back his assertions yet the lefty is smeared as un-American later on Fox
If that is your version of protecting the free speech of a bunch of nutcases its a damn good thing you are in no position of authority!
You also might want to take a course in how to properly use the 'free speech' argument correctly.
Go see Jonathon Turley at George Wash Univ, he'll explain it to ya!
Can you name even one person from the left (or anywhere) that has ever tried to silence 'free speech'?
How many times does a conservative have to stop giving a speech and leave an auditorium after being shouted down or assaulted or both before you realize how pathetic your question is?
You mentioned Coulter, so are you not aware this has happened to her a number of times?
I'm sure it's ok in your world to shout down or assault Ann Coulter because some think she's evil but it isn't. This happens to her and to other conservatives on college campuses all the time.
"I'm sure it's ok in your world to shout down or assault Ann Coulter because some think she's evil but it isn't. This happens to her and to other conservatives on college campuses all the time."
If they get shouted down...wouldn't you say the AUDIENCE is just exercising THEIR free speech rights? If the "conservative" speaker isn't shrill enough to talk over them...well, that's not the audience's fault.
As for the "assault"...the online legal dictionary defines it as: assault1) v. the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the danger.Personally, I think the guy that did that was out of line...but he wasn't a DANGER to anything but her dignity.
And the more dignity she sheds the better.
If they get shouted down...wouldn't you say the AUDIENCE is just exercising THEIR free speech rights?
Assaulting someone is not free speech. Of course it's their right to shout, but most people (conservatives and the few remaining open-minded liberals) shout their slogans and then shut up and let the speaker continue. Far-left liberals simply don't want to hear what conservatives have to say.
As pitiful as your explanation and attempt to rationalize this behavior is, it doesn't change the fact that liberals routinely prove they couldn't care less about free speech. Many of them are afraid of even hearing or talking to conservatives.
Again, Coulter has been assaulted on several occasions, most notably at the Univ. of Arizona. The closed-minded liberal freaks who did this were charged with assault, disturbing the peace, and criminal damage.
Author David Horowitz was assaulted at Butler University. He was also attacked a week earlier at Earlham College in Richmond.
When you find examples of liberals being assaulted while speaking, do let me know.
Thanks.
I agree when someone is asked to speak they ought to be allowed to speak. As for assaulted on numerous occasions please assaulted with a PIE? give me a break, the cream pie in the face has a history as political theater goint back to at least 1977 Other than the pie incidents cough up these several assaults.
yes solon but the liberals are the cowardly sensitive pansies
MAX:
Liberals assaulted? How about John, Martin, and Robert? None able to speak ever again.
Max is making a point here that we ignore at our own peril.
Oh gracious Lord... something must be done about these pie-wielding terrorists, or someone's bound to end up all sticky!
This has been going on far too long. The Arizona cell of these bako-fascists isn't the first to employ this dastardly tactic. There is a long history of these anti-establishment types resorting to such sugar-laced means of intimidation. Does the name Charlie Chaplin ring a bell to any of you? Or Buster Keaton? Or that infamous anarchist duo of Laurel & Hardy?
Word has it that these cold-blooded, dessert-dwelling pastry tossers are feverishly working on new technologies to aid them in their ultimate goal of wold domination. They have concluded that the traditional coconut cream pie lacks the wide splatter effect that is neccissary to leave much of the audience themselves literally dripping in foaming dollops of whipped cream. They are reportedly attempting to develop greater meringue capabilities. The British Government has learned that the bako-fascists have recently sought significant quantities of lemon cake frosting from Africa.
If we are to even hope to continue as a democracy, we have to be prepared to do whatever is neccisary to stop people who are willing to enter college auditoriums with pies strapped to their hands. We must be willing to suspend Habeas Corpus. We must be willing to send these dessert-throwing terrorists to the Pritican Center for interrogation & reeducation.
Good evening to you all, & God bless America!
To translate Mescal's post:
"I can't come up with any examples of liberal speakers being forced to leave the stage or having things thrown at them while speaking, so I'll just try and make people laugh about the ridiculousness of taking pie-throwing seriously, in the hopes that no one will notice that I, Mescal, don't have the courage to admit to the following, very clear bit of reality:
Conservatives don't force liberals to give up on speeches by refusing to let them finish, nor do they throw things at them in order to make them go away.
Only liberals do that to conservatives, and since we've fraudulently pretended for decades that we're the tolerant, open-minded, open-to-all-points-of-view intellectuals in America, this disturbing and obvious trend of liberals forcing conservatives off the stage is an embarrassment beyond mere words.
We aren't what we claim to be, and I for one will never admit it...so I'll stick to sarcasm and hope no one notices what I don't have the stones to admit."
(your tip for the day, Mescal: heavy doses of sarcasm only work, and are only funny, when based on reality)
Another example of neocons having no sense of humor.
Can you even define neocon?
Try to prove I am one, if so.
(strike 2 by the way...if you want to comment on the topic, feel free)
i can think of a liberal who was killed for his views. alan berg.
don't forget RFK, JFK and MLK.
so you have changed from assault to having things thrown at them and having to leave the stage because you cant come up with a answer for john martin and robert you are right conservavtives dont throw pies they shoot liberal speakers who actually make a difference
I just didn't think anyone else was this stupid, but since both of you need a reply:
The topic was about liberals shouting down and/or assaulting conservatives or vice versa.
Sirhan Sirhan was not a conservative. Oswald was a Marxist, so many MMFA posters should love the guy. James Earl Ray was just a lunatic.
Actually its not stupid here is your original assertion
When you find examples of liberals being assaulted while speaking, do let me know.
So John wasnt speaking but Robert and Martin WERE and they both meet this criteria. What is your evidence those shouting Coulter down were liberals other than they were attacking Coulter by that logic alone we could assume Oswald, who almost certainly did NOT kill Kennedy was a conservative along with Sirhan. Of course it doesnt look like Sirhan was a conservative and to this day no one knows why he killed Robert apparantly including Sirhan himself. It is far from clear Oswald was a Marxist. Why was he palling around with David Ferry a fierce anti communits and among the White Russian anti communist community in Dallas? He did renounce his citizenship and go to the USSR but when he wanted to come back he had his passport within 24 hrs which is awfully strange. Virtually nothing is certain about Oswald but my father was a Marine and they had a name for those who took Russian exams in the Marines, intelligence operatives.
If those RUDE LIBERALS in Ann Coulter's college audience would just SHUT UP for her to speak, they could be treated to her calling Gore and Edwards both "PHAGS", Bill Clinton a homosexual, and other equally enlightening and politically provoking commentary.
Allowed to speak, she uses the opportunity to the fullest to promote her political views, with lies and insults and hate language.
LET ANN SPEAK. She speaks for Rightwing America, and by their words they are known.
++ When you find examples of liberals being assaulted while speaking, do let me know. ++
Hm, not sure about that... but I can find some examples of liberals being ASSASSINATED for what they believed (and spoke about).
The fact that you continue to post here puts a lie to your claim.
It really isnt our fault that you dont even know what Free speech IS. When Luntz is arrested for saying something get back to us.
Sure thing. You absolutely NEVER hear conservatives complain about -or even MENTION- that Matthews and Stephanopolus both once worked for Democrats. Right-wingers never, ever bring that up, and of course never, ever would, because they're just so open-minded and fair.
Copious, that is laughable...
You don't see liberals asking Joe Scarborough to step down, even though Scarborough is a former Republican congressman.
You don't see liberals asking Bill O'Reilly to step down, even though O'Reilly says he's an independent, when in fact he's a registered Republican.
You don't see liberals asking Glenn Beck to step down, even though he's a filthy, lying, partisan conservative.
Come on, man, wake up!
And yet I see every week bumper stickers that say "Get Fox News Off The Air".
Remember when liberals at least pretended to care what others had to say?
i have yet to see the first bumper sticker that says that. i'm sure they might exist, but they are hardly all over as you claim. another unsupportable allegation.
I have also seen no such bumper sticker. I have seen plenty of Rush is right, Bush 04 even a Coulter 08 bumper sticker but never the one that says anything like get Fox off the air.
Mefirst,
Just because you've never seen the bumper sticker doesn't mean it's "another unsupportable allegation".
In fact, there are only so many people on earth with minds that insanely closed, so I'm glad not to have seen thousands of them. But I've certainly seen plenty.
Perhaps you'd like to buy one, so here's a link to the product you think is "another unsupportable allegation" from moi:
http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/PROD/media/g628
making it up again max? i said i'm "sure they might exist", but i have yet to see one. you're trying to make some point with a bumper sticker that does not seem to have the popularity you claim it does. excuse me if don't take your word for it.
Same here. I've never seen a bumper sticker like that. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen any bumper sticker that mentioned Fox News in any context. In fact, I am not aware of anyone campaigning to "get Fox News off the air". Keep them honest, sure. Get them to admit their biases, definitely. But not to get the network off the airwaves.
I haven't seen the bumper sticker you're talking about.
A very popular one that I see a lot is:
Bush's Third term: PRISON
I'm not sure if it's supposed to be funny, but either way, it works for me.
Gee I wonder why conservatives dont ask Chris, Bush shines with a sort of sunny nobility and reminds me of Atticus Finch Matthews to step down because 30 years ago back when Micheal Weiner was a radical lefty he worked for a Democrat?
Give Luntz his own show I dont care. I would prefer someone non partisan to do the polls about the Democratic debate. Why is that in any way hard to understand? If Al Franken was the SOLE commentator for the afterward of the Republican debates the uproar from the right would throw the Earth out of its orbit.
again its a CONSERVATIVE misinformation site
As a progressive let me go on record that if any conservative should call for Chris Matthews resignation I will support them 100%
This is why rightwing rhetoric is so stupid. Calling being hit by a pie an assualt. Hey enforce the law. I am all for it, whether illegal immigration or assault but please it was a pie and what are those numerous assaults again and please leave the pie tossing out when someone is seriously hurt by a pie get back to me. This is why rightwingers are considered MORONS.
Max, max, max...The left is taken seriously. The majority of Americans believe the things that the "left" stand for. Getting out of Iraq, stem-cell research, universal healthcare, just to name a few. The "right" is being marginalized further and further for their extreme ideological positions. And it is conservatives like you who show their desperation by coming to this website and spouting off extreme, nonsensical arguments in order to make yourself feel important and listened to because no else is anymore, Max. I feel a little sorry for you, a very little.
"Criminal behavior is ok with you as long as it, in your estimation, forces someone you don't like to shed some dignity?"
Nope, I never said that. I put 2 different thoughts in one post. "The more dignity she sheds..." remark stands alone, without qualification.
Personally, my opinion of speakers being shouted down is that it is rude. If you go to a speach INTENDING to make a point, it's much more effective, IMO, to just get up and leave. If enough people would do that, it WOULD get the point across.
For me though...I would just vote with my checkbook and NOT even buy a ticket. I can picket outside the venue for free, as long as I'm peaceful about it.
"Stop typing.
Forever."
Gee, is it just me...or are you trying to STIFLE MY FREE SPEECH? Why is this so different from someone trying to "shout down" a speaker whose message they don't like? Pot, I have a kettle I'd like you to meet.
"Not that I want you to shut up, it's just that perhaps someone you know will read this someday and ask "what the hell's wrong with you?". "
Oh, I get it...you have ONLY my best interests at heart, right? Sorry, I reject your protection. If some hypothetical future critic (just as YOU are a currrent critic) has a problem with what I wrote (as YOU have) they can address their concerns to me (as YOU have done) and I will address them directly...as I am doing now.
In the meantime, I will continue to do as YOU are doing...and use my free speech rights as I see fit.
And, BTW, I too have noticed you didn't address the issue of liberal speakers who DIED for their beliefs...as opposed to being "assaulted" with a pie in the face.
As I see it, there are two possibilities here:
1) Luntz was genuinely surprised and impressed, and spoke from the heart;
2) he's been intimidated by our response, sees lucrative gigs endangered, and wants to appear less ideologically driven.
Now why do I opt for No. 2?
Third choice: his (Corporate/Repugnant) masters have informed him that Hillary is the Dem they would choose to have nominated; therefore, epiphany - she ain't shrill, she's impassioned!
I agree. Luntz obviously wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee aginst his boss Giuliani.
4th Choice - He's doing a Murdoch. Eating humble pie and playing fair, because he knows he'll have much better chances to smear her down the line.
Your point is a good one though. Their choice may be Hillary, and perhaps their pulling the strings to get her nominated? They think she's the most "smearable," so she's their choice.
We'll shoot those planes down.
Luntz loved the sound of militarianism. The sound of the bodies being crushed under the wheel of the tank. The sound of the whistling rocket heading toward laughing and happy children playing in the playground, the sound of Boeing and Bank of America.
Hillary, the MMFA candidate, loved the sound of it too.
Leatherhead the MMFA moron loves the sound of his keyboard typing nonsense
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
It smells like... victory.
To copiousdissent.blogspot.com
Luntz works for the Republican party. Neither Mathews nor Stephanoupolus work for the Democrats. Hiring Luntz is like hiring Mary Matalin or Karl Rove to analyze (sabotage) the debate. All comments or analysis was through Republican eyes. Luntz doesn’t just lean right. He is on the Republican payroll!
Not merely his employer, but his censure by the very professional groups which are his "claim to fame", the foundation of his basis for appearing in public at all.
Just never forget that he was censured (no, Leather, that is not the same thing as having the liberals swipe his "free speech" rights) for misrepresentation (in the case where his poll results were accessible) and for refusing to allow his results to be accessed, in the case where the poll didn't even ask about the issue he subsequently proclaimed startling results for. Twice censured, by different professional organizations in which he held membership, years apart, sharing only the fact that his "results" were damaging to Democrats.
In short, in politics at least, if Luntz cannot lie about the subject matter, he is somewhat suspiciously silent.
Luntz was just play-acting to seem fair and protect his gigs. Past employment by Matthews (who has been documented by Th Daily Howler dailyhowler.com as virtually off his rocker with his anti-Dem bias) and Stephanoupolus is largely irrelevant given that their current incentives, co-hosts and messages and guests are tilted against Democrats and progressives by any reasonable measure.
Her voice can be, you know, shrill, at least to my hearing. But I realize, you know, that it comes from her passion for the subject matter. The voice at times, you know, does tend a little to the nasal side in that passion. But it isn't any worse, you know, than Lieberman, who sounds like he's trying to speak and inhale at the same time. Or GWB, you know, who tends to use a lot of vocal pauses (Um, Ah, etc) when he speaks without a script. There are a lot, you know, of other petty habits that speakers have that can be or sound a lot worse than, you know, an occasional shrill or nasal tone.
Is there a full moon? Or are you all just insane?
If Luntz describes Hillary's voice as "shrill" you all get pissed off. If Luntz describes her voice as passionate or emotional you all get pissed off.
What exactly would make you loonies happy? Or is whining your natural state?
Perhaps the mental asylum you've all been committed to shouldn't let any of you have access to computers.
Perhaps the mental asylum you've all been committed to shouldn't let any of you have access to computers....taz
===============================
Project much, Taz?
What I'd lie to see is Luntz fall on his sword as all conservatives and republicans need do. It would usher in the beginning of the healing process America so badly needs, as this nightmare of the bushco/GOP reign winds down. America has suffered enough, democracy has suffered enough, the Iraqi people have suffered enough, the planet has suffered enough. With their absence, just imagine the possibilities. The rebirth of the American dream first and foremost.
Taz,
Didn't you see my post? The only reason Luntz gave Hillary a high five was her language of militarianism.
Conservatives are closet communists. They have privatized the illegal war in Iraq paid for by tax payers money this is communism. All these private contractors of war are getting wealthy aka government welfare. These private contractors are paid ungodly money compared to the men and women who are losing their lives and are being maimed.
Our military in Iraq is nothing more than a free protection service to the war profiteers and the war profiteers are bleeding money from the tax payers on top of it.
Other communist practices of the Conservatives is the falsely named tax cut. This is really welfare, a credit card to max out and unload the bill onto the future generation, this is welfare no doubt about it.
There should be bumper stickers that read Conservatives are Communists.
Harlequin
As much as I generally respect & enjoy your postings here, I must take issue with you on this one.
Your description of conservative action far more meets the definition of FASCISM than of COMMUNISM. I know that the actions of the brutal Soviet dictator Joe Stalin largely fit the criteria that you have laid out, Stalin himself was far more of a fascist that a communist. In fact, NO ONE ever killed more communists than Stalin. He personally oversaw the virtual elimination of an entire generation of Bolshivics, convinced that their loyalty would be to communism rather than Stalinism.
So, if you want to argue that conservatives ( more specifically neocons) are really fascists, you've got me on board.
Glass houses...The criticism of the tenor of ones voice should be disregarded when it originates from the champions of the "decider".
Tax, LH, and all others of your political persuasion,I heard a very interesting discussion between Bill Moyers (on that Liberal network PBS) and a gentleman I had never heard before, Victor Gold. The discourse of these gentlemen is something you need to hear. I hope that everyone in America, Republican or Democrat, especially the Repub wing nuts listen to what Mr. Gold says about how the Republican Party was hijacked by the Neo-Cons who are trying to kill American democracy as we know it.Here is the link and if it doesn’t work go to www.pbs.org and listen to it at least three times. I believe that it is a real eye opener for anyone who is a thinking person.http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/watch2.html
It's kinda fun watching the republican party decompose, isn't it? I just make sure I don't run out of popcorn. This is the best show in town.
Yes, but a non-fly zone inplies that you will shoot the planes down. It was simply just get applause. Just like the red herring about "if woman 20-36 were the primary people with aids, the government would pay attention" which doesn't answer the question. It was again just to get applause. I can't believe people don't see through this.
And if this is true, how is Clinton any different from every other candidate, Democrat or Republican? Everything they say is for applause...and votes.
This is Frank Luntz here.
First, I'm criticized for being harsh towards Senator Clinton. Now I'm criticized for being positive towards Senator Clinton. You can't have it both ways.
Some of you then criticize my session because Senator Obama didn't do better, and therefore I'm hostile to Senator Obama, even though if you did your research you'd see that I have repeatedly praised his communication capability.
And third, the highest moment of the debate was Kucinich's comment about Darfur. We specfically gave people the chance to praise him, but the conversation turned back to Clinton -- not suprisingly considering 27 of the 33 participants felt she won the debate (even though ONLY 10 people came to the session supporting her). That in itself is incredibly telling. If I had cut all the 27 Clinton people off to force the focus on the 2 Kucinich people, you all would have screamed.
My group picked Clinton, and so did virtually every single reporter, analyst and reviewer. I did my job. Just ask the participants themselves.
I would expect Media Matters to acknowledge this. Perhaps that is too much to expect.
Thanks for your comments. But don't you know you've been discredited by MMFA? LOL...
>>"You can't have it both ways."<<
So Clinton's voice no longer "turns people off". Now it's "passion".
Talk about having it "both ways"...
Perhaps you did your job. I have no reason to doubt it and MMFA didnt claim you didnt do your job. You are lying in a bed of your own making. Why would a reasonably unbiased pollster tell us about how shrill Clintons voice is? It was a smear one that had no bussiness in reasoned discussion of a presidential candidate and was done because you didnt like her. Were you or were you not twice censured for your work by professional organizations. You might be a nice guy, you might have been fair this time but your history of bias should have precluded you from covering the Democratic debates and that is a history you have earned.
Could you explain this Frank? From the Covenant With Black America site, [link to www.covenantwithblackamerica.com] it looks like Christopher, Obama and Hillary lost ground While everybody else gained ground. Hillary won...by losing?
Could you, or anyone, show me your results? I'm having a hard time finding them with a Google search. Senator Joe Biden pre forum poll result .009%, post forum poll result.011%
Senator Hillary Clinton pre .186% post.123%
Senator Christopher Dodd pre .015% post .0%
Senator John Edwards pre .112% post .243%
Senator Mike Gravel pre .004% post .019%
Congressman Dennis Kucinich pre .025% post .133%
Senator Barack Obama pre .640% post .461%
Governor Bill Richardson pre .008% post .009%
Dave Obey (Congressman WI) says he doesn’t want to bring back the [un]fairness doctrine, that he wants to hear Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity [spout their stuff], calls them names, etc. on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Fine. I hope now that Republicans in the congress will feel free to call down ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times … and all of the other liberal-dominated, agenda drive media outlets as well, calling out their “news” reporters and their bosses by name.
Problem with Obey is that he’s not listening to Feinstein, Pelosi, and Reid, who have all said that we need to bring that rule back into AM broadcast.
The reason liberal talk shows haven’t worked is that the ideas they support can’t stand the light of debate, so when they're not attacking Bush or other Republicans or conservatives, they resort to emotional cliche's to support their ideas. You left wingers on this left-wing dominated blogspot do the same thing.
>>"Washington Post.... all of the other liberal-dominated, agenda drive media outlets..."<<
So absurd a claim that one doesn't even know where to begin. The Post, for example. Home to that bunch of liberals, Charles Krauthammer, Bob Novak, the warmongering Kagan family, the ultra left-wing George Will, and Post honcho Fred Hiatt, among others. Just look at that liberal domination.
The Post's editorial pages have consistently been Bush's bestest friend, promoting the fantastic war in Iraq each and every week without the slightest embarassment, right to this very day. The Post-where one can find pro-war opinion pieces by members of Dick Cheney's family, (without a mention of the relationship).
And one of the main reasons right-wing talk radio does well is, lamentably, the fact there exists a very large number of angry, white males who think of themselves as put-upon victims, and hear Rush & Co.'s dog-whistle calls to their inherent bigotry, sexism and homophobia.
"The reason liberal talk show haven’t worked is that the ideas they support can’t stand the light of debate..."
"That's it somebody cut of his mic".
OLDMARINE:
When the Dems took control of both houses of Congress in 2006, Limbaugh made stunning comments about how he had been furiously "carrying water" for the Republicans, who "did not deserve" his support.
In other words, he was peddling LIES to his audience that even HE didn't believe, but he did so because he felt his audience needed to be fooled.
My question to you is, did you REALIZE Limbaugh was lying to you all along, and just go along with it? Or were you SURPRISED to find that Limbaugh had been lying to you, hoping you would be fooled into believing in characterizations that were untrue?
That was excellent, well worth veiwing, all 20+ minutes of it. We really need the GOP to reclaim itself. To be more than a pantomine shadow play. Mind you it could be hard to find dramatic between the parties if they were to find their sanity.
I don't remember all the details of David Brock's telling of what he thought to be proper conservative attitude towards government, in "Blined by the Right." I don't remember finding anything objectionable. He may have renounced the NeoCon approach to government. I don't believe he renounced conservative values. Just as I think alot of people would not find much to become over wrought over. People could evaluate candidates for more important things than which political affilliation the candidate is.
Radical, a pipe dream, ok. Dreams drive us and I think this is a good dream.
If Luntz is still reading this thread: please stop making money by spinning and consider that for the good of the country, people need information. They need the truth and they need to see beyond slogans and framed language.
"We the people" are supposed to be the government through elected representatives, and can only elect wise leaders when we are informed and understand the issues. In my view, we should be promoting wise use of resources, conservation for future generations, tax codes that allow the largest amount of people to prosper.. instead of allowing only a small cadre of elites to prosper. Only by spinning and distorting, and through wedge issues can you convince people to vote against their own best interest. Please stop it.
Dave: There exists a very large number of folks, both white and non-white, who call into Rush Limbaugh’s show, and who are angry alright. They’re angry about the domination of the media by liberals, about the domination of the education system by liberals, and about the lying by liberals about what has been said by conservatives and Republicans and even about what liberals themselves have or not said.
It’s an insult to those Rush Limbaugh fans to be called “INHERENT bigots, sexists, and homphobes”. Note that I don’t call liberals names, but rather I claim that liberals rely on emotional clichés to support their arguments.
Thanks. You just made my point!
>>>"It’s an insult to those Rush Limbaugh fans..."<<<
Yes, you're so correct. I just plain forgot for a moment how very, very decent Rush & Co. & their apolgists--- er, fans--- are to everybody--no matter the race, religion, political belief or creed. And that they'd never think of calling any person or group of people a name.
You HAD no point you had a laundry list of rightwing talking points without substance about a supposedly liberal media and education system. Baseless assertions are NOT A POINT, neither are your delusional fantasies.
Solon,
Then you missed my point: Dave doesn’t advance any point by name calling; I quote: “angry, white males who think of themselves as put-upon victims, and hear Rush & Co.'s dog-whistle calls to their inherent bigotry, sexism and homophobia”
The issues under discussion (at least those I put forth) were the “fairness doctrine”, said to be unnecessary by congressman Obey, but in contrast, stated by Pelosi and Feinstein only days prior as needing to be brought back into play.
I also noted the Obey singled out conservative spokesmen by name on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, whereas no Republican congressman (that I know of) has ever criticized a member of the vast array of left wing “news” media for biased reporting and, yes, outright lying - the Haditha incident falsely (and probably knowingly) reported by TIME magazine being an outstanding recent example.
I still dont see a point. The very assertion that no GOP congressman has ever criticised the press for being liberal is a joke, I hope you dont really believe that. As for Haditha you say Time was wrong and probably purposelly misrepresented the incident for which at least five servicemen had pled guilty?
http://www.house.gov/delahunt/hutchins060907.html
Five of the eight men charged in that case have reached plea agreements with prosecutors, leaving three defendants to face trial this summer.
The following is the status of each Hamdania defendant:
- Hospitalman 3rd Class Melson Bacos: Pleaded guilty to kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap and making false official statements. Sentenced to 12 months in the brig. He was released earlier this year.
- Pfc. John Jodka III: Pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Sentenced to 18 months in the brig.
- Lance Cpl. Tyler Jackson: Pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and obstruction of justice. Sentenced to 21 months in the brig.
- Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington: Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and kidnapping and pleaded guilty to kidnapping. Sentenced to eight years in prison.
- Lance Cpl. Jerry Shumate Jr.: Pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Sentenced to 21 months in the brig.
Try some reality, it might be uncomfortable at first but eventually having some idea what you are talking about will eventually make it worth your while
>>"Dave doesn’t advance any point by name calling"<<
Does Limbaugh? Does he "advance a point" when he calls women "Feminazis"? Have you ever written a scolding letter to Limbaugh, asking him to stop "name-calling"?
It is my opinion that Limbaugh's base of listeners have, to one extent or another, a degree of racism, sexism and homophobia, and feel like put-upon victims at the hands of blacks, uppity women and gays. But hey-maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that base is really at the forefront of equal rights for all, and the "Barack, the Magic Negro" song or the "Reverum" Jackson quips fit into that belief. Somehow.
Solon:
My facts versus your “facts” on Haditha:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml
It was a setup and TIME magazine and the rest of your left wing media eagerly bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Stay tuned…
Regarding Obey’s calling out conservative spokesmen by name on the floor of the House, do you know of any Republican rep doing the same regarding ANY reporter or pundit in the news business?
Also, who is in the driver’s seat regarding where the Democrats stand on the fairness doctrine: Pelosi/Feinstein or Obey?I am sorry but a newsmax editorial saying some charges were dropped against ONE guy hardly means Time was wrong when FIVE SOLDIERS PLEAD GUILTY TO THE CHARGES. What part of five people plead guilty to the charges are you having a problem understanding? If Time was so wrong what prompted five people to plead guilty to the charges? Your editorial was a bit mute on THOSE facts so they are not compelling arguments AGAINST my FACTS. I dont care about the fairness doctrine but as for the GOP blasting reporters I seem to remember them BLASTING the Washington Post for reporting the Shiavo memo they DENIED existing until Martinez pulled it out of his pocket and gave it to a Democrat by mistake
If you lean right, you will see bias in the media towards liberalism. If you lean left, you will see the actual bias in the media towards right wing talking points.
I don't think the media is intentionally biased. (except for Fox) However.... The media is profit driven, and war mongering and rah-rah patriotism is profitable. Playing up trivia and not pursuing a story to get the facts allows the right wing to spin stories their way, which they are very good at doing. Luntz's job has been to spin every story to favor right wing ideology. The "war on terror" link every thing in Iraq to 9/11, "death tax" "clear skies initiative" "democrat party" etc etc.
Sometimes the story is not what is reported, but what is left out or ignored completely.