About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Ignoring their widespread agreement with national Dem platform, NY Times asserted '06 freshman Dems "fit the conservative model"

May 05, 2008 5:30 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: The New York Times asserted that Rep.-elect Don Cazayoux (D-LA) "fit the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans." In fact, the Democratic candidates who won Republican-held seats in the November 2006 midterm elections all backed key portions of the Democratic platform, and the vast majority of them also supported embryonic stem cell research and abortion rights.

54 Comments

In a May 4 article by reporter Adam Nossiter, The New York Times asserted that Rep.-elect Don Cazayoux (D-LA), who defeated Republican Woody Jenkins in a May 3 special election for a congressional seat that Republicans have held since 1974, "fit the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans." But as Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, here, and here), the Democratic candidates who won Republican-held seats in the November 7, 2006, midterm elections all backed three central elements of the Democratic platform -- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to privatize Social Security -- while the vast majority of them also supported embryonic stem cell research and abortion rights. Media Matters further documented that these central Democratic platform positions enjoyed strong public support. Additionally, as purported evidence that Cazayoux "fit the conservative model," the Times wrote that he "was close to Mr. Jenkins on social issues like abortion and guns; he spoke approvingly of Senator John McCain; he rarely if ever mentioned the Democratic presidential candidates; and he suggested he would buck his party if the district's interests seemed to call for it." But Nossiter did not mention Cazayoux's reported agreement with Democratic Party leaders -- and the American people -- on major policy issues, namely expanding health care coverage and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest earners.

On April 27, The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, reported that Cazayoux's health care plan was "similar [to] presidential candidate Barack Obama's" and that "Cazayoux said he would like the public to have access to the Congressional health-care plan and to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Plan." On October 18, 2007, 229 out of 233 House Democrats voted to override President Bush's veto on a bill expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). By contrast, 154 out of 200 House Republicans voted against overriding Bush's veto.

A separate April 27 Advocate article (found in the Nexis database) reported that regarding the Bush tax cuts, Cazayoux would "[c]onsider repeal for [the] top 1 percent of earners." Similarly, The Advocate reported on April 2 that Cazayoux said that "tax breaks for alternative-fuel developers could be paid for by rolling back tax breaks for the top 1 percent of the nation's income earners." According to a February 1, 2007, post on the Wall Street Journal blog The Wealth Report, the top 1 percent of earners in 2004 had income of at least $277,983. A February 2 Times article reported, "Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would extend only the tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 and then use the revenue from the higher taxes on the affluent to help pay for other programs." By contrast, the Bush tax cuts reduced the highest marginal income tax rate to 35 percent and "Senator McCain wants to extend the 35 percent rate indefinitely," as the Times noted.

From the May 4 New York Times article:

A Democrat took an open Congressional seat long held by Republicans in the conservative district around Baton Rouge in a special election Saturday, giving the party an early boost in its quest for an increased majority in the House of Representatives.

Don Cazayoux, a state representative, defeated Woody Jenkins, a small-newspaper publisher and former legislator long associated with religious-right causes in Louisiana, by 49 percent to 46 percent, in a tight race for a seat left open by the retirement of Richard Baker, a Republican.

Mr. Cazayoux portrayed himself as little different from Mr. Jenkins on social issues, overcoming the Republicans' depiction of him as a "liberal" in lock step with figures like the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Barack Obama, who shared billing with him in a barrage of Republican attack advertisements.

The two parties saw the Louisiana race as an important test for the fall, given how safe the district has been for Republicans for more than three decades. Democrats viewed a potential victory as a measure of Republican vulnerability; Republicans saw it as an indication of how difficult it might be to defend more than two dozen open seats in play in November.

Mr. Cazayoux, a low-key member of the State House and a former prosecutor, fit the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans. He was close to Mr. Jenkins on social issues like abortion and guns; he spoke approvingly of Senator John McCain; he rarely if ever mentioned the Democratic presidential candidates; and he suggested he would buck his party if the district's interests seemed to call for it.

Mr. Jenkins and the Republicans, on the other hand, sought to tie Mr. Cazayoux to his party's national standard-bearers at every opportunity, especially Ms. Pelosi. Television advertisements paired Mr. Cazayoux with Mr. Obama, and called him a "liberal" - a description that fit uneasily with Mr. Cazayoux's voting record in the State House of Representatives. He raised nearly twice as much money as his Republican rival, his fund-raising bolstered by Congressional Democrats eager to take the seat.

For two decades, Mr. Jenkins has been one of the state's best-known - and most polarizing - political figures. He led an effort in the Louisiana Legislature 18 years ago to enact the nation's toughest anti-abortion laws, which tore the state's politics apart. He was the Legislature's most outspoken across-the-board opponent of taxes and government spending.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wzwriter (May 05, 2008 5:32 pm ET)
         
      When did the New York Times get as loose with the truth as the Washington Times?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 05, 2008 5:34 pm ET)
         
      I believe I heard Rush Limbaugh float this same talking point right after the 2006 election. I guess if you're losing, it helps to pretend the other team is you.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (May 05, 2008 5:45 pm ET)
           

        I believe I heard Rush Limbaugh float this same talking point right after the 2006 election. I guess if you're losing, it helps to pretend the other team is you.

        Limbaugh has been losing brain cells for years. The process accelerated when he was popping enough OxyContin to l=make him lose his hearing.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (May 05, 2008 5:45 pm ET)
         

      I am not sure what the preferred jargon is anymore?  Many here, including MMFA, dislike the liberal label, especially when it's the "most', and now the conservative label is a no-no too.

      When you all decide what you want to be called, just let the rest of us know. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by archfiend (May 05, 2008 5:57 pm ET)
           
        Tommy, we'd settle for being portrayed accurately. Although that might be a bit much to ask for.

        "conservative" doesn't really do it, especially since the term has become so debased by the modern GOP. Maybe that's the idea?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 05, 2008 6:05 pm ET)
           
        You are full of it.  Show us where MMFA dislikes the liberal label? How about they dislike dishonesty and misusing labels? When YOU get tired of distortions and dishonesty why dont you let US know.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (May 05, 2008 6:08 pm ET)
             
          Check back on the whine threads about the "most liberal" label slapped on a Democratic politician affixed by some such outfit that MMFA decries, you'll find it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 05, 2008 6:40 pm ET)
               
            No I wont. Obama is NOT the most liberal Senator. That IS another distortion. It is not the case that you either allow yourself to be distorted or you dislike the object of distortion as I said many times. I would NOT want people saying I was a Methodist or Catholic. That doesnt mean I have anything against either denomination. Obama is running for President. That is all about letting the people know WHO YOU ARE not who your opponent wants to PAINT YOU AS. Your characterization is dishonest and without merit.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (May 05, 2008 6:46 pm ET)
                 
              So let's say for the sake of argument that you are a Protestant, you would be fine with being called a Protestant, just not the "most" Protestant?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (May 05, 2008 7:12 pm ET)
                   
                Is this the champagne argument you stocked up for yesterday?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 05, 2008 7:44 pm ET)
                   

                I think I would just shake my head at the abject stupidity of the meaningless term. You are being intentionally obtuse here. Obama is NOT the most liberal Senator that is plain fact. Why, while running for president SHOULD the other side be allowed to portray him as extreme or MORE of anything than he is? Why are you making such silly appologies for dishonesty by intentionally missing the point. It is very simple. You cant show a single place where Obama objects to being called liberal only to MISREPRESENTING him. You blur this distinction and PRETEND to something that is NOT going on in an attempt to give cover for dishonesty to take US to task for challenging DISHONESTY. You should be ashamed of yourself.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (May 05, 2008 9:43 pm ET)
                     
                  Don't stomp your feet with your unimpressive blustering and scoff at me for exploring YOUR religion analogy, if you won't respond appropriately.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 12:11 am ET)
                       
                    Dont be stupid. What exactly could MORE protestant POSSIBLY mean in that context. The point is I AM a Christian but NOT a Methodist or Catholic. THAT is what makes the analogy work. I dont have anything AGAINST Methodists but I dont want people saying I AM. ESPECIALLY when running for president which is largely about letting the people know who and WHAT you are, not WHAT your opposition WANTS to define you as for THEIR purposes. WHY would you use this dumb tactic to appologize for what is clearly DISHONESTY?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tommy (May 06, 2008 11:02 am ET)
                         

                      Stupid?  You were the one who introduced the religion analogy and then when you were asked a direct question to expand upon it, in the exact context in which you presented it, on this very thread, you call me stupid?

                      If it was so stupid then you had no place bringing into the conversation, you did, and you run from it now.

                      Piece of work....... 

                       

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 5:04 pm ET)
                           
                        Thats baloney Tommy. Do I really have to explain to you why the term more protestant has no meaning? Will you EVER understand what an analogy is? What is ISNT is exactly the same in ALL respects if it were it would be an EXAMPLE not an analogy. Can you really not see why that analogy is apt? I have nothing against Methodists, yet I dont want someone calling me a Methodist and misrepresenting me and I am not running for president. THAT is the point. Why would you go to so much trouble to make excuses for what is without dispute DISHONESTY? Are you really THAT invested in the continuation of such dishonesty? Does it really mean so much to you that such dishonesty NOT be exposed for what it is? There can be no dispute that calling Obama the MOST LIBERAL Senator misrepresents him in a way that allows his opposition to define him to their advantage. Why would you expect him to either allow that or pretend it is some attack on being called a liberal? THAT is also dishonest.
                        Report Abuse
          • Author by wookie (May 06, 2008 11:53 am ET)
               
            Because its a meaningless right wing talking point. Even if you could determine who is "most liberal" its obviously cited in a derogatory way. They don't compile lists of "most handsome".
            Report Abuse
        • Author by dave (May 05, 2008 11:23 pm ET)
             

          I think it starts with "Media Matters is a Progressive website..."

          Liberal was never mentioned.

          And out of curiosity, is Liberal better or worse than Progressive? IMO, they are both pretty bad.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (May 05, 2008 6:28 pm ET)
           

        I am not sure what the preferred jargon is anymore?  Many here, including MMFA, dislike the liberal label, especially when it's the "most', and now the conservative label is a no-no too.

        The labels are only no-nos when they don't apply, Tommy.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (May 05, 2008 5:52 pm ET)
         

      "...the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans"

      The guy who wrote that must have been out of the country in 2006, and so had to ask his friends how did House Democrats take the majority in such an impressive (Historic actually) fashion, as to not have a single incumbent lose their seat, versus 29 Republican incumbents losing theirs (29 I think I recall; maybe as few as 23: 23-0 or 29-0, it was a shutout that was an Historic U.S. first either way), and for Republicans nation-wide to fail to take even a single open House seat (another U.S. Historic first!)...

      It had nothing to do with "conservative models", whatever they are... and I know, because I was in the country in 2006, and followed the whole thing closely... more closely for sure, than did this guy's friends who misinformed him about it all, with that "conservative model" crap... that's what he gets for being out the country so long, and being out of touch and uninformed.

       

      Oh yeah, Mr. Cazayoux's election also confirms what we already know (and maybe the "conservative model" guy at the NYTimes might like to learn), that Religion anf Faith have so little to do with this '08 election, as to say it they have nothing at all to do with it.

      And Mr. Cazayoux's election might also mark yet another U.S. Historical first in a Congressional election: He might be the first Representative to ever have the letters x, y, and z, all in his last name... I can't be sure, maybe the "conservative model" guy's friends have the answer to that one too.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by werner (May 05, 2008 6:06 pm ET)
         

      The so called liberal media  just LOVE to say that Congressional Democrats are actuallly white, right wing conservative Dixiecrats.

       

      It makes them feel better.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (May 05, 2008 6:31 pm ET)
           
        I think they may spend too much time with their Dem. strawmen and fantasy Republicans. If a Dem gets elected, doesn't raise taxes tenfold,make gay marriage mandatory or surrender to some vague enemy, the media are completely confused.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 05, 2008 6:42 pm ET)
             
          I'm still interested in that concoction you put together for baked taters. Ketchup, curry and hot sauce - in what proportions? I'm interested in trying it, I like trying new things.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mr. l (May 05, 2008 7:05 pm ET)
               
            What??  What?  I've been away for a day or so... what about this delicious sounding food that I want to consume...? 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (May 05, 2008 7:14 pm ET)
                 
              It's the Colonel's secret sauce recipe that he hinted at in the first thread of the day. We're still waiting. ..
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (May 05, 2008 7:24 pm ET)
               

            Oh, sorry, Snoop, I thought you were joking. I wouldn't call it a  "recipe", I just sometimes put ketchup on my spuds, but first I mix it up with a little curry powder and a shot of hot sauce(like a Tapatio, red stuff) in it.  "to taste", like they say.

            I go through other phases of horseradish/mustard combos that are pretty painful.

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (May 05, 2008 9:25 pm ET)
                 
              I do like trying new tastes so thanks! The curry and spice combo really sparked my interest. I'm gonna give it a try later this week.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (May 05, 2008 6:57 pm ET)
         
      Things that should never touch metal, but are consumed anyway?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (May 05, 2008 7:11 pm ET)
         
      This *reasoning/opinioning* by this *repoter* is completely off base.  When the dems won, ALL *news* outlets were confused and struggling to find a reason why they won.  I remember hearing a bunch of sputtering and 'Well, I really don't know...' .  This *article* reminds me of when Bush won in 2004 and the new catch phrase (after the election concluded) was the 'red states vs. the blue states'  These people just make shiite up, get paid for it, and do NOTHING for Americans.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Chromium (May 05, 2008 7:28 pm ET)
         

      Here's the disconnect:

      MMFA pretends that voters care what is in the political parties' platforms.  MMFA thinks that it is important that the Democratic Party platform mentions "changing course in Iraq".  Ah, we're all for change, aren't we?  Not in agreement about those specifics, though...

      In the cited article, the NYT makes no mention of any political platform, just how the Democrat disassociated himself from the leaders of his party, instead presented himself as like his voters, and won. 

      In the 70's, I sometimes listened to Radio Moscow on shortwave radio.  Once they told how the Soviet constitution guarantees freedom of religion, unlike the United Kingdom, which actually has a STATE RELIGION.  They huffed in disgust about the high regard people in the world had for religious freedom in Great Britain  I think the US political platforms may be important to politicos, but to the vast majority of us, are as relevant as the old Soviet constitution was.

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 05, 2008 7:49 pm ET)
           
        Here is YOUR disconnect. You think this thread is about voters. The NYTimes said the freshmen congressmen fit the conservative mold when in fact they are in broad agreement with the Democratic platform which is one standard as to how conservative they are. It is a repitition of a conservative talking point. They tried it with Senators too but that was so outright ludicrous they gave up on that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pointofview (May 05, 2008 8:12 pm ET)
             
          There is nothing conserative about the NY times.  In fact, it is barely relevant anymore.  From all the recent scandals, made up stories (blair) mass firings, their moto, "All the Liberal news that is fit to print" will soon be found only in antique stores and on Ebay.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 05, 2008 9:22 pm ET)
               
            In your dreams. First remember this newspaper you are disparaging as a liberal mouthpiece led the  run up to the war in Iraq hardly a liberal position. Second if you ever want to understand ANYTHING you need to jetison this simpleminded Manichean worldview where things are completely one way or completely another. EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE and the NYTimes were a liberal bastion, regardless of the conservatives they put regularly on their editorial page that is irrelevant it is in no way evidence that they cannot buy into nor present a false conservative framing of an issue. We dont care about Planet Wingnut nor how mad you conservatives get when any publication refuses to slavishly conform to rightwing propaganda the NYTimes is the most influential paper in the US and one of the most influential in the world. Nothing you can say nor any of your reality denial can change that.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pointofview (May 05, 2008 10:03 pm ET)
                 

              You have lost your mind.  They are losing readers on a daily basis, have more leadership problems than Yahoo, and have never represented the American people.  Just because they supported the war does not make them conserative.  Most of the country if not the world supported the war, and for good reason.  You dont really believe that BO or HC, if either wins, will just step in and end the war do you?  Conseratives on the editorial page hardly make them a conserative voice.  FOX has so many viewers because they present a conserative view, along with liberal views.  It was ED Rendell who said that Fox has been more fair to HC than the other cable news sources.  The liberal medis is still in force, but thankfully losing ground.

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (May 05, 2008 10:59 pm ET)
                   

                B Kristol, one year before Fox News was launched,"I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

                So since then the liberal media has gone from strength to strength somehow. Amazing, how'd they do that? Howcum I can't hear them cept on Air America?

                The onslaught of Wright all the time, everywhere. How did that get past those pesky liberal media types in control. How are they responding to the effect of the Wright coverage, on the public being slightly over zip point nill? 

                Give an example of a current liberal point being deeply supported by the so-called liberal media. I can work up about 10 that they seemly ignore without working up much of a a sweat.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (May 05, 2008 11:10 pm ET)
                   

                “They are losing readers on a daily basis,……… and have never represented the American people.”---POV

                IMO this will be a good thing in the long run.  The way other news outlets take their lead from the NY Times is deleterious to the Republic.  We should never have had a choke point like this.

                Just because they supported the war does not make them conservative”

                The only way I can make sense of the damaged-beyond-repair “liberal/conservative” political continuum in America is to substitute Democratic Party/ Republican Party.  As to your point, there are degrees to which one can be either this way or that way, D or R, Lib or Con, etc.  And there is direction.  The NYTimes has been trending towards R to some degree.  Because they are not the Washington Times does not deny this movement.

                “You dont really believe that BO or HC, if either wins, will just step in and end the war do you?”

                I’ve heard this a lot.  Sounds like a psychological (another one) trick, to frame the debate so as to make it seem certain that  a potential Dem President couldn’t reasonably be expected to do what they say they will do.  You thereby give cover to them to do what you (the war lobby) want when and if they get in office.  We then back down when they fail to redeploy out of Iraq because you have trained us to believe that we’ll be ignored and so we’ll not protest too loudly when our will is in fact ignored in this regard.

                “Conseratives on the editorial page hardly make them a conserative voice.”

                Same as above, there is a continuum.

                FOX has so many viewers because they present a conserative along with liberal views.” 

                First substitute “Republican type views” for “conservative views”.  The Republicans are  homogenous  to a much larger extent than the Democratic Party.  You can get an audience easier if you are willing to pander to what it wants to believe, as opposed to any attempt at objectivity.  It would hard to replicate the Fox model for the Democrats because their party is more diverse in so many ways.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 12:22 am ET)
                     
                  I think it is a mistake to ever look at the media in the liberal/conservative dichotomy. It is more complicated than that. They serve power and reflect elite opinion. That will break down to reflect what they used to call Eisenhower or country club Republicans. That is socially liberal and economically and foriegn policy conservative. They dont care about gay agendas or abortion and they care DEEPLY about attacking labor and assuring the resources are grabbed for corporate interests and their tax rates. This is why both sides can come up with examples of media bias, that and the fact they are not monolithic. Trying to say because the NYTimes is not a conservative voice means they are pushing a liberal agenda is ludicrous.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (May 06, 2008 2:32 am ET)
                       

                    “I think it is a mistake to ever look at the media in the liberal/conservative dichotomy.” ………..…..”Trying to say because the NYTimes is not a conservative voice means they are pushing a liberal agenda is ludicrous.”---Solon

                    I agree with that, and my point to POV was similar, that there is not a dichotomy but a continuum in this regard generally (w/regard to media or otherwise).

                    But in my view, the conservatives of yesteryear (the real thing as opposed to the radicals who call themselves Conservatives today.) had a legitimate point about the media of which the NYTimes was prototypical.

                    Much of the media then -- and to a large extent still-- was owned, managed and produced/written by one non-majority group—ethnic Jews.  This has been unhealthy for our great country.  It has caused much distortion of the body politic.  The Democratic Party did not move organically, as a unified group to the socially liberal positions it adopted.  It was influenced all out of proportion by the politics of American Jews.  While I personally am in agreement with the politics of liberal American Jews, looking back now with hindsight, I see how a gangster element has taken over the GOP due to a marginalized Democratic Party in the minds of the majority of Americans.  If these changes had come naturally, albeit less quickly, they would have been more evenly distributed between the parties---not associated so heavily with the Democratic Party, which already carried the electoral burden of being the party of the outsider and could less well afford encumbrances of this kind than can the nativist party.

                    The Republican Party adapted to this distortion and put the American Jews in handcuffs over the security of Israel which left little independence in the press to perform their watchdog function. We need a competitive system to allow the voters to sweep out a party when it goes bad.  We don’t have that now.  After the corruption and incompetence of the GOP over the last 14 years, the polls should have the Republican candidate in single digits.  Instead we face the possible election of a man who promises more wars we don’t have the money for and probably an economic decline which in a newly competitive world we likely will never recover from.

                    Democracy is a delicate thing and I’m afraid we’ve made a mess of it.  And I do me we.  When one faction gets out of line in a party, it’s up to the rest to make the appropriate adjustments for the long term good of the party and by extension the country. 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (May 06, 2008 4:13 am ET)
                         

                      I think it is a mistake to ever look at the media in the liberal/conservative dichotomy.” ………..…..”Trying to say because the NYTimes is not a conservative voice means they are pushing a liberal agenda is ludicrous.”---Solon

                      After rereading your comments I see misunderstand your emphasis to be definitional, like mine was, as to the non-dichotomous nature of the "liberal/conservative" political continuum.  I believe you were instead stressing the absence of any kind of liberal/conservative continuum in the media, which from my comments I obviously disagree---especially so in the past but also today, although less pronounced and not as widespread.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 4:40 am ET)
                           
                        I think it is a false dichotomy. I wouldnt say there is NO liberal or conservative function to the media. First though it is not monolithic. There IS liberal media like say the Nation or Progressive magazines, there is conservatie media like the analagous magazines and Fox news. I think IF you take the media as an overall entity it follows niether of these hard and fast definitions. Rather it is a bit of both. Like I said before look at the media and you will see an overall leaning toward economic and foriegn policy conservative and socially liberal. We think of the medias function in our society as informing the public but I think THEY see their function as serving power. That is why they jumped almost in unison to support the Iraq war. This is why there seems a consensus on so many issues that dont jibe with actual public opinion, it is why they are complicit in forming 'conventional wisdom' that is frankly false. THAT is the view of the media that makes their actions over the last few decades I have been a consumer of the news make sense.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 12:16 am ET)
                   
                Again I dont see why you cant get the message here. Unless you stop seeing everything in simpleminded black/white false dichotomies you are never going to understand anything. I never SAID they were conservative. It isnt a matter that either they are a liberal voice or a conservative voice. What is so hard to understand about that and it is YOU that refuses to accept reality. Virtually all newspapers are losing readership. That is probably due to the internet. It is still a simple FACT that no matter how much you cons WISH it were otherwise the NYTimes IS the most influential newspaper in the US and one of the most influential in the world that is simple fact. Nothing your reality denial can do about that. Keep pretending your delusional fantasies somehow represent reality and if you just SAY something it magically becomes true. Those of us in the reality based universe understand it doesnt work that way.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Old_Benjamin (May 06, 2008 12:26 pm ET)
                   
                WTF!  Approx. 49 countries were part of the "Coalition of the Willing".  Out of Approx 195 nations in the world.  And as I recall, China, India, Russia weren't part of that coalition.  The revisionism of the con mind is astounding.  MOST OF THE WORLD WAS SMARTER THAN THE USA!
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (May 05, 2008 11:06 pm ET)
               

            "There is nothing conserative about the NY times.  In fact, it is barely relevant anymore."(POV)

            So you admit that the Times at least has some conservative characteristics?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by pointofview (May 05, 2008 11:24 pm ET)
                 

              Col

              put down the mashed potatoes and the slaw and back slowly away from the plate.  You guys cant even out poll McCain at this point.  Gramps as you like to call him looks more presidential each day thanks to you guys. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 12:26 am ET)
                   

                They CANT? Yes Obama can

                http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/opinion/polls/main3874915.shtml

                When all registered voters were asked who they favored in a head-to-head general election match up between Obama and McCain, Obama led by 12 percentage points, 50 to 38 percent.

                Do you EVER know what you are talking about or do you just spew out whatever you WISH were true in hopes the magic will happen? When will you learn your delusions do not define reality?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by pointofview (May 06, 2008 12:56 am ET)
                     

                  Get real.  Why dont you look at reality, instead of the fantasy you choose to look at.  Here are several polls to look at.  Wonder why you picked the one you did?  Looks like liberal miss info to me

                  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 1:04 am ET)
                       

                    Perhaps if you dont know how to READ. YOUR claim was that they COULDNT outpoll McCain, even YOUR Link shows three out of seven times Obama DOES. I saw that. To make my point. That he CAN, which is all that is needed to show your CANT assertion to be garbage, all I had to do is show ONE POLL where he does, if he DOES, then he CAN. This is actually pretty simple. The fact that in seven polls three go one way and four another means its pretty close.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 1:07 am ET)
                         
                      Oh and by the poll YOU cited Hillary outpolls McCain five times out of seven with ONE tie and McCain only outpolls Hillary once. Again do you EVER know what you are talking about?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pointofview (May 06, 2008 1:34 am ET)
                           

                        I did not say you could not find any poll that shows a dem winning.  You really are mentally ill.  After all this time and money, the dems still cant pull it together.  But if the average voting dem is a dumb as you are, it is really no problem.

                        I have no trouble showing a poll that shows McCain behind.  Unlike you, I dont look for the most out of wack poll thats shows one person ahead by 12.  Only a dumb a$$ like you has to do that.  You cant read, you cant see reality, you dont know if you are a democrat, a progressive, or a liberal, or what you are.  I do like it when you try and use big words.  Now go find another big boy academic sight.....like wikipedia, or google yourself, and see if moron comes up. 

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 2:10 am ET)
                             
                          Still with this pattern. Since it embarasses you how stupid you are. YOU say something completely IGNORNT like they CANT outpoll McCain I show they CAN, then YOU post a poll which also shows they CAN and you whine WWWWAAHHHHH you are dumb you are stupid. Its part projections since your ignorance is as vast as the Pacific Ocean and part trying to change the subject. Look this is so simple even someone as bone ignorant as YOU can understand it. Its not about whacky polls. You define anything that doesnt coform to your ignorant delusions as whacky or liberal. EVEN YOUR OWN CITATION shows that out of 14 polls Dems win 8 times and one is a tie. Grow up and learn to live with your obvious limitations. You said something ignorant. This is just what you do since you ARE ignorant. You then try to argue your way out of it but you are so stupid you dont even recognize logic. You are supid, ignorant and couldnt make a cogent argument if your life depended on it so just get used to having us mop the floor with you. Its what you were born for. If God had meant for you to make sense he would have given you a functional brain. He didnt so accept your fate.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by dbeden4153 (May 06, 2008 10:26 am ET)
                             

                          "You guys cant even out poll McCain at this point." -POV

                          Wow, despite the invective, Solon schooled you on this point.  But if you don't want to admit it, I understand.  It's pretty easy to sit behind the anonymity of a comments thread and not take responsibility for your words.

                          On a side note, polls don't mean s**t.  Right now people have primary fatigue, and I can guarantee you you won't get an accurate reading of the American populace until after the conventions.  Polls are just spin with numbers. 

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by solon (May 06, 2008 5:08 pm ET)
                               
                            That is very true especially at THIS stage of the game. I think a whole lot of voters will not even start paying close attention or REALLY make up their minds until its a two way race until they can judge between the speeches, positions and whatever else their criteria is of the TWO.
                            Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.