On CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, guest host Graham asserted as fact that Obama is "the most liberal" senator
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: While guest-hosting CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Michael Graham asserted as fact that Sen. Barack Obama is "the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate." While The National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator in 2007, the rankings were based on a subjective selection of Senate votes by the magazine's staff. By contrast, another study based on all non-unanimous votes found Obama to be tied for the 10th most liberal senator in 2007.
On the June 24 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, guest host Michael Graham asserted as fact that Sen. Barack Obama is "the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate." Graham did not give a source for his claim. The National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator in 2007 in its 2007 Vote Ratings, but, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, based its rankings not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." By contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that used every non-unanimous vote cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology placed Obama in a tie for the ranking of 10th most liberal senator.
In a June 16 PolitiFact.com article analyzing the Journal ratings, St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief and PolitiFact editor Bill Adair reported that Journal editor Charles Green "says voters shouldn't rely on a single rating to determine a candidate's ideology," and quoted Green as saying, "There's pluses and minuses to each rating system. If you look at a number of them, I think you have a pretty good picture."
From the June 24 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
GRAHAM: Now, Liz, I've got to ask, Senator Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, while it may be true that he can roll back the tides, does he have a legitimate shot at picking up significant numbers of Christian voters, regardless of what James Dobson does?
LIZ CHADDERDON (Democratic strategist): You know, Michael, I think he has a really good shot at picking up some of those voters. He did very well in his 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois with downstate white Christian, more evangelical voters. He actually picked up a large percentage.
So, do I think that he's going to win a majority of evangelicals? Of course not. But if he won even 10 percent more or 15 percent more than John Kerry did in 2004, it could be enormous significance for him. So, I absolutely agree that he can pick up some of those voters.
The conservatives are following the old adage - repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it's true.
(I won't say to whom that adage is attributed, but George W. Bush's grandfather helped bankroll them....)
I believe the quote was:
"See, in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in...to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-George W. Bush, May 24, 2005
i think wzwriter was referring to Goebbels.
BINGO!!!
I just didn't want to break Godwin's Law by making a Nazi reference in the very first post. :-)
I posted some of these in the first thread yesterday, but I don't think anybody read them seein' as how there was a pissin' conest going on. But here goes:
Some more quotes from Goebbels:
The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious.
We have made the Reich by propaganda.
Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.
"Think of the press as a giant keyboard on which the government can play.
Conservatives are as lousy at propaganda as they are at everything else. A functioning press would destroy it easily.
With the press we have, conservatives could say literally anything and it would play favorably.
Actually, the cons are very good at it AND we also have no functioning press. That's why we're in the shape we're in right now. They are using the press as a propagada tool and intimidating anyone who dares disagree.
You really can't argue that the cons are inept in this area. Of course that's the only area they are good in, that and disenfranchising voters/stealing elections. And being liars and scumbags. Oh my, I take that back. They are good at many things, albeit none of them noble or good for the country. Let's add making rich people richer too. Many more....I'm tired.
"Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious"
That is so rich. Especially in light of the constant repetition on these boards by the left that the press hates Democrats and is so incredibly tilted towards the right. "Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious"
The irony drips with such a repetitive whine. You can't make this stuff up.
Tommy, we're a collection of random people with very little power. The President himself has admitted to using repetition to push propaganda (see my quote from him above.)
And for the record, I don't think the media leans towards the right, they lean towards controversy, and the right is good at ginning (sp?) up controversy.
I haven't seen these incessant whines you mention.
I've seen valid complaints that FoxNews leans right.
I've seen complaints that it's not true, as some righties have been alleging for decades, that the media leans left.
This is a site that uncovers conservative misinformation, and so it's not fair to claim that posts about the media when they slur progressives is excessive whining.
It's undeniable that the right has learned that repeating a lie often enough makes more and more people belive that it's the truth. Propaganda is persuasive, and the right is guilty of it much more often than the left.
They could have used a stalk of celery as a substitute and it would be a more intellectually stimulating show than the viewers are used to.
Should we start writing the obituary for CNN news now?
Next thing you know that faux retired Drag Queen Jay Severin will be hosting news somewhere with a straight face.
Jay Severin was a drag queen?
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Not that I fully know of
He just looks like one
http://www.wtkk.com/
scroll over that top bar and get a look at him
Welcome to liberal MA.
Graham and Severin feed their BS to gullible and/or or willing audience eight hours a day.
One only needs to listen to the callers of those two shows to know the content. I live in Boston and I tune in to hear the enemy but moreso to laugh at the uneducated, uninterested in education, low ballers that call in and rant , ditto, kiss up and fawn.
Would Media Matters (for very little) be happy if Obama was instead called one of the top 10 liberals, top 20, top 500? Or is it that 'liberal' thang that seems to get in way?
Dems fear what Americans already know, the more liberal the more marxist one is.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/warner_todd_huston/2008/may/29/obama_sought_endorsement_of_marxist_third_party_in_1996
Marxist?
Did you just fall out of a f'n time machine?
Did you just fall out of a f'n time machine?
I suspect that at some time in his sorry life, PC fell and hit his head. That would explain his faulty thought processes.....
But Eden,he did link to an unsourced blog saying that Obama sought the support of a group that the unsourced blog says was connected to Marxists sometime in the 90s. What more do you want?
The Redstate page he linked to also had this prescient headline;
Fred Thompson, the Mighty Bambino, just keeps hitting them out of the park
Har! I'd be turning red too.
One of the top 500 liberals in the Senate, which has only 100 members total? I think that would be acceptable.
"Most liberal" is extremist by definition, since there would be nobody further out to the left. Top 10 or 20 would be more accurate and would not create an impression quite so alienating to independents and moderate Republicans. The word "liberal" by itself is not the problem here.