I saved this article a few years ago and found this early strategy employed by the Democrats to mold public opinion to be quite eye opening. Note the date of the article. From the election results it seems that the Democrats succeeded in changing the public's perception as a result of this strategy. Do any of you feel that the" TRUTH" is being manipulated so that public perception matches party agenda and doctrine? It is kind of scary that public relation campaigns can change public opinion even if it defies "TRUTH."
Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush January 6, 2003 By DOUG THOMPSON
Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within the party tell Capitol Hill Blue. A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of Bush and his party. The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt. In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President’s intentions on the pending war with Iraq. Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points suggesting the war is about oil, not terrorism. “The talking points were developed before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media,” one Democratic consultant confided. “No Democratic member of Congress will question the President’s patriotism openly but we will use the media and other surrogates to raise doubts.” Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHB’s parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President’s real intentions, including: --Saying the war is about oil and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush and the Republican party; --Claiming the Bush administration has “manufactured” evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq; --Suggesting a wartime economy is the only way the administration can revive the country’s lagging economic situation. “It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values,” the talking points say. “To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America’s true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush administration in waging war.” Some Democrats admit privately they are uneasy with the party strategy to undermine American values in an attempt to get Bush. “My boss doesn’t want anything to do with it,” one senior Senate aide told Capitol Hill Blue on Monday. “You don’t undermine this country to win elections.” Others, however, are willing to try anything to put the White House and Congress back under Democratic control. “The real war isn’t in Iraq,” one Democratic consultant said. “It’s right here at home, at the ballot box in 2004.” Among the other points Democrats hope to make in the coming weeks: --Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are controlled by oil and defense industry special interest groups. --The war on terrorism is a failure because Osama bin Laden is still at large. --America is unprepared for another terrorist attack because of White House preoccupation with Iraq. --War will increase the country’s economic woes. --Bush will be forced to raise taxes to finance the war. “It’s time to take the battle to the people and make them understand just how dangerous George W. Bush’s policies are to the future of America,” the talking points conclude. Democratic sources say the talking points were developed by Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, Senate Majority Leader Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Gephardt. “This is a classic, Jim Carville, scorched earth campaign,” crows one DNC staffer. “Take no prisoners. That’s how you win elections.” Democratic party spokesmen would not return phone calls seeking comment on this report.
66 comments:
Voteoutrepublicans there has to be some balance to the DNC based posts I put up on here. I would love to put together a series of parallel timelines to mark the release date of each Democratic strategy change and then mark major events on another and finally mark poll numbers on a third. Both parties have their version of the truth but the last election showed that the Democratic strategies put in place years earlier paid off and may not have been taken seriously by Republicans. Do you find it ironic that the Democrats generally ran on a platform of withdrawing troops as soon as possible and now it looks like there will be an escalation with more troops? Mr. Moorer and his fellow bloggers are probably beside themselves.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.
The report was issued more than a year after Sandy Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removing the documents.
Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration's representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.
Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said in a statement that the contents of all the documents exist today and were made available to the commission.
But Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., outgoing chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said he's not convinced that the Archives can account for all the documents taken by Berger. Davis said working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives.
"There is absolutely no way to determine if Berger swiped any of these original documents. Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials," Davis said.
Berger pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. He was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.
Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that National Archives employees spotted Berger bending down and fiddling with something white around his ankles.
The employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Berger's stature, the report said.
Later, when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he lied by saying he did not take them, the report said.
Brachfeld's report included an investigator's notes, taken during an interview with Berger. The notes dramatically described Berger's removal of documents during an Oct. 2, 2003, visit to the Archives.
Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets.
"He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said.
He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.
"He was aware of the risk he was taking," the inspector general's notes said. Berger then returned to the Archives building without fearing the documents would slip out of his pockets or that staff would notice that his pockets were bulging.
The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits that he was removing materials. Also, the employees had made copies of some documents.
In October 2003, the report said, an Archives official called Berger to discuss missing documents from his visit two days earlier. The investigator's notes said, "Mr. Berger panicked because he realized he was caught."
The notes said that Berger had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash."
After the trash had been picked up, Berger "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck," the notes said.
Significant portions of the inspector general's report were redacted to protect privacy or national security.
more on democratic strategy.......
corruption is alive and well in DC - thanks to the DNC
The majority of residents in Murrieta and Temecula feel committed to the conservative ideals and way of life. I am glad because I also have no use for the empty promises and exploitation done to the underpriviledged by the democrats for the purpose of buying their votes.
The heat is on the democrats now, to produce results vs. complaints. I believe the democrats are not that thrilled about the small majority in the Senate, because it will show that they did not have a plan, only complaints, and are scrambling and working feverishly to come up with one.
The Iraq conflict is final proof the the "Light Footprint" strategy that has been employed by the military and the Bush administration does not work. It was proven in Vietnam that the United States cannot fight and win a war by placing strategic areas that are vital to crippling the enemy offlimits to bombing and ground force incursions. You cannot win war by selectively targeting your enemy in order to win over world or local public opinion. The United States has made the Vietnam mistake in Iraq. We have placed Mosques and holy sites and other areas of Iraq offlimits to our military in order to placate certain groups within Iraq and Muslims in general. We need to look at previous wars that we have won and follow those courses that lead to victory. Forget about public opinion. If it is necessary to go into Anbar province and surround it and level it to change the course of Iraq then do it. If we need to level and kill Sunni or Shiite populations that are fighting against us then do what is necessary. There is no way we will win in Iraq unless we kill and imprison enough of the enemy and break their will to fight. In World War 2 we had to level cities and we only won when the last Nazi was killed or imprisoned or gave up the fight because their will was broken. If the United States is unwilling to go full force and win then we should get out. Any other half assed strategy for victory will lead to more of the same type of continued violence with no end in sight.
Voteoutrepublicans you missed the point. The view expressed above was not suppose to make sense. It just illustrates the brutality that is needed to win a war. Real wars do not in with diplomacy; they end with a victor and the defeated. The point is either we the American people have the stomach to do what it takes to be victorious or we get out. There is no in between. The situation now is an in between strategy. Above you asked where to bomb or engage the enemy. To win a war you engage the enemy wherever they are and innocents die along with them. I do not like it any more than you do but it is a fact of war and you cannot kill and destroy the enemy without huge numbers of innocents killed. Look at the numbers in previous conflicts. The vast majority of those killed were innocent civilians. The choice is clear: do what it takes or get out. There is no middle ground and "Light Footprint" strategies do not work.
A very well thought out plan for Iraq can be read at aei.org/publication25292. It is simple in theory, proven to produce results and based on the pretty indisputable feeling that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established. It must start in Baghdad. It involves a counterinsurgency plan of not just securing the Baghdad neighborhoods and bailing, but remaining and HOLDING those neighborhoods in order to help the residents live safe from retailation which would allow them to begin to cooperate with the Iraqi government. Following the securing and holding in and around Baghdad would begin a campaign to pacify the Sunni-majority Anbar province.
Voteoutrepublicans I was being extreme on purpose. It is obvious that we will not go to the extremes I mentioned so the clear choice is to get out. You are right that the war was over in the sense that you described above. You are right that we are failing with the occupation. I do not look at the war and occupation as separate. We are failing now because the Bush/Rumsfield war plan was a success at defeating an army and Saddam but their strategy of going in failed with the Rumsfeld concept of going in and staying with a lean force. It would have made sense to conquer the country the way we did but we should have gone in immediately afterwards with a much larger troop presence to secure arms caches and the main routes into the country. You have to admit that this would have dramatically changed the course of events. Now because we left the borders open and left arms caches unguarded we face a re armed enemy using guerrilla tactics. All of this is hindsight. What should we do now? If we leave there will be chaos and perhaps another nation nearby could seek to be the defacto power in Iraq by proxy. There would certainly be a much hotter civil war than there is now. You may be right that under present circumstances we cannot defeat this enemy. As I said above we could defeat this enemy but I do not think the American public has the stomach to do the extreme measures necessary for defeat. It would take the leveling of towns and maybe certain parts of Baghdad. There is also Iran and Syria and in the case of Iran it may at some point be necessary to prevent theme from deploying a nuke on missiles. Do we nuke them? I shudder at the thought. At some point soon we will have to do something and I doubt that a treaty or UN resolution will solve the Iran or N Korean problem.
I just wonder Voteoutrepublicans what separates Iraq and its factions from say India and its large Muslim population and Hindu and other factions and Indonesia and the situation there. Why can't Iraq be a Democracy? Maybe we should just pull out and arm and support The Shia and let the civilwar chips fall. Maybe Iraq would appreciate freedom if their own blood is spilled for it. At this point we have just handed it to them with alot of collateral damage to their country. Iraqi deaths to this point were because of us more than for a purpose such as Democracy or freedom. Bush said during his first campaign that he was against nation building. He should have stuck to that core belief.
Voteoutrepublicans I read somewhere that the Democrats have way more wealthy members in Congress than Republicans. They are also members on corporate boards etc. Look into Feinstein and Kennedy as examples. Looking back at the last ten years I also think that the minimum wage issue is too overblown. If a person has no skill or ambition then they probably will get stuck at the minimum. The minimum is not suppose to support a family. People that stay there too long need to look in the mirror and take responsibility for their futures. So many people start at the minimum and end up in the top 20 percent of wage earners ten years later. It is not the government's job to legislate wages to end poverty. If that could be done don't you think the minumum would be legislated to say 40K per year and the working poor would be a thing of the past? Not to long ago I read something interesting about the poor that really surprised me. In the sixties the poor were judged in relation to how the middle class lived at the time. The poor is judged the same way today. The funny part is that the poor today are as rich and fall into the same demographic that the middle class was in the 60's. Disposable income, house size, number of cars per household, number of televisions etc. Today the poor are living like the sixties middle class while today's middle class have 3 cars instead of one; 3 televisions instead of one; 700 square ft more house; etc etc. The poor today are so much better off than they were 40 years ago but, as before, they just do not have what the middle class has.
Unfortunately, this hard working, minimum wage manager is still responsible for decisions that lead to improve his living standard. Fortunately, there are so many opportunities in this country to earn a degree. Millions of people work hard at day jobs to support families and go to night school to earn a degree and better their lives.
I don't know if giving more money to people who might not be motivated to learn and earn is a good thing for them. To make education and schooling available at an affordable price for the poor seems a better answer to enhance their lives. Finacial assistance should be reserved for people who are mentally or physicially unable to do so.
TLW2, I have never understood the proclaimed contempt for big businesses voiced by many liberals. I am also aware of these crtics, their wealth and their connection to big corporate stock holdings and partnerships in big businesses. To me, that is such hypocricy.
As is the attempt at socializing healthcare for all of us. These politicians are elected by us, the people, to represent us. How is it that they have their own elevated healthcare, unlimited access to all doctors, hospitals, state of the art drugs, etc.? Meanwhile they are working hard to have a different, 2nd and 3rd class coverage for the rest of us underlings. The same applies to their paid vacations that are far beyond and above anything in the corporate world, so are their retirement programs. Every year, before going on an extended vacation, they vote to increase their nice financial packages for themselves. It is disgusting, yet they sit in judgement of big corporations and their CEO's for huge financial profits. At least these corproations employ millions of Americans and provide decent wages and healthcare for millions of Americans.
I hope good things will happen in 2007. Major successful changes in Iraq, same healthcare that congress and senators enjoy, a strong border control to increase our security as well as enhanced domestic homeland security. That would be a good start, at least.
Let's see what happens, that is all we can do.
HAPPY NEW YEAR everybody.
This article is interesting in response to what you are discussing here:
A DANGEROUS OBSESSION – 12/26/06
The media & academia are continuously obsessed with “gaps” & “disparities” in income. As one talk-show host put it, “It makes no sense” that a corporate executive makes over $50 mil a year.
99% of all the things that happen in this world “make no sense” to any given individual. Do you understand how your automobile’s transmission works? Could you repair it if something went wrong? Do you understand how aspirin stops headaches? How to make yogurt?
Years ago, a famous essay pointed out that nobody knows how to make a simple lead pencil. That is, there is no single individual anywhere who knows how to grow the wood, mine the graphite, produce the rubber & manufacture the paint.
Complex economic processes cause all these things to be done & coordinated by a wide variety of people, just in order to produce something as simple as a lead pencil. Multiply that by a hundred or a thousand when it comes to the complexity of producing a car or a computer.
If you cannot understand something as simple as making a lead pencil, why should you be surprised that you don’t understand why someone is making a lot more money than somebody else?
Moreover, if this obsession with income disparities is to be something more than mere hand-wringing or gnashing of teeth, obviously the point is that somebody ought to “do something” to change what you don’t understand.
Usually that means that the government – politicians – should impose policies based on your ignorance of what is going on. Can you imagine anything more dangerous than allowing politicians to decide how much money each of us can earn?
Of course, such political control of incomes is usually advocated only to deal with “the rich”. But, when income taxes were imposed in the early 20th C, they applied only to “the rich” & they took a very small % of their income.
Once the floodgates are opened to this kind of political power, however, we have seen with the income taxes that they not only spread far beyond “the rich”, they took a serious share of even middle class incomes.
Moreover, the income tax has spawned an intrusive bureaucracy, creating so much complexity & red tape that millions of ordinary citizens have to go get some accountant to fill out the forms for them - and then sign under penalty of perjury that it was done right.
If you knew how to do it right, you wouldn’t have to go to somebody else to have it done, would you?
Incidentally, it took a constitutional amendment to enable the federal government to impose an income tax. The people who wrote the Constitution were wise enough to understand what a dangerous thing it would be to allow government to take money from people just because those people had it.
Unfortunately, “progressives” were foolish enough (or envious enough) to single out “the rich” for a process that would inevitably spread across society & become insatiable in its demands.
Today’s “progressives” want to expand political control of incomes even more. They call it “social justice” but you could call it Rumpelstiltskin & it would still mean politicians deciding how much money each of us can be allowed to have.
It is also worth noting that the people who are said to be earning “obscene” amounts of money are usually corporate executives. There is no such outrage whipped up when Hollywood movie starts make some multiple of what most corporate executives make.
This is social or ideological bias added to envy & ignorance. It makes quite a witches’ brew on which to base national policy.
Lofty talk about “social justice” or “fairness” boils down to greatly expanded powers for politicians, since those pretty words have no concrete definition. They are a blank check for creating disparities in power that dwarf disparities in income - and are far more dangerous.
By Thomas Sowell (A GOP opinion writer)
Voteoutrepublicans if I knew that that information had come from the Heritage Foundation I woundn't have used it so easily. I guess the holidays are making me lazy on the research side. I will look at a bunch of poverty numbers from both sides and post something about poverty later. This subject deserves some thought and research. 8:19 there may be truth to what you said about the manager's situation but sometimes people get stuck in a rut and cannot figure how to transition out of it. I am not sure if raising the minimum wage is the answer. In some cases jobs are priced out of the market and in other cases people do benefit from having more money. I am just not sure if the ripple effect of higher wages will also lead to higher prices and thus negate the benefit of a higher minimum wage. The effects of previous minimum wage increases should have been tracked by someone. It would be interesting to see some examples of what happens factually to both people's lives and the overall job market after a minimum wage increase. Also 8:19 there is something really sinister between what the public sector enjoys at the expense of taxpayers versus what people in the private sector must pay in order to recieve similar benefits. It reminds me of pigs feeding at the public trough.
8:09/6:08
I have always thought it was strange that only corporate executives were the target. Movie stars and entertainers are never mentioned. Old money or inherited wealth is never lambasted either. How about all of those trust fund millionaires running around and partying without any money worries? How about investors like Warren Buffet? Oil companies are always a big target too but I did not see anyone crying for them when they were losing money every year for almost a decade. If you add the windfall that oil companies made in the last few years and spread it out to compensate for all the bad years there would be one irony: Oil company profit margins are within reason when compared to other sectors (around 10%) Oil companies are just a convenient target of present consumer wrath and most people would not even bother to dig deeper to further inform themselves. Most Americans base their opinion on their pocketbook and the propagandized news that is fed to them. They never bother to dwelve deeper and look at issues in depth. We are such an apathetic and ignorant culture in general. People are more likely to know the answer to pop culture questions than Oil industry dynamics or the names of our current leaders.
Voteoutrepublicans I understand your frustration. There is also a question of precedence and possible legal issues concerning the demonizing of a certain industry. Oil companies make ungodly profits and we pay for it at the pump. Let's say we force them to fork over half of that because we the people and government conclude that that is too much profit. What kind of message is being sent to other businesses? Do not be too successful or you will be the next target? Do not charge top dollar because you might be accused of gouging and therefore the government will penalize you with higher taxes? Do not get me wrong. These questions are a devils advocate angle. I am unsure of this: I am unsure that our government is responsible enough to take money away from the oil industry and responsibly redirect the funds to research that will actually lead to a breakthrough. Usually funds are flushed down the research toilet. So far things like ethanol are being promoted as a substitute but it cannot ever be produced in a volume high enough to replace gasoline. There is also hydrogen but the issue with that fuel is that more energy is inputed to produce it than the hydrogen output is worth. There is also a storage safety issue. Personally I lean toward electric cars and a conversion to new generation nuclear power plants to produce zero emmision electric power. But as with anything it has its pollution drawbacks. Whatever happened to fusion power? You also illustrated one of my worries about raising the minimum wage. You said: "So again, why do white middle class residents of our town want oil companies to make record breaking profits over a less fortunate lady working at Wendy's getting an extra buck an hour? Because their cheeseburger went from $2 to $2.25?" My worry was that price increases would negate a wage increase. A dollar increase would mean around a 10 percent minmum wage increase? And then you mention a cheeseburger going up by 12.5 percent. We may all be willing to pay for the increase but if that type of increase gets translated across the board then the minimum wage increase is nullified pretty quickly. The minimum wage increase would also cause a ripple effect where wages above the minimum would readjust upward to maintain their place on the wage scale. I really need to look back and see some research on this subject.
Yes Voteoutrepublicans you may be right about the uneven effect that the minimum wage increase would have. I have not had any luck finding anything close to an unbiased assessment yet. Also did you know that Union contracts usually allow for automatic wage increases across the entire wage scale when the minimum wage goes up? This may affect Union oil workers and Union electricians that work for utilities and so there may still be upward pressure on prices across the board. I just wish I could find some good numbers. I am recalling stuff from memory but I cannot recall which publication I am using. You are right too that there is a moral injustice with the power that corporation yeild versus the number of people that benefit. It goes against the Democratic "we the people" wind. I am socially Liberal and economically Moderate and have felt for a few years that the country went too far Right for its own good. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats can get us more centered.
For those looking to kick off the New Year by getting a chill down their spine, don't miss the New York Times' lengthy takedown (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/washington/02war.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=8932d7287f579368&hp&ex=1167714000&partner=homepage)of the unraveling of the Bush administration's latest failed strategy in Iraq. The cluelessness and mendacity are even worse than you thought.
How many more times are we going to have to hear about Bush's advisers being taken "by surprise" by events in Iraq -- and, even worse, failing "to take seriously warnings" about how bad things are getting over there?
It's see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil -- with the most catastrophic consequences imaginable.
The Times' story, reported by David Sanger, Michael Gordon, and John Burns, also reconfirms what I thought about the phoniness of the president's claims about how the war is being run.
"You can't make decisions based upon politics about how to win a war," said President Bush in September. "This year, decisions on a new strategy were clearly slowed by political calculations" reports the Times.
"You can't fight a war from Washington," said Bush in October. "You can't make the tactical decisions necessary to win. It just won't work." "By mid-September," reports the Times, Bush had "signed off on a complete review of Iraq strategy -- a review centered in Washington, not Baghdad."
The piece also makes clear the White House's latest PR spin on Iraq: Blame Casey. The top U.S. commander in Iraq is about to become the latest fall guy for the administration's Iraq debacle. So we hear that "as Baghdad spun further out of control," the president "grew concerned that General Casey, among others, had become more fixated on withdrawal than victory." A member of the reality-based community in their midst! A cut-and-runner in Army fatigues! Indeed, we learn that many American field commanders in Iraq "were surprised by General Casey's continued advocacy of withdrawals."
According to the Times, during a discussion in August "President Bush asked General Casey whether he had sufficient troops to secure Baghdad; the general assured him that he did." I guess that lets the president off the Iraq hook, huh? Cancel those hearings, Senator Biden -- mystery solved!
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the story is the president's continued refusal to look at Iraq with anything other than rose-colored glasses.
"What I want to hear from you is how we're going to win, not how we're going to leave," the Times quotes Bush as warning his military commanders during a recent classified briefing at the Pentagon. I guess that's what the president meant when he claimed "I believe that you empower your generals to make the decisions..."
Forget reality, President Bush is all about victory even if, as the Times puts it, "his own advisers differ about how to define it."
"[Victory] is a word the American people understand," he told members of the Iraqi Study Group before they released their report. "And if I start to change it, it will look like I'm beginning to change my policy." Changing your policy? Heaven forbid.
Here are a few other words the American people understand, Mr. Bush: "deluded" and "culpable."
What is all the hoopla over the Saddam video? Who cares about a few rants against that evil thug. Justice would have been putting him on a rack or disembowling him like in Braveheart. That would have been a better video! Come to think of it the same technique should be used at Gitmo so make those prisoners talk.
Oh sage and powerful VOR. The liberal media has you so brainwashed it is pathetic.
Well lets start with the New York Times. Remember those Danish Cartoons they were considered insulting to Islam? The NY Times refused to print them for that very reason - to avoid insulting Islam - yet they had no problem printing a picture of Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered in dung. Couldn't that possibly be considered insulting to Christians? Yet that is okay to do? Or what about there little Ethicist column writer Cohen who urged American's to tolerate illegal drug dealing rather than take away the dealer's and his customer's right to enjoy drugs? Liberal editorial slants are apparent in most larger print media in addition to the NY Times, like The Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Sacramento Bee and many more.
The only national paper with a conservative editorial philosophy is the Wall Street Journal. That's it! I read that locally, liberal papers outnumber conservative papers 10-1.
A media study based at UCLA released in December 2005 concluded "Almost all major media outlets tilt to the left." The most liberal media outlets being CBS Evening News, the NY Times and LA Times. The only programs found to slant right were the Washington Post and Brit Hume's program. Other than talk radio(which is also primarily local), nearly all media is liberal save those two.
Even the late night media shows, Letterman, Leno, Jon Stewart, etc all have liberal spins. There is Dan Rather, Katie Couric, the late Peter Jennings, and especially Tom Brokaw and Bill Moyers who compares the unadulterated butchery of Osama bin Laden with the coalition action. There is Meredith Veira and Matt Lauer, and CNN has never had any anchors that were anthing but liberal. MSNBC may have a more conservative edge with Scarborough and Crowley, but their audience is so low it matters little.
As for your continued mockery of Fox News, you are way off base. Yes, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Asman and John Gibson tend to lean conservative, but there are also liberal voices in Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, Greta van Susteren and Juan Williams. O'Reilly is in the middle too. He is constantly derailed and demonized for being uber conservative but I remember he sided with Kerry on the Swift Boat Vets thing and with Rather on the Bush National Guard fiasco. He sided with the liberals on Terri Schiavo and chides Bush on his failures in Post war Iraq, with securing our borders and ignoring the need for alternative energy. He also got on Ann Coulter's case for the way she protrayed the 9/11 widows. So keep buying the BS that the "liberal media" thing is a conservative fantasy. I bet you think the battle to save Christmas is a conservative fantasy too.
Open you narrow minded angry little mind and see the truth that is the media is primarily liberal or passively neutral.
The fact that you would even attempt to suggest Maureen Dowd is not a flaming liberal secular progressive individual shows me you know absolutely nothing. Everything else out of you is just "blah, blah, blah I copy and paste my days away...."
GOTTA LOVE THIS GUY THE TIMELESS WISDOM OF RONALD REAGAN
"Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose."
- Ronald Reagan
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
- Ronald Reagan
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
"Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
- Ronald Reagan
"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."
- Ronald Reagan
"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."
- Ronald Reagan
"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."
- Ronald Reagan
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan
"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
- Ronald Reagan
"I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."
- Ronald Reagan
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."
- Ronald Reagan
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
- Ronald Reagan
"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."
- Ronald Reagan
"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.
- Ronald Reagan
The funny thing is he VOR is so clueless he doesn't even realize that his entire post totally confirmed the anon's contention about liberal bias. You can see how the liberal media jumps on anything that could come clost to being considered a conservative slant, takes words out of context and tries to demonize the conservative view. It is is typical and so overdown now that everyone with half a brain sees through it.
You are so confused. Fox News is the only place you can find the truth. The UCLA study showed that.
The Democrats did win in November. And they DESERVED to win. NOT because the Republican party has the wrong plan, or was not performing up to what American needs. It was because they did not fight. They did not rally their base. The Dems were indignant about the scandals their trashy organizations like Moveon.org Soros, Latkoff, Lewis blew up and pasted all over their liberal media that resides in their deep pockets. They were rallied. They showed up to vote out what they perceived as corrupt. They voted their conscience and did their civic duty. Kudos to them and they deserved their win.
Republicans should learn a lesson from what happened in November.
BLIZZARD IN KANSAS
WEATHER BULLETIN
Out here, in the Plains, we just had a Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 44" inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.
FYI:
George Bush did not come.
FEMA did nothing.
No one howled for the government.
No one blamed the government.
No one even uttered an expletive on TV.
Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.
Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.
Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.
CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.
No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.
No one looted.
Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.
Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.
No Larry King, No Bill O'Rielly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Geraldo Rivera.
No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.
Nope, we just melted the snow for water.
Sent out caravans of SUV's & 4WD tractors to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.
The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a penny.
Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families.
Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.
We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.
We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die".
We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks.
Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.
"In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the world's social problems evaporate."
It does seem that way, at least to me.
I hope this gets passed on.
Maybe SOME people will get the message. The world does Not owe you a living.
VOR fraudulently posts pics of other people and tells others it is him. Check it out on his blog page. If you know the identity of the featured gentleman, contact him and let him know that someone is falsely using his image.
I leave and posts go up breaking my rules. I am back from vacation now keep things within my rules or I will delete them!
Yes guessing games are off limits for anons. Let them post and if they want to state their true identity or pseudoname, like you do, then so be it. I think the rules at the top of the blog are pretty clear. They were meant to protect people and at the same time not stifle debate. I also deleted all foul language that were in a few anon posts. I know you probably know who some of these people are but let the ideas be the debate.
I went back and clarified the rules at the top of the blog to be more clear. They are meant to protect everyone. People are not allowed to attack you Voteoutrepublicans with foul language or personal information attacks and, of course, you are not allowed to do it either. If something pops up that breaks the rules do not feel compelled to respond to the offensive part that will get deleted by me at some point anyway. Your response will more than likely lead to the deletion of your post too. It is in everyone's best interest to keep deletions to a minimum.
Post a Comment