It's too bad that good reporters like Walter Pincus and Dana Priest get their stories published on pages 13, 14, 15, 16 17, etc.. The real story has been there for people who dig into the papers but most people don't. The stories should have been on the front page.

You'd think that people as high profile as Tim Russert would be better informed. Or is there another problem, per'aps? It's discouraging.

I've had this problem with Russert too.  Consider that there are people who are deeply charmed by Hannity.  I think Russert maybe charms a different demographic.  But does his work really justify his 'high profile?'  It's hard for any of us to completely remove personality from our perception of these public figures.  Hannity, I'd like to see him unclogging toilets for minimum wage.  Russert, I keep wanting to see him be a good journalist. 

Have you called a plumber recently?

Unclogging toilets pays much better than min wage.

I don't know about you, butt I wouldn't want that Stossel character anywhere near the plumbing in my house. If he has no commitment to quality in his chosen field, he wouldn't do a quality job as a plumber, either.

Oooops...I meant "Russert," though the same comment would apply to Stossel.

Plumbers make a LOT more than minumum wage and they should. I just want Hannity doing it for minimum wage! All he gets to do is run the rooter and clean it. ;)

 AGAIN I'M NOT SHOCK TO SEE THE SAME RIGHT-WING MEIDA PUTTING OUT THIS WHITE HOUSE LIE ABOUT THIS WAR AGAIN. I LOVE HOW THE RIGHT WING MEDIA ARE JUMPING ON MOVEON AND BLAMEING HILLARY, WHEN IT WAS THIS SAME WHITE HOUSE AND PARTY WHO WENT AFTER GENERALS WITH RIBBIONS AND BADGES WHO SAID ANYTHING AGAINST THIS WAR WHEN IT BEGAN. WHERE WAS REPULICANS AND THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA OUTCRY THEN? LOOK OUT WE WILL BE IN IRAN NEXT THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA ARE TALKING UP IRAN 24/7 FOR THIS WHITE HOUSE LIKE THEY WERE BEFORE THIS WHITE HOUSE LIED US INTO IRAQ.

Stop YELLING!

You know, I'm not sure if there exists a Pulitzer for watchdog reporting, but if so, Foser has earned it.

YOU HAVE TO YELL BECAUSE THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA ONLY WHAT'S TO HEAR FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

There's a reply button. Use it.

There's no need to shout at us if you think that someone else isn't listening.

It actually weakens your message and makes it more likely to be passed over when you put everything in capital letters like that. It makes it harder to read, as our eyes have been conditioned to read in normal typing mode.

You can do what you want, but if you want your message to be read and appreciated, you'd attract more flies with honey rather than vinegar. When you type in all caps, it's vinegar to your readers.

Come on, man, take your finger off the caps lock. If you can't be bothered to use the shift button, your posts would be much easier to read if you just typed in all lower case. Your posts aren't being read when you type in all caps.

I SEE MR.BILL ON FOX NEWS IS GOING AFTER THE HUFFINGTONPOST NOW BECAUSE THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS WAR LIKE MOVEON. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THE REST OF THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL START GOING AFTER THE HUFFINGTONPOST NEXT?

Now I see why you are confused your TV is messed up. You need to remove the "Democrat" filter that does not allow you to see things as they really are. For those who did not view "the factor" it was about Hollywood c-lebs that blog at Huffpo and the off the wall inane comments they make. Hateful, disgusting, filthy. The usual left wing stuff. 

Tweak, maybe you should tell us what one of those 'hateful' things was instead of just throwing empty taunts around. No one doubts the depth of your feeling. Are you here to try to convince some one of your view or are you just hanging around to yell "F-you!" at people you don't agree with? If so, do you really think you should be accusing someone else of being 'hateful and disgusting?'

Glad to be of assistance there doggie.......

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2007/09/14/mrc-nb-s-graham-o-reilly-factor-discuss-huffington-s-house-horrors

And here.................

http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2007/huffington/report0912_exec.asp

Ahhh, poor Tweak. Hims had to read and hear criticisms of conservatives and his Pres.

That just breaks my heart. It's almost as if hims had been called a terrorist by the President of the United States for voting Democratic.

Yes, Tweak, everyone is not so enamoured of the real crimes taking place in this administration and the media supporting it. I'm sorry you have to pollute your little mind with a dose of some harsh but mostly valid invective that you won't hear anywhere else. Wake up from your dream sleeping beauty, your people are doing some heinous stuff and your pundits are perverse and nasty for no good reason. At least people on the other side have reason to be upset, as you would be if you had been paying a modicum of attention.

Rounder, criticism doesn't bother me at all....you should see me in real life old, fat, ugly, poor but just happy to be here :)

Cant take credit for the current administration or the last of the next.... don't vote...... I prefer revolutions were there is real "skin" in the game.

Okie-dokie.

Don't vote? Don't complain.

As a "typical left-winger", I naturally wanted to leave my usual "hateful, filthy and disgusting" comments on that mrc.org page you so graciously linked to. But mrc doesn't welcome comments of any kind. Maybe --unlike Media Matters-- they're ascared of the mean wittle trolls.

So, that's the usual left wing stuff? Yup, just like most of the people I know. Bajillionaire actors sitting around in self-indulgent yammering about what a jerk Bush is. Just the usual stuff. We're so completely INUNDATED with this stuff. If we watch one of the hundreds of sources of right-wing media we're inundated with.

Hey, does this mean I get to pick what is the usual right-wing stuff? I'm gonna say it's Timothy McVeigh. That's what right-wingers do. Just the usual right-wing stuff. Oh, I guess it's not fair because your typical movie star, at least all the usual ones I hang out with, just talk about what a jerk Bush is, they don't blow kids up. Not usually.

I guess in one sense this dialogue IS usual left-wing stuff. They were railing about people in power abusing that power. As opposed to being in power and railing about the powerless. Cause they're just so annoying. You know, the usual right wing stuff.

It's been educational. Thanks for the links.

Sometime in the not too distant future, when Historians ponder the Iraqi occupation and how a people supposedly guided by a higher sense of their own morality, but steeped in a grandiose paradigm of delusionary self-importance  BECAME like 'sheep' fleeced by an Administration which these same people allowed to lie, deceive, pillage, murder and war in their name. Such is the state of the American experience today. To be sure, WE were warned, admonished, appealed to by a number of souls both predating the Republic and continuing for some 200 years where the warnings of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Eisenhower et al have all fallen on deaf ears. WE have only ourselves to blame.

A nation so blessed as the United States of America by a worded Document which has stood the test of time, our Constitution,....has been torn asunder by a criminal rogue network of traitors, WHO have deceived the NATION for their own selfish gain, ALL undertaken by a pernicious and traitorous ACT of 'SkullDuggery' to fool the masses and rally the Call for retribution with a War against Civilization. Due to the complicity of the PRESS and the inability of the American people to discern what has been unleashed against THEM, Our very heritage of a people chosen for a destiny which should have manifested itself in moral leadership to lift mankind from the vestiges of war, poverty, racism and intolerance HAS been altered to purvey the very worst in the human condition WHICH is now being fully wrought to fruition in the tragedy of Iraq.

Americans might ask themselves HOW a generation once removed from the immigrant sons of yesteryear WHO came of age in a World Depression ONLY to be followed by the rise of  Imperial Fascism on two continents and  then called to sacrifice their young lives to the the tally of some 260,000 where such names as Normandy,  Midway and Iwo Jima ...... WOULD  ponderously look at their offspring today and ask WHY have YOU allowed OUR extreme sacrifice to be forgotten so easily AS AMERICANS stand idly by and watch the evisceration of the rights, liberties and Constitutional amendments that WE swore to DEFEND against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC.

Those young lives forever lost are calling US to Know what it is to be an AMERICAN. Question is: Do WE have the courage??

Navy guy, Good points to ponder. I wonder why some of those that fought so valiantly in Normandy (my Mom's husband) would allow themselves to be fleeced? That bothers me a lot. If our elders are supposed to be wiser, then why are so many not wise when it comes to this administration and war? Is it the vestiages of jingoism and a yearning for some bygone era where they thought things were better? I wonder how people like my Mom's husband (and indeed my own mother) could beleive these people who deceive time and again. And while I do not give people who have not armed themselves with the true information a pass, I do wonder why so many elders cling to this notion of glorious war and American imperialism as a noble enterprise. They have been around long enough to not be scared by everything that comes down the pike, so I don't beleive it's fear. Some misplaced national pride? What? I want to know why my mother and her husband and others like them stubbornly cling to this stupidity. It's not like they don't have the same access to information as I have. But they don't seem to want the information. Geeze, I'm frustrated.

"In individuals, insanity is rare...in nations, it is common". That Nietsche quote sums it up quite well. One commentator once described the US as a "belligerent adolescent". We're obsessed with showing how strong we are, to cover up a deep insecurity about who we are and what we're supposed to be about. We make up a mountain of myths, like how moral our nation has been, how right we always are. We live in a delusional world of SuperPowerism, of Leading The Free World, of always proclaiming ourselves the Greatest Nation on Earth. It's a sign of total immaturity. We're grown adults, we don't need to perpetually play king of the hill to prove ourselves. It's insanity. But that's America.

"In individuals, insanity is rare...in nations, it is common". That Nietsche quote sums it up quite well. One commentator once described the US as a "belligerent adolescent".  Redking

I do have to agree with you on that point.

 Redking

While I think the 'love it or leave it' attitude is about as dumb as we get, neither do I buy this line that the US is somehow inherently insane and belligerant.  Certainly not more than any other powerful nation or empire I can think of in history.  Presumably this classification, this put-down, comes from the fervent desire we share that we should do better. 

While it could definitely be seen as being in our interests, the Marshal Plan was not the act of an insane, evil empire.  Neither was the negotiation of the Camp David accords.  Human dealings are complex and imperfect but we have accomplished glimmers of intelligence and good intention.  The invasion of Iraq unfortunately is another matter.  Basically, it's impossible to classify a nation as complex as ours in any simple terms of good or evil and probably not helpful to try.  As citizens it is clearly our duty to try to put our best face forward to the world as much as possible.  Neither denying our history nor flagellating ourselves with it is going to help us accomplish that. 

What is needed is a truly populist coalition large enough to consistently beat the militaristic, anti-science, theocratic, corporatist powers on the Right.  That is a deadly coalition and we're letting them fill our courts with life-time appointees and poison our relations with nearly every nation on the planet.  I believe the US Constitution to be a brilliant document and I don't see how we'll ever live up to its highest ideals if we can't even preserve its basic tenets now.

If the Democratic Party has not been pure enough and representative of the interests of the Left enough, perhaps it is because the Left refuses to be part of the party.  Being part of a powerful coalition of interests that can actually hold the highest offices and keep the worst war mongers out of power really is the best we can do right now.  If the Greens really want to teach the party something, we should be a powerful and necessary voting block that can really deliver the vote.  Destroying the party closest to your interests while allowing the worst extremists from the Right to run every branch of government is the act of spoiled children, not responsible citizens.  Are you going to hold your breath until the rest of the nation is shamed into abandoning everything familiar to them and goes Green?  If our cause is just, and it is, isn't it worth some level of humility?  Isn't it worth accepting some level of comprimise with those closer to us than someone like Dick Cheney in order to begin achieving some real goals?  Isn't that how we're going to finally start showing the world that there is a better way? 

Basically, I don't accept your anger because I believe ultimately we share the same hopes.  Bring your passion and your good intentions into the party.  It really is just a huge aggregate of people after all.  When the Greens are a known, reliable part of the party in power, the party in power is going to get a lot more Green.  Successful leadership is what will bring the mainstream into the fold, not obstinate, scolding opposition. 

 Pretty please?    -SD

We did not beat the Nazis by JOINING them! I wish you Democrats would stop trying to tell us that your fascist party is the only way to end this, when they SUPPORT all these crimes. It's a crap argument. One does not win a revolution by joining with the forces of reaction and defending the status quo. Maybe it's YOU who needs to join with US and stop whining that we're not sucking up to your pet war criminal party..

Like it or not, we have a two-party system.  The Green's best bet is to challenge corporate Democrats in the Democratic primary and oust them.  The Greens should be trying to take over the Democratic Party.

Thanks for an honest response Rking. You're probably right, the Democrats probably don't need you. They get enough bad press as it is.

Good luck with the revolution. God knows those are peaceful events.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-BF

"And I stood up..."

Yes, David Halberstam, you did stand up; literally and figuratively.

Jamison, you've done a stellar job providing examples of what journalism is and what it is not.  You've also explained why so many in today's MSM can't do what Halberstam did.

They have no spines.

This is one of the best pieces on the events of the past 6 years I have seen anywhere (and some of the best comments, thanks Navyguy, JJ, the rest).

I found myself almost feeling embarrassed while reading it. As informed as I try to keep myself, and knowing the positions I've had on these issues, I felt as if I'd almost forgotten what had happened during this period.

I remember the network news shows obediently pasting logos for "Operation Enduring Freedom", and whatever other pre=fab names the government had instructed them to use. I remember sitting slack-jawed as I watched the media take their marching orders from the administration, equating unity and patriotism with unquestioning acceptance of the march to war.

Why was I feeling embarrassed? Why weren't all of these little pieces fresh in my mind? Is it just about trying to carry on with life, that a person only has so much time to be disgusted with his government and media?

Or is it that the muzak-like media eventually turns into subliminal white noise, allowing reality to fade into the background of my brain?

The same conservative talkers who were denigrating opponents of the Iraq invasion as obstacles to the War on Terror now insist that everybody wanted the war.

And the same media people who were so derelict in their duties in the lead-up to war are still comfortably in their jobs, and performing as shoddily in their analysis and monitoring  of the results, and the future, of our countries actions since the turn of this still very young century.

I'm not a big me-too-er, but in this case I couldn't agree more heartily.

Excellent work, Jamo.

Bentornato, Val ! you've been missed.

This is a fantastic article, Foser should be commended and this thing should be linked all over the 'net.  The lead-up to the war story needs to be told loud and clear.  It has to be one of those clarion moments in history that the nation inherently understands.  In the way that words and phrases like Yellow Journalism and McCarthyism are solidly a part of the American lexicon, the failure of the nation's press corps in '03 needs to be accepted and understood as the backdrop in any future discussions. 

If a man like Russert wants to hem and haw about what happened and his own role in it, he is indicating to me that he won't be part of what hopefully will be a new generation of journalists.  There is a hunger for something better in spite of the conventional 'wisdom' that says what we've seen is all that the market has demanded.  In the same way that the pariah status feared by Congretional Democrats voting against the Iraq resolution quickly turned to credibility, so should quality, fierce, honest work quickly move jounalists to the top of the heap.  That would be downright patriotic. 

Shouldn't post so late.  Sorry bout the spelling errors.  Peace. Hope. -SD

Don't sweat the details, dog.

Peace.

That Congressional Congretional thing was just too embarrasing. Gotta get more sleep! Thanks for sayin so though.

I particularly like that this article includes specific questions for journalists. It gives some wisdom about how to reestablish the rigors of journalism, and also explains for viewers what they should expect in their interviews and encourages critical thinking.

I would like to see MMFA have an ongoing column of "basic questions journalists should ask their sources" or something of that ilk, on a variety of topics, as a public service. I would refrain from including such questions in particular citations of articles, because MMFA has an important obligation to keep editorializing out of documentation (something right-wing "news" would do well to remember).

The problem with asking these tough questions, however, is it reveals an unacceptable left-wing bias. Just look at the outrage on the latest cyberwatch from Media Research Council (always good to see what the opposition is up to!) available at: [link to www.mrc.org]

"Interviewing General David Petraeus for Wednesday's NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams insisted he admit 'al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't around' on 9/11, demanded to know 'how are we so sure all of these insurgents can be labeled al-Qaeda?' "

Clearly, asking a guest about well-documented facts is way too liberal.

Also of note is the fact that MRC does not offer any documentation for why statements it finds objectionable are in fact inaccurate. It simply puts them in quotations and uses loaded terms to describe them.

I just sent the following e-mail to Tim Russert with a link to this page:

Mr. Russert,

A recent Bill Moyers' special included an interview with you about the press coverage in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.  You stated that the country needed an "opposition party" in response to Moyer's question as to why dissenting voices were not heard. 

I hope you will take the time to read this excellent Media Matters essay regarding the role of the press and its obligation to broadcast the truth, not simply report political spin or have two "opposing sides"

 Here is Russert's e-mail address:

mailto:mtp@msnbc.com

I just wanted to echo and extend your capture of the comment that we need an opposing party. We need opposition within the parties too, and that's what I hope I provide at times here.

I remember being taught back years ago that the best way to change any organization was from within that organization. If you want to lead the PTA at your school in a different direction, then join it, rather than standing on the outside and criticizing it from there.

We need a two party system. We need a press corps that does more than simply "he-said, she-said" reporting, and evaluates the relative value and honesty of each side's viewpoint. And we need honest people to retake the Republican party back from the dishonest and disreputable people who have taken it over.

Well put Maple. Seems like everyone wants to dig their feet in and feel like they're above it all. Or perhaps it's difficult to believe we as individuals make an impact?

I've used a very similar analogy to your PTA remark in talking to my Nader supporting friends, especially back in 2000. The party doesn't reflect your personality, values and desires enough? Then join the party and make it do that! It's as though we forget that these organizations are just groups of people. I feel that thoughtful people of conscience as you seem to be have been shunted aside in the Republican Party. Your situation is the same. You could splinter off in protest like the childish Greens of 2000 or you can stand up and say, "That's not what we're about." I think you've made your stance quite clear. Good luck.

Sundog, I have to heartily agree with you on the green party. The more I'm exposed to them, the more one minded and inflexible they seem, not one whit better than the diehards on the right.

Why? Because we stand by our principles? Because we actually stand up for what's right? Because we constantly point out the criminality of BOTH parties and their minute differences in policy? Because we are calling for a real substantive change and not caving in to the present fascist system? Because we point out that votes for Repubs and Dems actually KILL people in the world? In the last elections, Pennsylvania had two pro-war Senatorial candidates from the mainstream partiesy....the Dems kicked the anti-war Green candidate off the ballot with bogus lawsuits.

Someone has to stand up the mass murderers in Washington DC. Those who vote for them are accomplices in their crimes. It's that simple. I refuse to let my vote KILL any one. That's not arrogance, that's just doing what's RIGHT.

here's a special congressional election last month in california, won overwhelmingly by the democrat, so it's probably a fairly liberal district.   the green candidate got 5%.  

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Laura_Richardson

this says it all.   efforts by the republicans in 2004 to collect signatures to put nader on the ballot in various states when his supporters could not gather enough.  

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-15.htm

You dish out extreme hyperbole most of the time. That's why you have no credibility. You want to be pristine, sit in the corner and criticize others. Instead of building a party in the grass roots you spend time throwing stones and calling everyone a murderer. And you don't listen, so good luck with ever being anything that people are attracted to. 

N0, it's YOU who do not listen. YOU support a party of KILLERS. YOU demand that I join with that party of KILLERS. YOU are the one who votes for the KILLERS, not me. Those dead Iraqi and Palestinian children are YOUR fault, not mine. Perhaps YOU should drop YOUR arrogance and stop telling us to support YOUR pet mass murderers. The blood is on YOUR hands, not mine, so get off your high horse, because YOU occupy the moral LOW ground here.

You don't have the slightest idea who you are talking to.  Dennis Kucinich and Jimmy Carter, among others, vote for Democrats.

This kind of demonizing serves no one and does not help the cause of the Palestinians or anyone else.

If only you could hear yourself!

You are persuading nobody of anything except that you are unhinged and violent.

You adopt the identical rhetorical lunacy of the hard right thereby associating Greens with authoritarians rather than progressives or liberals.

red, i'll bet you're fun at a party.

That hurts.

some of the greens on here do seem to get the point.  but a few like mr. scarlet regent just tend to rant.  i've said a dozen times i have no problem with voting green in a state where it makes no difference, but don't tell me it makes no difference if bush or gore got elected.   if the greens could actually show a little ability to get votes on a statewide level first, then would help their case.  i've seen no evidence of that, at all.   i'm not thrilled with either party, i think the democratic party's stance on immigration is totally wrong, but if i have to make a choice it's anything to stop the wingnut party.   the people running the gop now were the ones on the far right fringe 20 years ago.

I take exception to that. I am a Green. I struggled with the Democratic Party for about 25 years and watched the liberals like myself get taken for granted and dismissed with the you have no where to go attitude. They know I am not going to vote for a Republican so they ignore me. I saw Liberman picked to be the VP. I was asked for money since I dontated to Democrats and when I told them I had enough of being treated like I existed only for that purpose while the Democratic Party drifted farther and farther right, trying to win by being lite republicans, I was asked how I could the Dems could win back my support I told them they could support someone like Paul Wellstone for President and was told point blank that realistically that was NEVER going to happen. This from someone soliciting money from me. I think a third party would be good for this country. I think this winner take all two party split leaves large portions of our electorate basically unrepresented. There is no Holy Dogma that says we can only have two parties. I live in Arizona. Had I lived in Florida I would have voted for Gore.  Here nothing was lost voting Nader. The ONLY thing I criticise Nader for is campaigning in swing states. THAT was outrageous and he shouldnt have done that he lost my vote in 04 for that reason. To act like I OWE the Dems my vote just doesnt track for me. I dont OWE anyone my vote I vote for who I believe in. The Dems dont OWN me just because I am not going to vote GOP. IF they want my vote they need to earn it. I DID my part. I GAVE money, I spoke at political rallies. Did the Dems follow up on policies dear to me? NO they dissed me ran away from the word liberal, dissed me, and marginalized all real liberal candidates and messages. Look how they treat Kucinich. Like the weird uncle no one wants to talk about. I still vote Dem 95% of the time but they wont get my money in any further way until they can show me that they arent ashamed of us liberals and that they take my voice and those like me seriously that we have a place in the party.

I agree with you Solon. I would have voted for Paul Wellstone and only give money to the progressive Democrats (21st Century Democrats - based on the Wellstone model) or to Russ Feingold's organization. I don't give any money to the DCCC or the DSCC or their brethern. I am sick of the 2 party crap as well. But people who are as narrow  minded and immature in their rhetoric as Redking only alienate the greens further and make them sound like lunatics. I wish the Democrats would start going further left as well. Right now the goal posts have moved so far right, Democrats aren't even left anymore imo.

And I love Dennis Kucinich. I wish he were treated better and that he had a better shot at gaining the nomination. 

I feel exactly the same way Solon. I used to live in MN and Wellstone was my hero. I usually voted Green in local and some national elections in MN, but I had no problem voting for Wellstone instead of the Green candidate. I still tear up when I think of the day he was killed in that plane crash. When I found out about the Green party, and read their 10 Key values I felt like I had written them myself to describe my own political beliefs. I understand what democrats are trying to say when they criticize Greens, but ultimately I cannot and will not bring myself to vote for people like Hillary Clinton. It is their own fault for alienating people like me from their party. I don't remember who said it, but someone once said something along the lines of it being easy to manipulate the people because ultimately they will vote their fears and not their hopes. I choose to vote based on my hopes.

and wellstone was what, a democrat, i think?   i'm sure he would be pleased that you would help to hand the keys to the white house to another republican.

I am sure we both have very strong political feelings, but there is no need to be rude. These are my heartfelt feelings. Yes Wellstone was a dem, and if there were more dems like him I would feel differently. He was a principled man, and unlike other dem senators, he was on the floor of the senate before Iraq speaking out strongly against the war. He was a man of principle who believed in democracy, and I would hope he would tell me to vote for who I felt best represented me regardless of party.

Then you ought to like Russ Feingold who is also a Dem. He didn't vote for the "patriot" act nor authorization for the war and has been a staunch critic of both. He has an organization called progressive patriots and their goal is to further only progressive candidates. The other organization I mentioned, 21st century democrats, was based on Paul Wellstones model of progressiveness and they further progressives as well. You might want to take a look. Not all Dems are bad. Don't support the ones you don't like by all means. But if you let a spoiler candidate elect another Republicans, well then you may as well vote for another George Bush. I prefer to be pragmatic and it doesn't hurt my feelings.

I do like Feingold, and Kucinich and Gravel and a handful of other dems. I am just not a big fan of the party and it leadership as a whole. I don't feel like they represent me. I am a green because I like the green party better, plain and simple. I don't see Nader as a spoiler because technically Gore won anyway. In 2000 I lived in MN, so voting for Nader wasn't a big deal. I wouldn't have voted for Gore even if Nader didn't exist, I just don't like him, or Kerry either. And I don't like Hillary Clinton either, and if the dems nominate her I will not vote for her. I believe in being pragmatic as well, but I also believe in standing up for what I believe in and I don't really have that much faith in the democratic party. 

saying that you want to vote your hopes and not your fears is a cliche.  your fear should have been that george bush would  become president.   sure, you're entitled to support who you want, but if in reality someone like bush becomes president, then that is up to you  also.  you did nothing to stop him.   there's really a certain amount of arrogance when greens demand that the democrats change to suit them.  the greens have shown no ability to garner votes in any substantial amount of numbers and yet the democrats are supposed to cater to them.   they don't get your vote and bush or another republican sits in the white house.   if you call that hope, then we differ on the meaning.  

"there's really a certain amount of arrogance when greens demand that the democrats change to suit them."

When your fingers move on the keyboard, do you read them?  Do you recognize the glaring irony in these words?  You whine and stamp your foot that those nasty greens aren't conforming to your rules, yet when the very same greens voice their concerns about the Demcratic party (god it is so hard not to type "Democrat party" in this particular response) your response is that they're being arrogant to think that their pitiful grievances be addressed by the very party you're trying to get them to vote for.

Do you know why the Republicans gained power?  They recognized the concerns of the far Right, catered to them, cajoled them, and presented candidates that proclaimed to share their values.  They established their conservative base then they moved to the right to capture more.  Somehow, the DNC and their head-up-the-rear supporters who like to whine about Nader think they're so f'n perfect as-is that they don't need to change - instead, they demand liberal independents and greens to deal with the POS candidates they put forward, and then blame these very same independents and greens for the DNC's own failure when they don't win elections.

Get a clue.

If the DNC wants to woo the greens, the leftists, and the independents on the left, the DNC needs to move to the Left, just as the RNC had to move the Right in order to get its fundamentalist voting block.  Instead, the DNC and its supporters mock a potential loyal base with a proven track record of showing up at political rallies and protests - politically active people that the DNC has an incredible lack of right now - in lieu of actually making progressive changes within its own structure.

Let's be perfectly clear about this - if 2008 leads to yet another RNC victory in the Presidential race, it will be the DNC's fault, and the fault of its elitist, snobbish supporters who can't fathom a notion of change.  Thanks, guys, for 2000, 2004, and for 2008.  If we're lucky, perhaps our Democratic Republic will last long enough for 2012 or 2016 election cycle that will see another left-of-center party emerge and take the place of the Dying National Committee that once presented itself as the answer to the ultra-conservativism engulfing our modern politics.

i know exactly what i'm typing.   the greens can't get elected dog catcher and yet they want the democratic [sorry you have a problem with the term] party to turn further left.  apparently you're forgetting that the leftist candidates have run in the democratic primaries and haven't made it.  that's called democracy in my book.  i think the foot stomping is on the part of the greens who can't get they want, so they won't dirty their hands to vote democratic.   just how many times do the republicans have to get in before you stop this nonsense of somehow the country is going to take a huge leap to the left?

"just how many times do the republicans have to get in before you stop this nonsense of somehow the country is going to take a huge leap to the left?"

Oops.  Let's make a little correction here, shall we?

"just how many times do the republicans have to get in before you stop this nonsense of somehow your target constituency is going to keep putting up with Repub-lite?"

If you can't entice the left wing of American politics, figure out a way to get your damned votes on your own.  I realize that taking responsibility for making your party enticing is a difficult concept, but you have about another 14 months to get your party leaders used to the idea.  Otherwise,  you can prepare your concession speeches and figure out who to blame ahead of time.  Perhaps we can blame Keith Olbermann in 2008 for being just so darned opinionated and scaring off all of those conservative voters "on the fence."  Oh, or maybe it will be Michael Moore for making the party too easy of a target with his slovenly dress.  I'm sure you'll find someone to blame for your party's abject failures.  You always do.

there is no indication, none, that the american people want some big leap to to the left.   so why you think you can dictate that, i do not know.   if they move left to pick up 4% of the vote, but lose 6% back to the republicans how are they ahead.  if you bothered to read that link i posted about republicans collecting signatures for nader in o4,  it says that the naderites in several states initially were going to refuse those signatures and then they decided as ralph said,  that "republicans are people too".   glad you're happy with bush.

"there is no indication, none, that the american people want some big leap to to the left."

Now, don't get angry here, I'm not launching an attack.

What are the indications that Americans want the opposite? What are you basing your claims upon to support the implication that Americans want centrist politics from the Democrats?

since you're not launching an attack, which you have done before, i have no reason to get angry.  and in answer to your question, i think you have it backwards.   what is your evidence that the american people want anything but centrist politics from the democrats?   you have leftist candidates running in the democratic primaries and they get fractions of the vote.   you are certainly not suggesting there is some big hunger for leftist policies among republicans?    again, all i can do is look at how people vote and make a conclusion on that.   i don't see any evidence that there is some big pent up demand to vote left.   if you have some, where is it?  

"and in answer to your question, i think you have it backwards.   what is your evidence that the american people want anything but centrist politics from the democrats?"

I don't think I offered any evidence or made any such conclusion that people want to surge leftward.

I simply asked for evidence in support of your claim. You answered my question with a question and gave anecdotal support to your claim that there is no indication, none, that the American people want some big leap to the left. (Although the election of Sherrod Brown in Ohio is indeed one such indication)

Such a solidly factual statement that their is no indication of people wanting a big leftward leap should be easy enough support with facts.

well, then why did you ask me the question?  just passing the time of day?  your question seemed to infer i was wrong.  so i asked you where is the evidence that there is some great hunger to make some great leap to the left.  i already said that the leftist candidates get fractions in the democratic primaries.   if that isn't evidence, i don't know what is. 

I am just passing the time of day, on my porch, with a cold one. Thanks for asking

No, I did not infer that you were wrong. I was making casual conversation.

You were so adamant I figured you had some evidence or raw data. Because you said so, is not evidence. Nor is making vague statements that leftist candidates get fractions of the vote considered evidence.

And if you will recall I made no assertion one way or the other, I just wanted to know if you could support your conclusions.

here, i posted this further back in the thread.  special congressional election last month in a democratic district in liberal california.  the green got 5%.   the leftist democratic candidates get fractions in the polls.   they got fractions in 04.    if you can prove otherwise, do so.  

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Laura_Richardson

Thank you. All I asked for was some evidence.

But is one congressional district proof of nationwide trends?

Sherrod Brown, a solid progressive, was elected with an 11% margin of victory in conservative Ohio. That's just one example, though.

You need proof that progressives are surging in American politics? There's this

[link to thinkprogress.org]

And even this (if you trust THESE guys)

[link to mediamatters.org]

i had already provided that evidence and i spelled it out in the post.  i said the green got 5%.   and what you call progressives are not really far left.  raising the minimum wage is not really some big leftist idea that the democrats were not already offering.   and this link from this week offers several polls from the presidential race.  kucinich gets 1 to 3%.  as i said, fractions.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

Right on my brother.

After some consideration, I suspected I was having trouble with definitions. I thought for a minute you were assuming Pogressives were far left. Well, actually they are far left compared to the current right-wing political discourse we are subjected to day after day in media.

Anyway, have a good'n.

"what is your evidence that the american people want anything but centrist politics from the democrats?"

One failed election (Kerry) and one marginal win (Gore) would be the evidence that I'd point to.  Gore's campaign was rather centrist and Kerry's was solidly so -- neither one of them carried the election by any impressive amount.  To look at this is to acknowledge one of two things: 1) the right-wingers have the majority after all [untrue]; 2) the DNC's centrist candidates are not as popular as the GOP and the media want everyone to think they should be.

your examples prove nothing.  what is proof is nader's 2.7% vote in 2000, when he could not even get better than 1% in a lot of the "safe" states.   he got 4% in new york and everyone knew there was no way new york was going for anyone but gore overwhelmingly.   they're just lining up to vote green, aren't they?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Well let's see.. centrist Democrats can't carry Presidential elections, and by your examples, neither can leftist candidates.  I suppose you've proven that the country really is full up with right-wingers.  What are we bothering with voting Dem or Green, then? 

well, because we just elected a democratic congress that, in spite of what many think, has done some good things.  they forced bush to nominate a more moderate, less partisan attorney general than might have been.   and i made no such statement that centrists can't get elected.   i said the opposite.   just because you lose an election doesn't mean you had a bad candidate or a more ideologically left candidate would have won.    i said those on the far left can't draw votes, and i backed it up. 

I don't buy the notion that if the dems fail it is the fault of greens. They fail because of something they did or didn't do. They don't automatically get my vote. And as far as greens arrogance in demanding the democratic party to change, you are way off base. I don't expect the dems to change. Maybe they will , maybe they won't, I don't know. That is why I found a party that suits me rather than trying to support a party I don't feel I have much of a place in. I honestly like the green party and that is why I joined. 

You can blame greens and independents for not voting for dems, and helping put bush into office, but don't you think it is more the fault of dem politicians? Most people I know who vote dem only do so because they're better than the repubs, not because they actually believe in the party. What does that say about dems ability to energize their constituents? 

isn't it sort of obvious that you vote for one party because you think they're better than the other?   like i said, you can vote for whoever you want, and if bush sits in the white house for eight years because the democrats won't cater to you, that's up to you.  you may be happy with that.  i'm not.

"isn't it sort of obvious that you vote for one party because you think they're better than the other?"

Yes, which is why I often vote green. And I think you missed my point. My point is the dems being slightly better than the repubs ain't saying much.

"if bush sits in the white house for eight years because the democrats won't cater to you, that's up to you you may be happy with that.  i'm not."

It's not up to me. It's up to the dems to be electable. Maybe ya'll shouldn't choose losing candidates. The dems don't have to cater to me, and I don't have to vote for them. I'm not happy with bush in the white house, I wasn't particularly happy with bill clinton either, and I won't be happy with hillary, so what are my options? I believe we need a broader range of representation in this country, and more parties would be good for our democracy. If I don't support outside parties with my vote, how will they ever gain support? I could just sit on my hands forever and say I'd like to, but.....    Eventually there will be other viable choices, but only if some of us support the growth of other alternatives now. You like the dems- good for you. I don't. Am I just supposed to wait until all conservative opposition dies off to support the candidates I like, because that may never happen. It's always "imperative" according to dems that i vote with them. If it's not bush, it's dole or guilianni or someone else. I can't just wait until you say it's a good time for me to vote for people I actually feel represent my interests. 

ok, if you see no big difference between bush and clinton, then we disagree.   that's all i can say.  i think gore would have been way better than bush, and i think his presidency has set this country back years.  

I see a difference between bush and clinton, and i do think bush is the worst president of my lifetime, but i also think clinton did things that have hurt our country and world deeply. NAFTA and WTO are two of the worst things to happen to the people of this country and the people of the world. I would say gore would have been better, but by how much one can only guess. With Lieberman as his running mate, I couldn't fathom supporting him. And Gore was a big supporter of NAFTA and WTO as well. I'm not sure how his support of that jives with his passion for global warming. It doesn't make sense to me. I agree bush has set us back years, but in my opinion, so did clinton. Clinton was smarter, and better in some ways, but how could anyone claim to care about the American people, and support something like NAFTA? 

i did not support nafta either.  but there are a whole range of issues that both clinton and gore were way better on.   and we do have the choice to opt out of nafta.   you're still claiming there's not that big a difference and i disagree.   you were going to have nafta with bush anyway.  

I said I thought Clinton was better than Bush, but that really isn't saying much. I wasn't crazy about a whole lot that Clinton did. I didn't dislike his policies as much as I dislike bush's, but that doesn't mean I like him. I would expect a conservative to support something like NAFTA, but not a liberal. That isn't the only thing I dislike about Clinton. There is a whole range of actions that, to me, describe his true character. For example, pardoning Mark Rich but not Leonard Peltier. I set the bar very high for those in positions of great power and I expect our leaders to have integrity. I know that is uncommon, but I wish more people would feel the same way instead of being complacent and resigning themselves to the lesser of two evils. I think we disagree on the means to achieve a better end, but my philosophy is that you don't just keep doing the same thing expecting different results. Keeping the same people in power, democrats and republicans alike, isn't really going to change much, in my opinion. 

there's no evidence that the country is going to take some big turn to the left.  that's expecting something different based on no reason.  the greens keep predicting some big shift and it hasn't happened.  meanwhile bush sits in the white house.  i think we were far better off with clinton than bush.   i don't think that's arguable.  

I don't think it is about the country taking a big turn to the left. There are many greens and independents and libertarians who don't feel truly represented, and many end up voting R or D by default, or not voting at all. I think the constituency already exists for more political parties, it is just largely untapped due to our currently constrictive system. I think we need instant run off voting which will lead to more viable political parties. I don't think there will be some big shift, progress is slow, but it takes a constant battle, and same old same old gets us nowhere. In Minneapolis the Green party is pretty popular, considering it is still a fledgling party, but because of the progressive political nature of MPLS instant run off voting has been instituted in city wide elections. Hopefully over time more and more places will become like MPLS. But deferring change because the time isn't right only stagnates progress.

I am not arguing that we weren't better off with Clinton, I am arguing that being a better president than bush is not a difficult achievement, and does not automatically  qualify Clinton for my hearty approval. I have stated over and over again that Clinton was better, but that doesn't mean I liked his policies either, because I didn't.

Yeah blame the Greens. WAIT GORE WON. How quick lefties are to form circular firing squads. I dont OWE the Dems my vote they have to EARN it and they havent done that good of a job recently. If the Dems cant win elections it cannot POSSIBLY be anyones fault but their own. Keep casting about looking to blame someone else but to paraphrase Pogo you have met the enemy is he is YOU

Solon, sometimes I think that we citizens have things backwards.  It's OUR responsibility to vote, and to pressure candidates to move towards progressive positions (this really only works if the candidate has an active conscience and heart inclined that way)  Otherwise, they tend to reflect the general mind of the masses, at least those in their party.

Here's where this discussion should be going, in my view:

"Instant Runoff Voting requires general elections to be determined by a majority of votes cast using the Instant Runoff Voting method. Voters rank the candidates 1, 2, 3 in order of preference. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the count is over and that candidate wins. If not, the last-place finisher is eliminated. Ballots cast for that candidate are counted for voters' next choice, until someone has a clear majority. Australia and Ireland have used the system for decades. Voters could support both a Nader and a Gore, both a Buchanan and a Bush, or any other combination and eliminate the "wasted vote” and "spoiler” effect of minor party candidates. The result: voter representation is enhanced."

Solon, please read my post (way) above that I specifically addressed to Redking.  Clearly I addressed it to the wrong poster as he is seems as out of touch as the farthest right Bushlover.  I was trying to address an actually reasonable, good-intentioned Green supporter.  I agree we don't need a circular firing squad.  My frustration with Nader in 2000 was exactly that he was the one yelling 'Fire!'  

I know not all Greens are so intractable nor self-destructive.  My impression actually is that many are confusing the choice in political parties with a consumer choice.  As in, "If I don't buy what the Democrats are selling, they'll produce a better product."  The ironies in this perspective are devastating.  It's actually a mirror of the Free Market perspective on the Right.   

Solon, thank you for your words.  Recently, I asked myself why I voted for Nader instead of Gore in Ohio, and I was reminded in a news report that Lieberman was the selected VP in 2000.  In a rush, it came back to me that I didn't have an opinion one way or another about Gore, but throwing Lieberman as Veep was the kiss of death for that campaign.

Lieberman in 2000, Kerry in 2004 - it proves that the DNC has the uncanny excellence of being able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I know this sounds radical as even the guy who does my taxes told me not to do it,but I`m sick of paying taxes that are stolen by Bush-types or used to kill innocent people who have done nothing to this country.Now if we all stopped paying taxes,what could they do,arrest us?I would really like to find out how to organize something like this, or to organize a 50 million person  peace march on Washington.tThat`s how many people voted against Bush in 2004.I bet he wouldn`t call us a "focus group" then.

As I watched the re-run of NBC's Today Show the morning of September 11th I was struck by how all the reporters covering the event appeared just as shell shocked as I had been. As I listened to their reports this time around it was not professionalism (which impressed me before) that I saw and heard it was fear. This administration realized that they had a fearful nation on their hands and have exploited it to the bitter end. Remember when Homeland Security would control the media by changing the security alert from yellow to orange or “oh my GOD” red? It reminded me of they story about the boy crying wolf, what would happen if we truly had a need to alert this country. This administration and Republicans in congress became “A” students in the art of using fear and MSM went along for the ride. Cable news has taken over for what used to be the 3 main nightly news sources, ABC, NBC and CBS. In stead of reporting the news graphics and greed has taken the place of truth. As time has passed watching cable news networks outdo each other with music to accompany the graphics has been almost funny if the truth wasn’t so tragic. Who had the best music or the best slogan. “Operation Free Iraq" or "Iraq on the verge of Democracy" or some other cute phrase that went along with their coverage. Telling the true story was not important. What it looked and sounded like was primary. I began to wonder what happened to telling the true story, independent of what this administration does best, create slogans. Even as late as this week General Petraeus's testimony was a dog and pony show. Who really gave a damn about the fact that all he had to report is the 30,000 additional soldiers added this year will be in Iraq until next year. This will give cover for Junior to run out his term and leave the Iraq  mess for the next President. Chris Matthews even had an advertising executive on to ask him if the President and his administration had done a good job "selling the continuation of the war". Young men and women are dying and cable news is asking if Junior has done a good job selling it. When did this war become the Amway product commercial?

I e-mail and write letter of protest regarding coverage, bias and those who want to continue to ignore the facts and I will continue to do so. Will it make a difference, I can't say. The one thing that I do know is I will not be silent cause silence means you agree IMO.

Righteous words, Pearlene. I write to these goobers too, but it hasn't seemed to help. I quit watching cable and network news a long time ago because of the obvious bias and stupidity of their "product". I only started watching KO on a regular basis the first of the year. I get my news from "truthout.org" because they have a continually updating frontpage and have a good aggregate of news sources as well as their own people doing reporting and interviews. I just don't trust 99% of that "liberal" news media on the teevee anymore. And I can't stomach watching baby bush and darth cheney at all. When their mouth is moving, they are lying imo. I'm glad MMFA is doing yeoman's service for us. It can't be pleasant work.

Thanks MMFA for the work you do.

Juliajayne, I have to give thanks to the heavenly gods for the mute button It has come in handy in the last 6 years.

And I give thanks to my husband and his choice to have Tivo for the last 6 years. Buzzing through all the crapola ads and political soundbites is nice. 

Lincoln Chafee, a Republican Senator from Rhode Island, has quietly given up his Republican affiliation.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/CHAFEE_GOP_09-16-07_DP751KF.31dd3fe.html

Chafee’s departure is another step in the waning of the strain of moderate Republicanism that was once a winning political philosophy from Rhode Island and Connecticut to the Canadian border. For the first time since the Civil War, the six New England states combined now have only one Republican U.S. House member, Connecticut’s Christopher Shays.

Chafee said he disaffiliated from the party “in June or July,” making him an unaffiliated voter. He did so quietly, and until yesterday, he said, “No one’s asked me about it.” He said he made the move because “I want my affiliation to accurately reflect my status.”

“There’s been a gradual depravation of … the issues the party should be strong on,” and the direction of the national party, he said.

That’s no secret. In a Journal Op-Ed piece published on the Thursday before the election, Chafee himself laid out some of the ways he disagreed with his party, notably as one of only 23 senators and the only Republican to oppose the resolution supporting the invasion of Iraq. He went on to criticize the “permanent deficits” caused by Republican tax cuts.

Off topic.

Did you hear that Keith Olberman had emergency surgery on Friday for appendicitis? I just heard it today when they said that he wouldn't be on