Marginalize reasonable dissent.  I guess that is the goal here.  I noticed that Sheehan agrees with us on the "far-left" that there needs to be oversight.  That is all we ever wanted to begin with.  Jeesh!

I think this kind of talk is beginning to backfire.  Of course the majority of Americans want their Constitutionally guaranteed liberties and are upset when they are trampled on.  So imagine your average middle-of-the-road citizen watching these shows and being told that the things they agree on are far-left.  Eventually they will start to say, "Hey, maybe I am a liberal."  The same can be said for health care.  All this talk does is make more people identify with the left and erase all that hard work the cons did trying to make liberal a four letter word.  We're already starting to see it in action in those 3 special elections in red districts.  

I think about 3/4 of America must be "far left" these days, judging by the standards of the GOP hardcore.

Exactly, Colonel... One area in which the Republicans have been entirely successful is in defining words and issues to suit them...definitions and meanings that then become absorbed and adopted by the MSM. Nowadays, anyone who is not a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, die-hard conservative is considered liberal...or, taking it a step further, far left wing. In a way, though, except for the dwindling, extreme right wing conservative base, I think these terms, liberal and far left wing, are lsoing their impact. IMO, most people are more concerned about the details of specific issues rather than whether that position fits into a preconceived liberal/conservative mold.

Matt Lauer has been a slavish fan of President Bush since January of 2001.

I can remember several instances where he expressed adulation for "Dubya".

 

But hey, NBC is part of the "Liberal media", right? 

 

 

Werner, the lying right's "Liberal Media" lie is just that, a big LIE.  The lying right wingers KNOW that the media is RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE, and we have a right wing conservative media, or to keep it simple, a "Conservative Media."

Second, it's clear to everyone that Matt Lauer is a lying right wing conservative Republican himself overall, in addition to the fact that Lauer is also a lying right wing conservative Republican Bush lover in particular.

Being the good Republican that Lauer is, this is his way of giving an assist to the unprincipled Republican Liar John McCain.

You should write humor for a living...I almost peed my pants reading your comedy.

"You should write humor for a living...I almost peed my pants reading your comedy."-- mikerhyner8202

Prove to us that the mainstream media is Liberally biased, instead of writing off handed remarks that one expects from a 12 year old.  Over the years, I've yet to recieve an intelligent answer to a question I've asked many Conservatives:

If the media is Liberally biased, why did the Reagan administration abolish The Fairness Doctrine?

Let's see if you have a good answer.

 

THERICK, I can answer this as any good Con would answer this(using the G. Bush priciple of answering questions).

Why did Reagen abolish the Fairness Doctrine...here is a ConBush answer...because I believe in education for everyone and a strong defense. Their THE RICK..that is the answer to the question.

Simple: Reagan was senile and didn't know what he was doing. Like all Republicans.

Randy

"Prove to us"- therick.

Any words about bias in the media from me is from a point of view different from yours...so will we disagree. Your comments on never yet receiving an intelligent answer shows your level of experiance is that of a 11 year old...it all goes over your head.

Got an answer, Mike? Even if it goes over the heads of all of the stoopid liberals, at least you'll be on record for the bright conservatives.

and... GO!

"Any words about bias in the media from me is from a point of view different from yours...so will we disagree." -- mikerhyner8202

I'll concede your point that we'll disagree, yet, it would seem that you could give at least one flaming example of mainstream media Liberal bias.  I personally know of none.  My guess, and your answer shows that neither do you. 

" . . . it all goes over your head"-- mikerhyner8202

Since you obviouselly seem unfamilliar with the Fairness Docterine, you could Google it, learn a little something about it and it's demise, then give me an answer that an 11 year old can understand.  I might surprise you, I often have no problem understanding 12 year old dialect.  I've found that nothing far righters say goes over any 11 year old's head. . .but keep your hand where I can see them.

"If the media is Liberally biased, why did the Reagan administration abolish The Fairness Doctrine?  Let's see if you have a good answer."

   Does it have to be a "good" answer, or just one we think is right?  I think he did it because he wanted to use the media as a tool to fight the evil unions. I don't think Reagan liked unions too much and what better way to fight them than to give more access of 'bad reports' to the general public.

That's some startling honesty. Thanks Phil.

If what you say is true, which it probably is partially true, Reagan's intentions probably served the broader strategy of the conservative movement to change the fundamental assumptions of the general public on the way America ought to look.

If what you say is true, that Reagan was out to get the unions, have the means justified the ends? Are Americans more prosperous without strong unions than with strong unions?

I almost peed my pants.

Recommendation.........Adult Depends

lol

There are products that help with that sort of problem...

They are working the ref. By incessantly crying foul over imaginary slights they have made the media too emasculated to challange the administration or their followers.

Matt Lauer is a rightist. I agree with you.

Charles Gibson(and George S) turned in a tabloid style, gossipy and gotcha style debate moderation.

Meanwhile CBS fired Dan Rather.

 

Etc. the list goes on and on.

I've long been of the mind that civil liberties and privacy are the areas where elements on the left and the right circle around and find common cause. And of course, as MMFA points out, there have been those on the right as well as the left who have been worried about the losses suffered in both those areas over the last several years.

But beyond noting that this hardly started with the Shrub gang, I wanted to say that to the extent that Lauer is right that concern about losing civil liberties is a project of the left, to that very same extent the center and the right should be ashamed of themselves.

NBC's Lauer falsely suggested only "the far left" is concerned about Bush's alleged civil liberties violations

Alleged? We are way past.... alleged!  You would have to be either a right wing lunatic or missing large sections of your brain to think that we are only at the alleged stage!

I dare anyone that thinks that these assclowns haven't destroyed our liberty and freedoms to go out and do nothing more than wear a t-shirt that is anti-war and display it within eyeshot of Bush at a rally and see what happens to you and your precieved liberty and see if it still exists the way you think it does! 

Does anyone at all think even for a second that the USAPATRIOT Act or the Protect America Act do what you have been told they do?

These 'laws' are so anti-democracy they would be a hilarious joke if not for the damage it has done to this country!

I weep for my country and I weep for my fellow citizens that have been brainwashed to believe that Bush and his corporate created policies protect us...... these sick 'laws' were created to keep us afraid enough so that these bastards can rape and pilage our country while we bicker and blame eachother for the ills of the world.......

Bush and Cheney and all these pyscho's could care less about themselves as individuals, so long as they stay together as a group and keep their story straight.... what makes any of you Bush defenders think that they care about any of us as a whole?

Lauer probably thinks that Sheehan is "liberal" so to balance out his interview, he'll invite Ann Coulter on for at least 3 chats about the dangers of liberalism.

Hell, they haven't even commented on the Bush League wiretapping before 9/11. But labelling these objections as "far left" will work about as well as when the  "far left" opposed McCarthyism.

This looks like yet another Right winger who's begging for both parties to come together.  I've been noticing recent commercials for "Divided We Fail," put out by the AARP--another predominantly conservative orginization.

For the last eight years, I don't remember any prominate Conservatives, Republicans, or Right wingers pleading for us to unite.  In fact, they did everything in their power to polorize the parties.  Funny how they suddenly want us all to get along, knowing they're in for a major ass whooping come November.

 

Funny how they suddenly want us all to get along, knowing they're in for a major ass whooping come November

The right-wing is losing their collective mind...... they know that McCain is another four years of Bush and this country has had it with their bullcrap!

Yes, there are still a not so silent minority in this country that is flipping out of control...... I fear for Obama that one of these lunatics might try something?

So of course they speak a good game now that we all must get along..... because they know that come Jan 21, 2009, it will be the end of the road for their kind of idiocy as they know it!

However, I say let them have their time to spew their garbage.... it is a free country after all..... those that listen to that right-wing slime won't change any time soon..... so let them have their Limbaughs and Ingerhams......

Not to change the subject...... but did anyone catch Ingerham claiming that Olbermann (in his Special Comment the other night) was saying that it was the troops and not the political hacks in the White House he was saying were cold blooded killers that may yet be brought up on charges.

Over at olbermannwatch.com they condensed this dimwits words over  three hours of ignorance into eight minutes of stupid......

And these lovely people now demand that we all get along?  We on the left have been trying that for years..... the right-wing deserves everything it gets!

Yeah, Capt., they're pretty loud for a fringe group, but let's be nice to the wingnuts. Look at Mikerhyners post above; he's so senile, he thinks the fact that the media is conservative is comedy, and he's so incontinent that he urinates on himself when he hears it.

Let's have a little respect for our fellow Americans whose below -the- neck is almost as dead as their above- the- neck.

but they seem to attach themselves to the easily fooled 18-30 year old kids who might actually vote. I just heard my 24 year old son say he needs to move to Alabama, a more conservative state. I asked him how he knew Alabama was more conservative, he said Rush limbaugh told him so. I just shook my head and lucky me, that didn't loosen my critical thinking skills.

That's rough, man. A lefty with a son who listens to Limbaugh.

You must have created some seriously wicked karma in your past to be saddled with such an interesting circumstance.

Indeed, the Cons so richly deserve another major ass whoopin',

Let's hope they get it in November.

In the last few months they've lost 3 House seats in special elections in ruby red districts.  Maybe the American people are at last starting to see through the Con job.

   Matt Lauer was intertaining, popular, and appeared an honest Joe right      from the beginning. Well,it didn't take long for the Bushco propaganda machine to recruit him,and it appears he's proud to be among the Retired Generals,military experts,and others, including the likes of William Cohen,and now, they have recruited the big fat weatherman.

 I admired Lauer for a few years,and when he got more involved in politics, and Bushcos war, I was somewhat taken aback when I began to see the lies.  at first I thought maybe it was mistakes,then realized he's lying,and he knows he's lying,then all respect for Matt Lauer went out the window. He had been recruited

TO CAPTFOSTER, SEE IT REAL, my friend, THE COL., and others:

All of you have got the picture correctly. There is very little I can add to what you have said about the myth of the "liberal" MSM. The extreme right has always complained about the "bias" of the network and cable news coverage that did not toe the line for them. As more and more on-air "journalists" began to spout the party line in support for conservative ideas the happier they became. Lauer is but one example. We should not lump all of the MSM into this bag. Some of the most well-known are just plain dumb. They start things from the diaphragm, up through the throat and out the mouth without ever passing through the brain. I don't think it is intentional; just stupid. Will Rodgers said, "All I know is what I read in the papers."

I suggest we all re-read William L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich",

published way back in 1956, and Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarian Specter", published in 1996 (before George Bush, but NOT before Cheney). "Conservatives Without Conscience", by John W. Dean is a dilly, also.

Mr Lauer, I don't know whose a$ you are kissing up to today, but let me remind you of a little bit of history. Thomas Jefferson encouraged dissent with your own government and vigorous civil discussions. You sir, are not.

I've read most of the comments on this subject, and while there are plenty of wild allegations of the "trampling" of civil rights, I didn't see anything remotely specific, just wild allegations.  I would agree that it is ONLY the far left that is concerned with civil liberty violations as it relates to many of the politicies initiated in response to Sept 11th.  Most of us see them as what they are; reasonable and prudent actions in response to the ongoing attack against our country.  Can anyone give me a specific example of any blatant suspension of our civil liberties?  It seems to me that what the far left is complaining about is the terrorist surveilance program and the failure to grant terrorists habeas corpus rights.  With respect to the terrorist surveilance program, can anyone cite any specific instances of the unnecessary infringement of civil liberties that has come to light?  With respect to habeas corpus, the lunacy of granting habeas corpus to THE ENEMY would seem to be self evident and I would agree with Lauer, ONLY the far left is concerned about it.  And in my view, NOT because of the civil liberties aspect, but because of the Bush hate syndrome.

Personally, I don't find it neccessary to coerce librarians into secretly tracking the reading habits of citizens.

Legalized torture is definitely an infringement of human rights and therefore an infringement of my civil liberties.

That the Bush administration claims, without having to disclose to anyone, it has the inherent power to ignore or alter existing executive orders issued either by him or previous presidents is an affront to our model of open government. That is a violation of the public trust.

There's more but why continue? I have the feeling you would deem these tactics appropriate.

Ah, yes, crush the cell, fight fire with fire, that'll help. Lauer forgot to mention one pink little elefant: enhanced interrogation. Hey, I got a better defense against terrorism: justice. Michael Moore knows better than Karl Rove what that means. Some may call it the Jesus way. I only see it as far left and reasonable, the solution always is. What you need is oversight, transparency and responsibility, what you have is nothing but secrecy.

"I don't think it has been abused over the last seven years. And even when President Bush pushed the NSA wiretapping thing, I think as people began to understand what he was doing, they became -- they understood it more. It's just the way he went about it."

"The way he went about it?" Like the way he ignored FISA law and how one branch of the government authorized warrantless wiretaps without another branch's supervison?

"With respect to the terrorist surveilance program, can anyone cite any specific instances of the unnecessary infringement of civil liberties that has come to light?" 

What do you call wiretaps on US citizens without court orders in violation of the 4th amendment? 

"With respect to habeas corpus, the lunacy of granting habeas corpus to THE ENEMY would seem to be self evident and I would agree with Lauer, ONLY the far left is concerned about it."

Feel free to explain why telling prisoners what crimes they are being charged with is "lunacy?" You of course know that some of these prisoners are citizens of our allies and that hundreds of them have been found innocent and set free (after years of detention and torture)?

The key is oversight.  Sheehan knows that and says it.  But the right wants to twist it to make it sound like these loonies on the "far left" are against any sort of surveillance even with oversight.  Who knows what Bush & Co have been up to for the past 7 years since they've refused to submit to any oversight.  I am not confidant that there has been no abuse as Sheehan claims.

I think its interesting how when the republicans were in the majority (which for some reason they thought was a permanent one, go figure) They did everything they could think of to marginalize the Democrats. From holding open votes while they twisted arms, to the "nuclear option" and everything in between. Now that they're in the minority (which looks to be awhile, but you never know) we've all got to "get along". They're lucky most Democrats are adults and don't go in for payback. (though sometimes I wish they would. Just to see and hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth)

Setting aside the ridiculous notion that concern for civil liberties is the provenance of some spooky-sounding "far left," look at the other part of that statement: "The sound you just heard, Michael, is the far left, grabbing for their remote controls..." What does that mean? Those of us who are concerned about civil liberties will change the channel because they're talking about spying? I'm concerned about civil liberties, and I'd have turned up the volume if I'd caught that broadcast. I think it's an interesting "tell": Lauer is revealing that if you talk to him about something unpleasant that he doesn't want to know about, he'll basically stick his fingers in his ears and sing lalala so that he doesn't have to hear about it, and he assumes everyone else does the same.