Great.  McCain gives you jelly doughnuts and coffee for free and cracks jokes with you, so you give him a free pass on being a shill for a lying, corrupt, criminal administration who lied America into an illegal war and for essentially wanting to continue that if he gets to move into the White House.  Not to mention his flip-flops and reversals for political expediency which contradict his "maverick" and "straight talk" images that the media incessantly continue to bestow upon him.  What a press corps America has.

THANK YOU.

njguy93@yahoo.com

The housing market, the stock market and gas prices will ensure a Democratic victory in November.  The economy has overtaken the War on Terror as the dominant public concern.

McCain's 100 years in Iraq comment has been mischaracterized by the left, which is not surprising.  However, the "lying America into an illegal war" meme does deserve a response.  Let's say for the sake of argument that Bush did lie America into an illegal war as I've read many times.  The Democratic leadership, having control of Congress, would have the responsibility of doing something about that.  They have not.  Pelosi took impeachment off the table a long time ago.  They have voted for the FISA bill.  They are Radical Centrists all the way.  I understand the outrage at Bush because let's face it you never liked him in the first place.  You wouldn't like him even if his approval rating was in the 60% range.  But how about some outrage at the Democratic Party for doing exactly nothing since 2006 despite having a supposed mandate to do something, anything. 

Anyone?  Anyone? Bueller?

Bruce - I cannot disagree with you concerning the Democratic Congress.  I am disappointed that they have not even looked into the allegations of having our country misguided into an occupation. (I won't call it a war because we were never threatened by Iraq in the first place).  Nor, have they taken any action against the illegal wiretapping; even approving the latest action is more disgusting.  However, keep in mind that the Dems don't have the power to override vetoes either.

"However, keep in mind that the Dems don't have the power to override vetoes either."

They don't NEED to override a veto.  They had the chance to end this war the very first time Bush threatened to veto a funding bill because it also contained something he didn't like.  All they had to do was let that veto stand and not allow ANY "war funding" bill to go through a vote unless it had that same, or some other, provision Bush would veto.

Let that veto sit on the desk.  It would be ALL Bush holding up the funding, not the Congress.  And if he DOES eventually sign a funding bill with something he doesn't like...well, at least the country will have GAINED that!

Congress controls the purse strings.  Why aren't they DOING that?  You want outrage?  You've got it.  I've been outraged since the very first time this "Democratic" Congress caved to Bush's veto threats and I'm outraged every time they continue to do that.

And that's why they're gonna lose in November. Nobody's saying anything. That's the whole point of the article, and the prospect is very gloomy.

As Ted Kennedy said years ago during the early years of the Reagan administration, things are going to have to get much worse before they get better. That's history. 

Or was that statement made during the middle of the Carter one term.

Douche.

Hum, someone seems to be looking for a fight. Well, keep looking, ain't going to happen here with me.

Douche.

Touche'

There has been a great deal of outrage over the Dems not standing up and changing things, about Pelosi taking impeachment off the table and about the FISA vote.  Check out stirctly Democratic/liberal sites if you want a sample of the fighting over these matters.

However, the Democratic majority in Congress is not large enough to get over Republican parliamentary maneuvers or an outright Presidential veto without a nearly unanimous vote by Democrats and perhaps a few crossover votes.  This is complicated by the fact that the media seems to be pretty willing to cover votes and issues according to the Republican storyline.  (How many times have you seen a major media portrayal of the FISA vote as a battle over constitutional rights as opposed to being a matter of national security and terrorism?)  And this last bit is exactly what this piece about McCain gets to.  Our current media are pliant little wh*res, easily bribed and easily cowed.

So what is the problem with a VETO?

Fisa is the one thing that should never have been caved on.

travesty.

 

(and Impeachment of course!) 

I agree and I think that at least half of the Dems that went along with the FISA vote did so because they feared being labelled as "soft on security" or even "in favor of civil rights for terrorists."  Unfortunately right now the Republicans are so far into the extremes of the right that one can't make a protest vote against centrist and Rep-Lite Democrats without giving more power over to the lunatic fringe.  The spectre of Nader on 2000 still lives on.

I don't think it was a political calculation as much as $$$.  From CBS new.com: 

The 94 Democrats who changed their positions received on average $8,359 in contributions from Verizon, AT&T and Sprint from January, 2005, to March, 2008, according to the analysis by MAPLight, a nonpartisan organization that tracks the connection between campaign contributions and legislative outcomes.

Bingo, once again the power of money overturns the thoughts of the people.

Seriously? What were you thinking when you voted for Bush twice?

Tax cuts?

Been explained several times in the past, Bush once only. But you are either unwilling to accept that or you are looking for a fight.  Keep looking.

I am always looking for a fight with cons.

Why? Because you guys have so screwed my country that you deserve not a moment's rest from being constantly reminded of your failures, nor do you deserve an inch of credibility.

Your Republican party is utterly unfit for leadership. The conservative worldview is an elitist, violent ideology and I will not ever let you forget it. If you don't like it, stop reading my posts, but I will not stop responding to you.

Did Oscar himself say something that supports a "violent" world view?  Is there some personal history here that influences your post, because it seems awfully generalized.

Maybe we should differentiate between "conservative" and neo-conservative".  I wouldn't discredit the larger group entirely because of the actions of the subgroup.  Look at people like Philib and Proudconservative and then compare them with those like Bruce or Oscar.  There's certainly a difference there, don't you think?

Also, I find it irrelevant to the subject at hand.  We don't accept distractions like "well so-and-so said this..." from right-wingers here.  If it happens on both sides, fine, but the criticism is still valid.  Similarly, pointing out that money is too strong of an influence on many Democrats is a valid criticism, and lashing out against the Republicans in general doesn't address that.  Of course the Republicans are a disaster, but that doesn't excuse Democrats from their obligation to act responsibly and with principles, nor does it deny anyone's right to criticize them for failure to do so.

If Oscar's said or implied that Dems are just as bad as the Republicans of the last seven and a half years, or has claimed Bush is a great leader, then of course that would speak to credibility.  Oscar's always seemed more reasonable than that from what I've seen, whether I agree with him or not.  Trying to discredit people solely due to their general political outlook only exacerbates the polarization we're experiencing.

"Did Oscar himself say something that supports a "violent" world view? "

He spoke with his vote. He voted Republican.

I don't see much distinction between a neocon and your everyday con. They both share big picture commonality. Do you really think that had Iraq gone differently, perhaps better, that these clowns would understand or acknowledge the monumental moral misstep it was to invade Iraq in the first place? I am doubtful. From what I can see, they both share the belief that militarism is better foreign policy.

Also, do you think the everyday con differs on economic issues from a neocon? I'm saying do you really believe that the market fundie belief of deregulation of the market or the privatization of the commons are areas of disagreement among the two? I don't.

I don't really see being nice, or even being reasonable, as much of an excuse for being a conservative and voting to perpetuate conservatism. Not when one can just look at the dismal economic failure that their brand of capitalism generates, or the proliferation of strife and anger that their thug diplomacy elevates, or the lack of equality that their lunatic ideology foments for homosexuals, women and minorities.

There's no excuse for conservatism.

"Also, I find it irrelevant to the subject at hand. We don't accept distractions like "well so-and-so said this..." from right-wingers here."

You know the answer to that one. If I am irrelevant, flag me. Have me removed. Or simply ignore me. I am as sorry to say that to you as am to read that from you, because I really like your style and grace.

"Similarly, pointing out that money is too strong of an influence on many Democrats is a valid criticism, and lashing out against the Republicans in general doesn't address that."

Show me where I make excuses. I am a populist progressive, I make no excuses for weak-kneed Democrats. Period. But I sure as shit ain't going to cut a Republican any slack, either. Especially not because they're nice, or seem reasonable. They're just wolves in sheep's clothing in my view.

"If Oscar's said or implied that Dems are just as bad as the Republicans of the last seven and a half years...."

Seven and a half years? You let them off too easy. The last seven and a half years is merely the culmination of, the logical conclusion to, the last thirty years of the conservative movement's slow takeover of the American political and cultural landscape. And we let it happen.

"Trying to discredit people solely due to their general political outlook only exacerbates the polarization we're experiencing."

Well, take it or leave it, my friend. Because if that general political outlook isn't changed, then it will be nearly impossible to change specific political views on all the good old American notions of the economy, foreign policy, equality, patriotism, responsibility etc..

No, I'm not terribly sorry for laying into Oscar or Bruce. I can entertain their ideas without accepting them and I do, I just find their nice guy schtick to be disingenuous. I am not buying in.

"He spoke with his vote. He voted Republican{...}From what I can see, they both share the belief that militarism is better foreign policy."

But you're not just talking about conservatives, you're talking about Republicans.  Every Republican thinks that invasion is sound foreign policy?  If you want to make the charge that the two of them are not moderate and actually support that policy, then make that specific argument.  The generalization is the problem.

"I don't really see being nice, or even being reasonable, as much of an excuse for being a conservative and voting to perpetuate conservatism. Not when one can just look at the dismal economic failure that their brand of capitalism generates, or the proliferation of strife and anger that their thug diplomacy elevates, or the lack of equality that their lunatic ideology foments for homosexuals, women and minorities...There's no excuse for conservatism."

Again, you talk about Republicans, not just conservatives.  But even among conservatives there is a range of beliefs, so you can't paint all of them as "lunatic" or a bigot of any sort.

"You know the answer to that one. If I am irrelevant, flag me. Have me removed. Or simply ignore me. I am as sorry to say that to you as am to read that from you, because I really like your style and grace."

I'd rather have a reasonable exchange with someone than ignore them.  If I have to ignore or flag someone, that tells me that they're not willing to consider the nature of their posts at all.  I've always thought you were better than that.  I do appreciate the compliment, by the way.

"Show me where I make excuses. I am a populist progressive, I make no excuses for weak-kneed Democrats. Period. But I sure as shit ain't going to cut a Republican any slack, either. Especially not because they're nice, or seem reasonable. They're just wolves in sheep's clothing in my view."

That is prejudicial, and therefore irrational.  A right-of-center ideology is not the problem, it's the degree and respectability of behavior that's important.  I didn't think I said or implied you were making excuses, I thought I said that you were dismissing the argument because the person making it didn't share your political views.  The idea that you agree with what was said makes your dismissal even more unreasonable.

"Seven and a half years? You let them off too easy. The last seven and a half years is merely the culmination of, the logical conclusion to, the last thirty years of the conservative movement's slow takeover of the American political and cultural landscape. And we let it happen."

I won't dispute the timeline, but still you can't attribute the worst characteristics of specific conservatives to tens of millions of Americans.

"Well, take it or leave it, my friend. Because if that general political outlook isn't changed, then it will be nearly impossible to change specific political views on all the good old American notions of the economy, foreign policy, equality, patriotism, responsibility etc....No, I'm not terribly sorry for laying into Oscar or Bruce. I can entertain their ideas without accepting them and I do, I just find their nice guy schtick to be disingenuous. I am not buying in."

My concern is that lumping everyone together does nothing to encourage moderate behavior.  If we make no distinction between the more moderate elements and the extreme ones, then how does that lend us any credibility?  That would make it completely impossible to change specific political views.  The Republican party is not going to wither and blow away just because liberals are combative towards them.  As I said, it just exacerbates the divisiveness, breeding more extremism.

Progressives like you and I generally have a more developed ability and desire to empathize.  There are so many of us that are not black or gay or female, yet we can recognize injustices against others because we wouldn't want to be treated that way ourselves.  So try imagining yourself in a scenario;Gore wins the Presidency and does everything that Bush has done, at least in terms of illegality, extremism, and disfavor with the public.  Let's say for thirty years that the party that best exhibits your principles was overrun by radicals who made honest liberals like you look bad.  You want more reasonable people representing you, of course, but that's just not how it goes.  Now, some conservative blasts you as being part of the problem, a wolf in sheep's clothing, the enemy.  You are not able to make any criticisms of Republicans, because the extremists in your party make your personal philosophy inexcusable.

You'd tell them to go f*** themselves, right?   And if you're going to get that kind of static for being honest in your philosophy and actions, what's your motivation to continue being honest?

No, moderates of any philosophy should be encouraged.  We can still disagree, but without the polarization.  Let the moderates and the extremists fight for the soul of their party, instead of creating a common enemy they feel they have to unite against.  And most importantly, belligerence and prejudicial generalizations only detracts from our own credibility, it makes us more like the cutthroat bastards you justifiably loathe on the other side, and that diminishes any distinction between the ideologies that you want the public to carry into the voting booth with them.

"And most importantly, belligerence and prejudicial generalizations only detracts from our own credibility, it makes us more like the cutthroat bastards you justifiably loathe on the other side, and that diminishes any distinction between the ideologies that you want the public to carry into the voting booth with them."

Well put. I get angry. It's counterproductive. That's undeniable.

Thanks for taking the time to chat.

Always a pleasure.  Thanks!

It just occurred to me to cite the war on terror here.  Think about the way that's been handled.  We don't care about civilian casualties, we don't distinguish between terrorists and insurgents, Shiites and Sunnis.  It's all shock and awe, breaking eggs to make the big omelet.  It's a military solution to an enforcement/intelligence problem.

Of course, anti-American sentiment is a major factor in terrorist recruitment.  So what does invading a sovereign nation do for our image?  It justifies the image of America that terrorists work from.  A better way to go about it is to appeal to more reasonable elements in the Middle East in an effort to work together and reduce terrorism as much as possible.  We would retain the respect of the international community along with a civil relationship with people who have a much different viewpoint.

Obviously there are differences, but I feel the principle applies quite well. 

Anybody who voted for Bush once, let alone twice, wasn't thinking at all.

That was not the first "mistake" I've made in my voting career.  I voted for LBJ in 1964 because a "vote for Goldwater was a vote for more involvement in SE Asia."  Looking back, probably not a good choice.  I voted for Carter in 1976, because I didn't like the baggage Food carried from the Nixon years.  That worked out well (high inflation, high interest, gas lines, etc).  Voting for a President is somewhat a crap shoot, because they often govern different than they run, primarily because of expediency and political necessity. I (and you) have voted for winners and losers and yet the country keeps functioning.  We are in for a couple of rough years no matter who wins in November, we just need to keep looking forward and know that if the people come together, this country will survive.  If we remain as divided as it appears we are, the rough years may extend through most of the first term of the next President.  I have differences with both the major candidates and cannot honestly say which way my vote will go this fall, but rest assured that once the President is sworn in, my support will be behind him and his agenda unless it completely goes against my internal moral compass. Even at that point I will not call him "Oreo" or the like or "McShame" or the like. Even if I agree 75% or more with his agenda, I will not treat him as the "second coming." Need to stay grounded in reality and know this country, even though it could do better, is a great place to have been born and raised.

bush was unfit to be president, a statement i would not have made about his father.  junior was nothing but an irresponsible alcoholic until the age of 40.  his recovery program did not need to include being president of the united states, at the expense of the country.  especially when you had a more than qualified candidate in al gore, who would have been an extension of what was a fairly successful clinton presidency.  bush never should have come close to winning the white house.  if nothing else, all you had to do was watch the debates in 2000 to know what an arrogant idiot he is.

I think a lot of people, including myself, looked back on the 12 years of one party in the White House and didn't like what we saw.  Gore would have made 12 years of the other party, hence I believe there was some backlash.  Also, the markets had started slowing down and the economy was cooling. Would it be different if there were a revote? Certainly, but again we can have as much of an impact on the country by who we elect to Congress as who we elect President. Besides, our votes for local representation count where our vote for President may mean little, depending on what State we reside in.  I voted for Bush in 2000, but the States electoral votes went to Gore (as I knew it would going in). If you are looking for scapegoats, look at Tennesse (Gore's home state, which he did not carry). If he could have carried Tennesse, Florida would not have even come into play.  What did the voters of Tennesse think they knew about a homeboy that caused that vote to go against him?

"If you are looking for scapegoats, look at Tennesse (Gore's home state, which he did not carry). If he could have carried Tennesse, Florida would not have even come into play."

Utterly irrelevant.  If an unfair process in Florida cost him the election, then there's no reasonable way of pointing anywhere else, since a fair process in that state would have given him his due victory.

A win is a win.  If your favorite basketball team should have won by one point, but a horrendous call gives the opposing team two free throws at the end, you still got robbed.  Someone arguing that your team could have scored more points would be completely absurd.

Could you define specifically what was unfair about the process in Florida?

It's been debated for years, that Dems could have won had the ballots been counted this way or that way and maybe that's true.  But what I know for a fact is that each person that went into that voting booth in the state of Florida had the opportunity to cast one vote accurately for the candidate of their choice, and too many people that went to vote for Al Gore couldn't complete that process in an accurate manner.  Their own incompetence in filling out the ballot put their vote in jeapardy.  To me, that is an undeniable truth.

How about Katherine Harris changing the protocol for "scrubbing" the voter list so that anyone with a similar name as a felon was unable to vote?  That prevented thousands of people from voting.  And if this didn't give Bush an advantage, why would his own campaign co-chair go through the trouble?

As for the butterfly ballot, we've been over this before.  It was illegal, whether designed by a self-labeled "Democrat" or not.  The whole reason it's illegal is because it's confusing.  Even Pat Buchanan admitted this.  People are used to a different kind of ballot, that's what they expect.  It's like turning onto a street and finding out that on this particular street you're supposed to be driving on the left.  Even if there's a sign indicating that you wouldn't accept a ticket for "not driving properly", obviously.

The ballot was approved prior to the election by both parties.  It was not a good design.  It will not be used again, I'm sure. 

However, anyone who was confused should have had their confusion clarified by a voting official prior to submitting their ballot.

That doesn't make it "fair process", because voters were still robbed of their intended vote.  Besides, if people think they voted for Gore, they obviously have no reason to ask for clarification.  The whole problem is that people didn't realize they had to analyze the ballot.

I agree with your last point.  I will never buy the "stolen election" conspiracy, but I can agree that the ballot was poorly designed. 

oscar, there was nothing the people of tennessee knew that the rest of the country didn't.  and that's all beside the point of what i said.  bush was unfit for the office.  drinking, partying, and running three businesses into the ground by the age of 40 are not a good record.  it was obvious he was inept, and he has proved it every day of his administration. 

and there was also history to indicate what would happen.  bush promised us a second round of reagan voodoo ecomonics.  lower taxes on the rich and bust the budget and add trillions to our debt.  that's exactly what happened.

I understand that Democrats may not have had the numbers to win the fights they should have waged, but that doesn't absolve them (in my view) of waging those fights anyway.  After all, that's what good leadership is supposed to do.

Bruce, I don't think you're going to get any disagreement from most liberals that the dem leadership has been spineless and beaten.  So, I'm not sure what your point is.  Especially considering that this is a thread about the media falling over themselves to "lay hands", as the Jesus Campers would say, on McCain. 

whether bush has a 60% approval rating or a 5% has nothing to do with a reason to "like" him, to begin with or not.  i despise the man, because he's a arrogant, lazy, know nothing who thinks god wanted him to be president.  he surrounds himself with scum like rove and cheney.  and the fact is that every time the democrats discuss a withdrawal or cutting off funds for iraq, your fellow republicans try to make them out to be buddies with the terrorists.

"I understand that Democrats may not have had the numbers to win the fights they should have waged, but that doesn't absolve them (in my view) of waging those fights anyway. After all, that's what good leadership is supposed to do."

Yet, how easy it must be in your mind to absolve your boys of fighting for the wrong side.

Keep voting Republican, buddy. Keep acting like it's conservatism that has been failed. Keep shirking your responsibility to accept that conservatism itself is the failure.

My views aren't all or nothing one way or the other.  I certainly lean to the right on more issues than not.  And I've already declared for Obama in November so therefore what? 

 

the problem is with your statement about where is the outrage at the democrats.  as in, why no impeachment hearings.  the fact is they can never get the votes to convict in the senate.  not one republican would vote for it.  and all they would do is start all the nonsense about how the democrats are aligning with the enemy.  i can just hear it now, led by limbaugh and hannity and all the others:  "we're in the middle of a war, the surge is working, and the democrats want to hand victory to the enemy by impeaching bush.  is there no end to their attacks on this great country?"  it's a no win for the democrats.  so it's your selectivity in making an equal criticism of the democrats, for what is mainly decisions made by republicans.

Okay mefirst.  If your side is going to decide how to proceed based on what Hannity or Limbaugh might say about you (they might say some mean things after all) then God help your party.  Note:  They are going to criticize your side no matter what you do. 

If you have the facts to proceed on impeachment, then proceed.  I'm talking about the cold hard facts.  The slam dunk case-closed facts.  Going forward with impeachment hearings would show John Q Public a little something, like maybe you really do have the facts on your side and not just the left wing talking point "facts".

If you only have the "facts" to proceed on impeachment and you're throwing stuff against the wall to see if it might stick, then sure that might backfire on you, with good reason.  Maybe that's why Pelosi backed down.  She doesn't believe you have a winnable case.  Maybe...

I think it's a tough question, and I largely agree Dems should impeach even if it's not successful.  However, the failure to do so does not reflect on the merits of the case just because it's so likely to fail and backfire.  Are Republicans really going to break ranks to kick one of their own out of office, in this political environment?  With the right-wing spin and echo chamber the public might see it as partisan, revenge for Clinton's impeachment, etc.  It seems more and more obvious that Republicans are much better at getting their message out there.

Between cooking intelligence to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation, torture, outing a CIA agent and circumventing FISA to spy on Americans, there's enough to impeach Bush and Cheney both.  The failure to take a huge political risk for highly uncertain reward does nothing to change that.

McCain's 100 years in Iraq comment has been mischaracterized by the left, which is not surprising.

It hasn't been mischaracterized.  Make no mistake, McCain wants to stay in Iraq forever and dynamics of the situation will always be the same.  He's delusional if he thinks the Iraqis will accept a foriegn presence in their country.

What more can they do to prove that they don't want us there?  They've already tried shooting at us, trying to blow us up, and having the Prime Minister tell us to get out.  What else is there?

"What else is there?"

Keep letting us fund, train, and build their war machine until they can run us out with the weapons WE PAYED FOR?

Good point.  I forgot about the "mujahideen model" of resistance.

McCain is just the latest sock puppet of the neo-con, military industrial, congress complex, that Ike warned us about. There is still billions and billions of barrels of oil in the mid east and true patriotic American corporations shoud have the US military there to police the area and assure their (the US oil conglomerates) god given right to first dibs. God, obviously, does not want heathen Chinese, Russian and Indians to have that oil, why do you think he put the oil under Muslim lands? So we don't have to feel guilty about killing them for the oil, they're heathens anyway!

"But how about some outrage at the Democratic Party for doing exactly nothing since 2006 despite having a supposed mandate to do something, anything."

Yeah, those so called Dems piss me off too, but sometimes you're such a disgusting, dishonest punk.

Aside from your jerkwad block and blame R's in Congress, how about YOU show some outrage for the selfsame corporate conservative whores who voted in lockstep, to a man, to gut the fourth amendment on this FISA shizzit?

Just keep voting for Republicans. You and Oscar both. Keep up the good fight you toady.

Roundhouse, one last time. I'd bet you that I have voted for more Democrats than you have Republicans and yet you make me out to be an Idealalog.  Get some more rest, you are more grouchy than I am.

Blue dogs like the ones who voted with your Republicans don't count.

Don't try to pretend you have any liberal leanings.

You said, "But how about some outrage at the Democratic Party for doing exactly nothing since 2006 despite having a supposed mandate to do something, anything."

It isn't like they have been filibustered to death by your Republicans, or anything. So don't even start it. Your Republican pals have set historic records for the amount of filibusters.

It's been the Republican strategy to block the process and blame the Dems as a bunch of do nothings. YOU have obviously been duped. At this point I'm gonna have to say our ignorance is willful.

I made that comment, not Oscar.  At least point your outrage at the right person.

 

Oops. You both sound so similar.

"Pelosi took impeachment off the table a long time ago."

And that may have been a smart thing. Do you really want this psychotic administration cornered, looking for a way out? They have shown over and over that no distraction is too big, or too bloody, to forego in the name of covering their own asses.

I completely disagree with that logic.  If indeed the Bush administration deserves impeachment, then I would fully support that over worrying about what the administration might do in response.  I can't believe you even offered that up.

I can't believe you don't see what psychopaths Bush and Cheney are. What? That 1% doctrine doesn't influence your thinking? Preemptive strikes anyone?

Furthermore, I reject your implication that prudence in the company of powerful madmen is at all on the same level as worry.

NJGUY,

Sad.... isn't it!

Our illustrious 4th estate is willing to let jelly donuts, coffee, and nicknames interfere with their needing to be objective.

Isn't this just another form of bribe?  If it were actual cash money being offered..... would that be any different than what is already occuring??

Mmmm. Jelly doughnuts.

It's Homer Simpson journalism.

quote from article: "This has always been a troubling explanation to those who think that the media should report candidates' flaws regardless of the candidates' efforts to keep them fat and happy with jelly doughnuts and jocular nicknames. "

 

So when is Media Matters going to start embracing what they preach? I guess this mantra applies only to conservatives?

 

What are you basing your accusation on, exactly?

They haven't asked him to reconcile his (and their) claims that he is a "maverick" with the fact that he's voted with George W. Bush 95 percent of the time this year -- a higher percentage than any other senator.

I wonder if it's that 5% difference that makes him such a maverick?

Like wow, Anna Marie Cox sounds so like, you know, like a valley girl. 

Meanwhile, banter passes muster as journalitic probity. 

This is way out of bounds for this thread, Julia, but I just read this article and thought you would like it. I think it's beautiful.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/all-hat-and-no-cattle

Round,

I'm sure Julia will get around to reading the link you provided, if she hasn't done so already, but I just read it and though you are correct that it isn't specifically relevant to this particular thread, it is relevant in other ways..... and like you, I will not mention what those 'ways' are.....

I invite everyone to read the link that RoundHouse has provided.... it is both moving and will perhaps will boil your blood a little bit too?

"Like wow, Anna Marie Cox sounds so like, you know, like a valley girl.

Meanwhile, banter passes muster as journalitic probity."

Yeah, ana Marie Cox sounds like a Republican Valley Hate Hag from Republican Simi Valley.

I believe the term "Valley Hate Hag" fits Republican women like Ana Marie Cox perfectly.

 

During the Primary I remember Carlson, when he had his show talk about how sure the media was being biased against Clinton, there is great enmity from the media towards the Clintons, they earned our enmity and they shouldn't be surprised at it now!

 

YIKES.

 

Then, more recently, at the end of the primary  I saw  Jonathan Alterman on Verdict saying that yeah there was bias from the media... but thee was no enmity, we were just tired of them, we were sick ofcovering them, we wanted them gone.

Dan Abrams and the other guest had their eyes bugging out and their jaws on the floor.

Dan said something about it and Alterman then began to show how much enmity, getting very red in the face and saying they treated the Press terribly, one of the media liason guys was so rude, you should have seen the room they put ius in... on and on, obviously infuriated!

 

alrighty then,m I guess if you aren't being courted like the syncophants you are its A-OK to malign and distort someone to get even.

nice.

 

Last week I heard that putz Matthews say something about the media not that crazy about Obama now and will this cause him trouble. I don't remember who he was talking to but they agreed and kind of petulantly added that he should start treating the press better or giving more access, something like that.

 

so here it goes again.

Damn them.

We so need to overthrow corporate media. 

Interesting points. How would you overthrow the corporate media?

By empowering unions.

I misread your post so do what you normally do and disregard my comment.

You could start by reinstating the dozens of rules thrown out over the last few decades regarding consolidation and monopoly ownership. 

Yes!

Another money bomb campaign at some point? 

Oh Lord, I don't know!

I am looking to find the organizations that are working to take the "news" out of the hands of corporate interests.

Let them have the disasters, the show biz, the accidents, the crime but keep politics and corporate  coverage away from them.

 

Again, how?

I have no idea.

First of all making sure that pure progressives are elected in down ticket races as much as humanely possible.

 

Well, pure isn't really the word since to be in Washington means you will compromiseto get things done.

 

sigh. 

 

This guy gets it.

"Few grassroots groups can afford blocks of radio airtime in large media markets. But in that swath of our country’s middle recently rediscovered by Howard Dean, it is still possible for those with limited resources to compete with media conglomerates’ talking heads. The way forward is not to think big, but small – grassroots. Unlike “the other guys,” we don’t need billionaires to do this for us. We do it ourselves.

If you’re not Goliath, fine. Be David.

A loose network of citizen activists (and/or 527 committees), operating locally, can in time erode the message dominance of conservative talk radio. We will plant seeds we may not harvest in a single election cycle. That’s okay. It’s not a quick fix – it took conservative think tanks decades to build their infrastructure – but it won’t happen unless we have the patience and discipline to begin. Start in the provinces where costs are low. Build support there and work towards the capitol. It is a classic strategy for taking on a more-powerful, more-centralized adversary.

Will local media outlets work with you? Not all. But in the end, here is the kind of pressure the corporate media responds to: cash, credit and travelers checks.

This is not theory. You don't have to be Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes to do this. Our group is on the air now in western North Carolina. It may not be much yet, but it’s a start. Rather than remain mute, or complain about what resources we don't have, we choose to reclaim our country with the means at our disposal."

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/taking-radio-goliaths

Sirota takes it another step further.

"Over at TPM Cafe, Jared Bernstein asks, "What steps ought we be taking now that will ultimately give progressive uprisings a public conduit through which their goals can be achieved?"

This is the $64,000 question—or, in the age of the Iraq War, the $1 trillion question. Based on my reporting for The Uprising, here are five concepts I think we need to get comfortable with—one is about our focus, one is about structure, one about what we organize around, one is about what instruments of influence we use, and one is about the methods we must rekindle."

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/five-ideas-start-going-uprising-movement

AA,

I'd start with a grassroots movement, the likes of which Thom Hartmann wrote about in his book "UnEqual Protection" to take away the stolen 'human rights' and 'personhood' that corporations had given themselves via the 1886 Santa Clara v Southern Railroad decision that DID NOT infact given them these.... it was a court reporter that wrote that corporations were those things as an endnote to the brief!

The Supreme Court never did such a thing but the corporations have gone with it since and no one has stopped them...... 

Then, more recently, at the end of the primary  I saw  Jonathan Alterman on Verdict saying that yeah there was bias from the media...

One quick point. It's Jonathan Alter, and Eric Alterman.

Bottom line is that McCain is a good bullshetter when he needs to be...

I used to love these weelky summaries at MMFA, and they're still as good as they've always been, but the media sucks so bad that such analysis no longer means anything.

It's like a great intellectual writing a serious and detailed treatise on why a pig wallows in one mud puddle rather than another.

I agree. Very well put.

The big difference between what Obama did and what McCain did is that Obama ditched the media to have a private conversation with Hillary Clinton that in no way needed to involve the media at that time. The story of what happened at the meeting would soon after be known.

John McCain purposely had the press that were covering him "ferried" to McCain's plane so that they were unable to cover his press conference. If I were McCain I would do the same thing because it seems everytime he opens his mouth, especially this week, he further makes the case against himself.

Jamie, my man, the media is not 100% in McCain's corner (as much as you would like us to believe it).  The opinion columns in the local paper are about 60/40 pro Obama.  The news networks are (in my opinion, which with about $4.00 will get you a Latte at Starbucks) about 1/3 McCain, 1/3 Obama and 1/3 neutral.  But we all see/hear what we want to see/hear.

Was anything in the article incorrect?

Foser and Boehlert are unassailable.  People argue in their threads, but never against them.

No, nothing incorrect, just a little misleading in that one could get the impression for the article that all the media was totally in McCain's pocket, and I don't see it that way.  There are pro McCain articles/soundbites, there are pro Obama articles/soundbites, there are anti (name the candidate) articles/soundbites and there are neutral articles/soundbites. Mr. Foser is doing what he was hired to do or what he thinks his mission on earth is and that is ok.  But to infer the Media as a whole in in the pocket of one candidate does tend to get old and stale.  That's one reason I've taken to reading this thread about once a month, it's so predictable.

I don't see the implication.  It's a legitimate complaint about treatment of McCain, it doesn't suggest that everyone is in his corner.

Moreover, equal treatment doesn't mean fair or accurate reporting.  For instance, Obama could make ten major blunders in a week while McCain didn't say anything genuinely controversial or inaccurate.  But if that week's news cycle is 30% pro-Obama and 30% pro-McCain, obviously there's something seriously wrong with that picture.  I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case in reverse, but logically even if that balance exists it could prove a pro-McCain bias. 

Well, when one uses "the media" instead of "certain portions of the media" that would leave the casual reader to assume the fingers are being pointed at the media as a whole. (or should that be "as a hole?). Hey, this website is doing what it is designed to do. Sometimes it is entertaining and there are good discussions and opposing views are expressed (which I feel is good for the debate), sometimes threads get rather light hearted and a good chuckle is always good for the soul. Sometimes things get carried away and name calling, etc is exhibited, that is good neither for the debate nor the soul. 

I saw that they referred to "the media", but that's not unusual at all.  If a story was only reported in a few places, then it would be said that the media ignored it.  I thought the mention of those with "access" to McCain made the point pretty clear.  

The entire national media has failed to delve into substantive questions with McCain, which is all the article said.

The "impression" the article leaves is that the media is incapable of doing substance well.  That is correct on every interpretative level.

I wonder why we don't hear too much from David Brock anymore?...

Believe he's heading and fund raisng for a recently organized progressive group.

AGAIN THANK YOU MR.FOSER!!! IT'S JUST LIKE BUSH IN 2000 THE MEDIA FELL ALL OVER HIM AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FELT FOR IT AND THEY ARE DOING IT AGAIN WITH MCCAIN. I WAS WATCHING THE NEWS SHOWS LAST NIGHT TO SEE HOW LONG THEY WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE GRAMM STORY AND THESE PEOPLE WHO WERE REPUBLICANS SAID AMERICANS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE GRAMM STORY THEY CARE ABOUT HIGH GAS PRICE, FOOD PRICES AND THERE JOBS. THEN THE OTHER ONE SAID I DON'T CARE HOW HARD  THE MEDIA AND THE DEMOCRATES ARE JUMPING ON MCCAIN EVERYTIME HE SAY SOMETHING WRONG HE WILL STAY ON MESSAGES. I LAUGHED SO HARD WHEN THEY MADE THOSE STATEMENT. NOW LOOK AT THE GRAMM STORY IT'S OFF THE NEWS IN ONE DAY. HEY CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY DAYS THE MEDIA HAD THE GEN. CLARK STORY RUNNING? MORE THAN ONE DAY!!!