...and 20% of DEMOCRATS wouldn't either!

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fifty-percent-of-americans-would-not-vote-for-c linton-2007-03-27.html

Herb

Have I been saying otherwise?

Andrew

Not at all.

You're right there with me and many voters.

I just felt better posting it.



Herb

I never said I wouldn't vote for Hillary - I said that I know a lot of people who aren't crazy about her in her own party and that her negatives are really high, probably too high to get the nomination in a traditional 2-party race. If she wound up running against, say, Mitt Romney in the general, no question I'd be voting for Hillary, hands down.


2008 could be a weird year for presidential politics, though. It's now looking like the races for the 2 major party nominations could be OVER by the beginning of February, given that California and NYC will hold their primaries in February. It's also possible one candidate won't win enough delegates.

And it's also possible a 3rd party candidate could jump in and really screw things up, like 1992 and Perot. There's a rumor that the highly popular NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg might jump in as an independent. And he's wealthy enough to basically finance a presidental race himself.

Now, what if Rudy and Hillary win their party nominations and Bloomberg jumps in too? Who would New Yorkers vote for?

Andrew

I dont know about New York, but in that scenerio, the South would probably vote for George Wallace.

Herb, we finally have something else to agree on.

I would not vote for Hillary even if Bush Jr. was running again.

This Democrat is for McCain.

"Herb, we finally have something else to agree on. I would not vote for Hillary even if Bush Jr. was running again. This Democrat is for McCain."

I'm right there with you, Radioblogman. I like Mr. McCain a lot. The man has been tested and no one is more capable to lead our armed forces. Also, no man knows more than Mr. McCain about the horrors of war. He's lived it.

Herb

P.S.
"And it's also possible a 3rd party candidate could jump in and really screw things up, like 1992 and Perot."

Or Ralph Nader, perhaps? I'm a closet Nader fan, myself and not just because he has split the left. The guy is a true believer and probably more intellectually honest than most democrat and republican candidates. If he ran as a Libertarian, he'd garner more votes.

Since Nader (a historic advocate of government regulation and programs) is anethema to pretty much everything the Libertarian party stands for, I'd say the chances of Nader running as a Libertarian are close to the same as Jesse Jackson's chances of running on a White Supremicists ticket. :-)

Andrew

This could turn into an interesting election. In all likelihood, Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. The Republicans may not be in as much danger of losing the White House after all.

"The Republicans may not be in as much danger of losing the White House after all."

But if that's the case, who is Trixter going to blame then?

Herb

The Rabbit....it's all that darn rabbit's fault...he keeps trying to steal the cereal away from hungry kids!

The Republicans!

Either they run it right, or they get blamed.

Missing, you and I can agree that the Republicans have done a terrible job with their turn at bat. So bad that a huge percentage of Republicans are very unhappy with what's happened. BUT, the Democrats gained some control and it's the same old thing all over again.

While we're fighting back and forth over Republican vs. Democrats, we're overlooking the fact that we can't trust anyone up there anymore from either party. This is a sad state to be in for America.

Yes, it certainly is.

Having 50% say they wont vote for her, isnt necessiarily that bad.

To win the presidency she only needs about 25% of the actual voters.
The way the electorial college works, she could lose every vote in all the "red" states but 1 and win the blue states by 51%. That would give her approx 26% of the actual voters, and since only about half the people vote anyway, about 13% of eligible voters.

That's not completely valid Deane.

I can seriously trust many Democrats. The list of Republicans I feel the same way about is really short.

Additionally, the party culture is different. The GOP, in general allowed a lot of this to happen. There was little or no internal party discussion. This is not true of the Democrats and that's a significant difference we will notice as time goes on.

It's not the same old same old. Seen the news lately? We've actually got checks and balances working in our favor. That's good news.

It's not all good news, but it's significantly better news than I've been hearing for way too many years now.

It's less than honest to completely marginalize both parties. I refuse to set the Democrats equal to the GOP. It's simply not true.

Having said that, I seriously think campaign finance reform is a necessary step toward getting both parties to work more for us and less for corporations or their own self-interest.

>>>"I can seriously trust many Democrats. The list of Republicans I feel the same way about is really short."

That a personal shortcoming.


>"We've actually got checks and balances working in our favor."

I haven't seen any of those. All I've seen is an attempt to further destroy the GOP before the next election.


"I refuse to set the Democrats equal to the GOP."

Living in a state of denial is a common issue with many people on a variety of subjects.

"Living in a state of denial is a common issue with many people on a variety of subjects."

Can we quote you on that Deane?

Back in 99, I had given up on BOTH parties as hopeless. I'd decided to not vote for EITHER party again. What was the worst that could happen? They're all the same, right?

Then George Bush changed my mind. No matter how politically entrenched and corrupt the Democrats are, a party that could allow such unbelievable incompetence and corruption (not to mention his/their unforgivable squandering of the post 9/11 worldwide goodwill toward America) cannot be allowed to remain in power, regardless of the alternative.

"No matter how politically entrenched and corrupt the Democrats are, a party that could allow such unbelievable incompetence and corruption (not to mention his/their unforgivable squandering of the post 9/11 worldwide goodwill toward America) cannot be allowed to remain in power, regardless of the alternative."

Now THIS is a quotable quote. (I bet even Deane agrees with this.)

>>>"corruption"

This part I can't. The Dems are just as corrupt. It doesn't make any difference who's in charge in this regard.

Sure seems to me, we've a whole LOT more corruption cases cranking up with GOP written all over them.

Skep: Absolutely. No GOP votes period, until serious rebuilding is done.

As if our leftist friends would ever vote for a conservative anyway.

Herb

I lost my head one day and voted for Gerald R Ford over Jimmy Carter.

Actually, I've voted in the past and will again.

Conservative is not a major issue --real conservatives, that is.

Most of the GOP have just shot that all to hell.

After a nice big purge, and everybody getting the message on how fucked up the current party leaders really are, we can once again see a GOP that will do us some good and check the Democrats as they should be doing.

We are Americans first. Most of the GOP forgot that somewhere along the way. So, let's be really honest and seperate conservative from this mass of crap, corruption, legislating of morality, etc... that currently defines the GOP Huh?


Remember, I was registered Republican for about 20 years Herb. I know what conservative is supposed to mean. These clowns have bastardized it and leveraged it for their own selfish ends.

Lose them, and it's all not so bad.

"We are Americans first."

At least we agree on something.

Herbert Milhous

>>>"Sure seems to me, we've a whole LOT more corruption cases cranking up with GOP written all over them."

That's because you don't want to see the corruption the Democrats are involved in.

If they're in denial about democrat corruption, this will help get them started:

http://www.ncgop.org/corruption/

http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Commentary/Corruption.htm

http://www.nodnc.com/

Show us some recent headlines, then. Just pick up your today's newspaper and post some links.
Every single day, I just keep reading depressing, soul-sucking article after article about Republican/Residential cabinet scandal, misdeed, or whatever. Is it just the Oregonian? I don't think so.

Here's yesterdays national news articles in Section A:

Senators take FBI Director to task: re: Nat'l Security letters, Mueller accepts characterization

Funding called threat to the Wounded: the new Army acting Surgeon Gen'l says the military lacks money to hire more nurses and mental health specialists for Iraq war veterans

Rumsfeld spared abuse lawsuit
Tony Snow cancer
Bush's Nominee to Belgium challenged: the Swift boat guy

Fewer in Congress speak out in AG Gonzales' defense. (also a box article on high-profile exits of staff forced to resign from Ike, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I)

Tax Evader gets prison, feds left out of millions: Feds used wrong statute

Species act proposals raise some hackles: reduce protection for wildlife habitat (Kempthorne)

Iraqi sweeps strain detention sytem to breaking point

Senate passes timeline for Iraq pullout, Smith (R) votes with Dems (50-48)

Tillman's mom claims coverup by Army

Congress staffer says loaded gun was boss's (D)

Yellowstone Plan would let snowmobiles stay (in our first National Park, nice)

Where compliance with both the intent and the letter of the law is concerned, the Dems win without even trying.

Factor out this particularly corrupt, many of whom just didn't learn their lessons the last time, administration, and I'm inclined to agree!

But that's not the case, right now, today.

When it takes a major election shake up to actually compel the GOP to see some marginal level of accountability for it's actions, you know it's corrupt as hell.

This administration has abused it's position on any number of issues, none of which we want as a people, and don't / haven't done us any real good.

I don't recall the Dems having done that.

You Bush / GOP supporters are always making this false equality point. It's a fallacy and it's old and done.

Fuck it. I'm just gonna draw a line in the sand right here. There is no amount of discussion that will ever convince me the current state of the GOP is anything even remotely American. It does not embody our founders values, it does not work for our greater good, it only serves itself. In fact, it actually only serves the interests of a powerful few, looking to change many aspects of society to something more of their liking.

There is a reason we've hammered on these guys, and anyone that continues to even suggest they may have some merit over the years. That reason is founded in the principles of freedom, equality (and that means the law applies to everyone or no one), democracy and tolerance.

The only reason for even entertaining ongoing support for the GOP is the slim chance at getting more of whatever agenda you might have done. That's a self-serving thing and it's as wrong as the deeds we've seen since our Resident was selected, not elected.

I've spoken to quite a few people, who are finally willing to admit they were willing to take the bad with the good because their issue was up for legislation. Many of them are sorry now because hindsight clearly shows this kind of thing is never worth it.

Either we are Americans, and all that goes with that, first, or we just aren't. Herb says he agrees.

Put up or shut up then. Go start helping fresh blood candidates refresh the GOP and get your party back, so the rest of us Americans actually have a choice and a system that has real checks and balances working for us.

Or seriously entertain alternatives, such as additional parties, proportional representation, campaign reform, etc...

I'll listen to all of those, but the door to the GOP is closed for a good long time. It simply isn't worth it in it's current state. Sadly, for you, that means the Presidency is off the table no matter who it is right now.

Sadly for me, that means the Democrats will likely be in a position of power that may well get them into the same kinds of trouble we are seeing right now.

American first right. Great. Glad to share citizenship with you. Now, represent and let's start some change that's gonna matter.

Continuing to excuse this mess is a waste of everybodys time, including yours --even if you don't know it just yet.

Oh, and I'm not supporting Hilary because she is showing her jaded self, and that's just not good enough for the damage we've got to undo.

I'd vote for Clint Eastwood. Can you just picture negotiations with China....."Go ahead Punk...make my Day" all while the background music from The Good the Bad and the Ugly plays!

Eastwood gets my vote.
Don't expect him to get any support from the gun-grabbers, though.

Herb

>>>"Just pick up your today's newspaper and post some links. Every single day, I just keep reading depressing, soul-sucking article after article about Republican/Residential cabinet scandal, misdeed, or whatever."

You're not factoring in a heavily biased media. Most of these reporters are so far left they can see no Democrat wrong-doing just as you can't.

Your good buddy Dingy Harry Reid has so much corruption going on you could fill a newspaper with just him. How about his 4 sons being lobbyists and if you want Dingy Harry's attention you hire one of his sons to lobby him. Puke.

The only bright light in all of this is that most people are beginning to see liberals as the yapping little Chihuahuas they are and are beginning to ignore them.

You're not factoring in a heavily biased media. Most of these reporters are so far left they can see no Democrat wrong-doing just as you can't.

Bullshit, horseshit and cowshit.

Go take a hard look at www.mediamatters.org. The bias right now is heavy GOP. The only reason they can't publish more good GOP stories is they've nothing to work with. This is a cop-out, lie, denial.

Oh, and could you define liberals for us Deane?

You've been here plenty of times. Never good.

Are Liberals, not Resident Bush supporters maybe? Anybody that does not see things your way, what?

Feel as good as you want to, playing the little labels game. Try writing your stuff without them and see how far you get.

You are gonna find this tough to do --and rightfully so. Not doing this is yet another denial or dodge to keep the pressure off the real problems. If you do this, and can present a solid picture that encourages others to support the GOP, congrats! You will have done something not seen anywhere else, without the lables or usual manupulations / omissions.

Have fun with that.

"You're not factoring in a heavily biased media."

I call a big steaming pile of caca-doody also. I just put down the headlines of the news, no opinions, just things that happened and were in the paper yesterday.

If your local paper, or something else you read says different, please, AS I SAID, feel free to post some news-worthy links of the horrors of the dreaded "liberals" whomever they may be.

And who here ever said "Dingy Harry Reid" was their "good buddy"? I probably agree (shocking!) with your educated and in-depth assessment and statement of "Puke", he's still Mormon, and corruption is par for the course. Idaho and Nevada are just as fertile LDS stompin' grounds as Utah is.

Nice Dodge.

"...just things that happened and were in the paper yesterday."

Given that over 90% of reporters voted democrat in the recent presidential election, your post ignores the very real left-leaning media bias that occurs every single day throughout the country. Read Emmy award-winning reporter Bernard Goldberg's book 'Bias.'

Your view is reminiscent of the reporter, who when told that Mr. Nixon won, responded "How can that be? I don't know anyone who voted for him?"

Herb

Actually I think it's those of you with your earplugs in and blinders on who are ignoring the obvious.

Did anyone watch the PBS show on Baby Boomers last night? It made me feel a little better about the future, and that we (and maybe Gen X & Y) have the power to make the world a better place real soon. Maybe the ostrichs and dinosaurs will move on (die off) and people like McBorn-in-1974 will be in the minority. I'm so glad there's young people like Chris' daughter that are already making a difference and not sitting on their asses playing gameboy and X-box.

It's a non-starter.

Want to prove those of us, who don't buy this biased media crap wrong?

Post all that really great news then. I've asked this every coupla weeks for years. I get nothing. I expect to get nothing this time too, but I'm open.

Where is it? Where are all those stories that make the GOP shine? Where are all the stories that show the Dems corruption to be on par with the Resident? Given the high percentage of media ownership lies with strongly conservative and prop big business, GOP owners, one would think this would make it on the air right quick.

All of the Obama lies and manupulations did. Didn't take long either.

Where is it guys? You've had years to produce this and all but a small percentage of it has been totally and completely debunked over and over and over.

I've done solid research into the whole bias bit. It's bullshit, has been bullshit and will remain bullshit. There is bias everywhere. This is a known fact. However, we've enough news sources to totally get the truth out. All it takes is reading a number of these, factoring out inconsistancies, lies and omissions. It's not hard.

You've got nothing! Unless, of course, you've been holding out, or there is some secret club where the 'right' news gets published!

I see a few programs that are strong left biased. I see a whole lotta programs that are strong right biased, with support for the pro-big media ownership Resident in particular.

Look at radio. Pro GOP views are dominant. Look at the Sunday talkers, same deal. Look at pretty much all of FOX, it's literally the flagship mouthpiece! These are known, undisputed things right now. Those outlets alone are plenty for the good news to see greater acceptance and distribution! So where the hell is it then?

Floor is yours guys. I've been asking for a good long time. Support it, or withdraw it please. That way, we've at least the chance for some acceptance to happen, or at the very least, a better signal to noise ratio on these kinds of discussions.

"Want to prove those of us, who don't buy this biased media crap wrong?"

I've already given it to you. Over 90% of reporters vote democrat. That's damning and you can't even see it. Honestly-doesn't that concern you even in the slightest?

It wouldn't matter if you admitted it, anyway, because the left en masse would never admit it. Why would they want to ruin their great spin machine with all its perks?

But if you're ACTUALLY interested and want to take an honest view from the perspective of
those who have observed liberal bias FIRST HAND, then fine:

"These guys, media elites, live in an elite, comfortable, liberal bubble, in places like Manhattan in New York. They can go for a week, a day, a month, a year, they can practically go a whole lifetime and never run into anybody who has a different point of view than they have on all the big social issues, whether its gay marriage or affirmative action or abortion or other race issues or feminist issues. After a while, a kind of group think takes over. They think everything to the right is conservative, which it is, and everything to the left is middle of the road. They don’t even notice. These people are so in the dark they don’t even know that their views on these controversial subjects are liberal. They think they are just reasonable and civilized because all their pals inside the bubble have these same views. So, that’s one point that I make.

The second point that I make is that liberal bias in the news is mainly not about politics. These guys would go after their liberal grandmother if they thought it would help their career. It’s mostly about how they see the world. How they see the issues that I just mentioned. How they see gay marriage. How they see affirmative action. How they see abortion. And, if you see these issues a certain way, because, as I say, all your pals in the bubble see these issues the same way, you’re going to report on these issues the same way and that kind of reporting turns out to be liberally biased reporting. Not intentional. Not a conspiracy. It’s just the way these people are."

From:
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/bernard_goldberg.h tm

Herb, it's not possible to educate those who demand the opportunity to keep their heads buried in the sand. I don't even try anymore. It would be easier to teach your cat to play the violin.

Show me the great news, or just admit you've both got exactly nothing.

Surely it's published somewhere right? With all the power the white house has, they would self publish, if anything.

(in fact they did. Paid for good stories that proved false, as I recall.)

You can play the head in sand game and feel really good about your dwindling 20 or so percent loyal club all you like. No harm in that, but don't expect others to take you seriously without solid support.

Most of the time, you two can't even articulate what you think you believe without all the labels!

Show me the stories that support a sustained bias toward the left. Go ahead, vindicate the GOP. I'm as eager as they are to hear it!

There is no way *all* the media sources are hosing the GOP over. No fricking way. At the least, you've got FOX and their known support for the GOP to the point of being a mouth piece.

The good news would be there if there was some. Why? Because it would strengthen the mouthpiece bit. Believe me, they want it bad. They don't have it because it does not exist.

Bias has nothing to do with that.

Nothing.

"These Guys, media elite" that he's referring to are the talking heads who read the news on TV, not the actual people working, reporting, or researching the story. Does this surprise anyone, that the "stars" of the national newscasts, including Fox, don't do any dirty work? They just read the teleprompter.

I think his statements are disingenous at least, and a bit hysterical since his quote "It’s mostly about how they see the world. How they see the issues that I just mentioned. How they see gay marriage. How they see affirmative action. How they see abortion. And, if you see these issues a certain way, because, as I say, all your pals in the bubble see these issues the same way, you’re going to report on these issues the same way and that kind of reporting turns out to be liberally biased reporting. Not intentional. Not a conspiracy. It’s just the way these people are.", well just take out "liberally-biased" and it's just a blanket statement for all the major talking heads on TV. (and it's an old article from 2004)


"Over 90% of reporters vote democrat. That's damning and you can't even see it."

Where's your source for that statistic? I'd be interested to see it for myself.

Missing, you're missing the point. The facts could hit you in the head like a cruise missile and you'd still not believe it. Why would I want to waste time trying to prove something to you that you won't accept if I did.

Because you can't.

Oh, Really?

Watch me. AGAIN.

Surveys of journalists' self-reported voting habits show they have backed the Democratic candidate in each of the presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin.
Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.”
According to an Indiana University poll, while 22% lower level news media personal described themselves as Liberals, 19% said they were conservative-but, among 136 executives and staffers at “prominent news organizations” (the three weekly newsmagazines, the AP and UPI wire services and the Boston Globe) liberals outnumbering conservatives 32% to 12%, and only 6% of this group identified themselves as Republican with 43% saying they were Democrats.
According to several recent polls, top news media people claimed the following leanings and attitudes:
95% believe journalists do a good job
90% for Abortion
86% news media give correct facts
81% for Affirmative Action for Blacks
78% for stricter gun control
69% believe Fox News is most biased
67% opposed to prayer in schools
59% for same-sex marriages
57% journalist rarely attend church
27% journalists attend church regularly
57% US uses resources immorally
56% US causes 3rd World poverty
55% Not critical enough of Bush
49% US Society causes alienation
48% Gov. should guarantee jobs
28% All political systems are bad
57.4% claimed they were moderate in their political beliefs and leanings, with 32% of top level news executives claiming they were left of center, and 11.8% saying they were more conservative, but none placed themselves right of center. 43% called themselves Democrats but only 6% claimed they were Republicans.
The Los Angeles Times, using the same questionnaire they used to poll the public, queried 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. The survey asked 16 questions about foreign affairs, social and economic issues. On 15 of 16 questions, the journalists gave answers to the left of those given by the public--showing that while only 23% of the public claimed to be Liberal, 55% of these news people claimed to be Liberal.
Nearly all journalists rated “the ethical practices of journalists” as but the “ethical practices of politicians” bad. And most said they thought news organizations get the facts straight, and 74% news organizations quickly report any mistakes compared to just 3% who saw a propensity to try to cover up mistakes. As an example, only 10% of reporters thought a major reason for CBS's use of forged memos in the infamous National Guard story was because CBS News and Dan Rather were liberals who disliked President Bush, and 54% said it was no a reason at all.
In fact, 76% said they thought the story ran because CBS News and Dan Rather believed the story was accurate and provided new information about the controversy surrounding Bush's service in the National Guard.
Once again, the question asked is can we trust the news media? As we come nearer the 2008 presidential election, best we consider what information we are relying on and where did we get it.
From: http://www.mormonfactor.com/newsmediabias.html

Also very good:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0603/p02s01-usgn.html

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics4.asp

Where is the good news Herb?

Put up or shut up.

All of that effort is just a big ass dodge. If in fact bias has been damaging the GOP, then it will be a no-brainer to show where that damage occured.

Guys, this administration sucks huge. Everybody knows it! Only a small percentage of us are somehow dodging this reality.

The bias in reporting isn't covering up some secret truth that will make it all ok. That's fantasy, not reality. I know you really wanna believe. Totally understand. I've been there.

All the failures, lies, manupulations, etc... are true events! They happened! Fact is, they happened a lot!

As for the positions listed Herb, that's more in line with average Americans than not. Seems to me, the journalists, by and large, identify with their audience fairly well.

You are in the minority in many of your views. It's completely understandable that you would not agree.

Sorry to pop the magic bubble, but somebody's gotta do it.

I'm here to help. Really.

Edit: Deane, I'm spot on. You guys whip out the bias chant every coupla weeks. Every time, you get asked for the real stories. You know the stuff that bias is supposed to keep hidden from us, so that we think better of the GOP and the Resident in particular?

Yeah. That stuff.

Where is it?

I don't want to have the bias discussion. Been there, done that. No matter which way that goes, there are enough outlets today for the reality to surface. The point is it hasn't? That means it's fantasy, not reality, or we would have seen it already, right?

This is the kind of stuff I have to sort out for the kids. You guys are grown adults with some education. C'mon!

What I want is the meat that makes the bias discussion even worth having!

Where is it?

Herb, my concern is not that the "good news" is not being seen, but that the bad news is actually worse than is being generally reported:

http://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind0503d&L=portside&T=0&P=3266

"Where is the good news Herb?"

There is plenty, but that's not the topic. The topic is media bias.

As with any president, Mr. Bush can herald plenty of good things.

Home ownership is up, especially among minorities.
Employment is high by any historical measure.
Interest rates are low by any historical measure.
Crime in many categories is down.
No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.
That's just for starters and I'm a Nixon, not a Bush man.

But the long view of media bias is more than one president, for it will remain long after Mr. Bush is gone.

What you want to do is frame the issue with the assumption that since a Republican in office has had challenges [like every president], then the media isn't biased. That's blatantly wrong, you know it and I've provided plenty of corroborating, independent sources to illustrate that in spades. Feigned ignorance is no excuse.

Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of reporters are democrats, what will happen if a democrat wins in 08? He or she will get far more of a pass than any republican would.

You want to ignore the facts because they don't fit your fantasy world. No media bias? Right, even though the vast majority of people who bring us the news are liberal and vote accordingly. It would be funny if your skewed view weren't so glaring and oblivious.

Herb

"Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of reporters are democrats"

I would like to know your source on that Herb.

Back to the title of the thread for a moment (sort of!);

While 50% say they wouldn't vote for Hillary, 57% of Americans didn't vote for her husband in the 1992 election and yet he still won the Presidency.

2008 could be very scary. The closer Hillary gets to the White House, the better Canada looks!

Hey, bias was invoked when the suckage of this Resident administration came into play.

Herb: If there is plenty of news that makes it all ok, where the heck is it then?

Let's at least scope this discussion properly.

So, are you willing to admit it sucks hard --really hard, and thus narrow the scope of discussion to bias alone, with no regard to it's impact on these horrible politicians?

This whole mess started when Deane tried to get me to admit I could not trust anybody from either party. I denied this, and it continued from there.

At some point, "bias!" was called in a failed "hail Mary" kind of play to save some face for trying to define the parties as being equally horrible.

---and that didn't work Deane.

Won't work now either.

The GOP sucks completely. It sucks whatever anatomy, human or not, you think it does. In fact, it fricking multi-sucks!

Truth is, it sucks way more than the Democratic party does and no amount of hand waving, voodoo reasoning, and "bias" claims are gonna show otherwise, barring this "news" voodoo we keep hearing about.

Show me the great news that mitigates the suckage, or let's just embrace the horror of it all, reach some acceptance of said suckage and move on to bias then.

I'm actually interested in that topic, but quite unwilling to surrender any measure of suckage, where this Resident administration is concerned, in return for discussing it.


...or, admit to having been spanked hard on this, need time to lick your wounds and prep for a future go around. Fine. Withdraw the bias supports the idea that both parties are equally untrustworthy, and bring it up another day when you are better prepared to support it.

For Chris-

This is from what appears to be the key source for Herb's contentions (pdf download):

University of Connecticut - Department of Public Policy
PRESS FREEDOM IN THE U.S.:
A NATIONAL SURVEY OF JOURNALISTS AND THEAMERICAN PUBLIC


http://importance.corante.com/archives/UCONN_DPP_Press_Release.pdf

**It's important to note that this is from a survey of only 300 journalists, which results in a margin of error of +/- 5%.

Excerpt:

"Is there a bias in the news?

Only about one-third (36%) of Americans agree that the news media tries to report the news without bias, while 61% claim that there is bias to coverage of the news.

Perceptions of bias may be based on how journalists and American adults differ in their own political orientations. Among all American adults, 33% say they are Democrats, 32% claim to be Republicans, and 22% say they are politically independent. 33% of journalists also claim to be
Democrats; however, only 10% say they are Republicans and half say they are independent.

Interestingly, 18% of Americans describe themselves as liberal and 18% of journalists say they are politically liberal. But while only 10% of journalists say they are conservative, 34% of Americans say they are conservative. 53% of journalists say they are politically moderate, while 40% of Americans describe themselves that way.

Finally, 68% of journalists say they voted for John Kerry in 2004, while only 25% voted for
George W. Bush. Only 1% say they voted for Nader, and 5% say they did not vote."

Conclusions:
1) Democrats are not proportionally overrepresented in the journalist corps, but rather Republicans are underrepresented.

2) Moderates make up the largest group of Americans and the largest group of journalists.

3) About 2/3 of journalists voted for Kerry and 1/3 did not. If this is one of the better measures of bias as Herb seems to be asserting, where is the 1/3 of the reporting that is pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War, pro-White House? (this is Missing's question).

here's something to consider KSKD . . .

the troll has been complaining of a liberal "bias" in the media ever since he's been here, yet he predicted a conservative sweep last novemeber -- indeed, he MOCKED many of us "liberals" for even thinking we had a chance at a victory.

so, the supposed "bias" didn't matter back then so why bring it up now? Answer: t-r-o-l-l.

Edselehr: Exactly! Well stated, and thank you. I should have probably phrased it better, but I've been down that road before. Largely met my burdens too.

Much easier to embrace the horror and just say they suck. --Multi-suck! Why not? I've totally got the high ground on that, done the hard work here and elsewhere engaging the discussion and working hard to look at all the options. I've not seen the same in return, BTW.

For what it's worth, I totally see lots of bias. For as many moderates as we have, there is little programming that suits them... It's a battle for mindshare for sure.

However, the same polarized nature that we all complain about, does provide for a venue where this good voodoo news that makes it all ok, would have been seen.

It hasn't and given the time involved, increasingly likely just won't.

As always, feel free to share. I know a *lot* of interested people!

Skep: Absolutely. Every once in a while I'll hammer that point home, lest it fester and see some greater acceptance not otherwise warranted.

Ed is being far more rational about it, but I maintain you've got nothing. You've had nothing since late 2004, and it's highly likely you will end up never having anything for the future as well, for reasons already given many, many times.

You two, Deane and Herb, do know you can actually be honest about this and the world will continue to go round and round don't you? It's ok. We've all been there. No biggie.

Come clean, embrace the horror and let the constructive change begin! Find new GOP potentials that actually are willing to embody what being Americans mean, and who can stand up for your values in a solid way.

At the end of the day, you will feel far better about that, than you currently do today. An added bonus is debate largely free of dodges, manupulations, labels and crap too. This will be taken seriously and might actually get something done we all can feel good about.

You can name call, mock, change the subject and deny, all day long.

Given the abundance of evidence cited, your partisan pandering only becomes more glaring.

You're not truth-seekers. If you're not careful, you'll become shills for the leftist cause.

Herb

You've made a decent case for bias, but you've not supported the "both parties are equally bad" line at all, nor have you really done much to help link bias to the idea that others do not see both parties in the same light becaue bias gets in the way.

My core question remains unanswered.

Where is the good news that either makes this all ok, or that makes the Democrats equally bad?

As for being a shill, that implies some level of deception in ones acvocacy. So, let's put that one to bed, regarding me at least, right now.

I lean left on most social issues. I have supported why this is, feel absolutely no shame about it, and am completely willing to discuss any aspect of it.

I'm all over the place on fiscal and other policy issues. I do lean left, just as our founders did, having come out of the enlightenment with their radical at the time idea of govenment power coming from the people. I've no shame in that either.

My general Agenda is to preserve what makes being American great. Freedom, democracy, equality and tolerance are four core ideas that embody this generally. If something we propose does not strengthen each of these --or at the least does not diminish any of them without solid reasons, I'm not for it period.

In this vein, the tools that ideology represent, are just means toward that greater end. American first is one very easy way to say that.

On the other hand, I've seen you Herb, Dean and others go through significant mental gyrations to justify support for people that clearly do not hold core American values to the same level I do. These people have done us great harm, yet you continue to support them, help them, grant deference to them.

Your demonstrated reason for doing this is your issues. They represent your most solid shot as actually getting them legislated. That's not being American first, but self-serving very much in line with what we've seen the GOP do in general.

This is rarely stated however.

Who is being the shill exactly?

You know I just had a conversation with somebody who tried the whole, both parties are equally bad bit. They made it clear they need more GOP votes and are gonna focus on people now, leaving parties aside.

I asked them if that didn't have more than a little bit to do with their party taking it hard in the sack recently! Of course the answer was no, we shouldn't be worried about that. Let's pick better people, keep the party, forgive it etc....

When I pushed hard for support on the idea that both parties are not equally bad, it all came down to a coupla issues.

Shilling because they have a self-interest they value more than seeing our system function as good as it can. When asked if that issue was worth all this crap, they said no. When asked why they continue to support the party that did it to us, I got confusion anger and no solid answer in general.

You remaining GOP supporters have some serious issues to sort out, IMHO.

"You've made a decent case for bias..."

Thank you. The case for bias has been my overwhelmingly main point.

"Where is the good news that either makes this all ok, or that makes the Democrats equally bad?"

This is a different issue. But to address it, think about what you're asking. Expecting a partisan press to make democrats look 'equally bad' is like asking a Russian judge during the cold war to consistently give "10's" to American contestants, to the detriment of their own comrades. In general, that ain't likely to happen.

If one accepts the premise of a biased media, then the answer to your question is a foregone conclusion.

Remember, I like Mr. Bush somewhat, but he's far from my ideal candidate [Mr. Nixon was much closer, in case you couldn't tell] and Mr. Bush is wrong on plenty of stuff, including the border. I voted for Alan Keyes in the primary.

Herb

You made a significant case, but please re-read Ed's excellent post. There remains plenty of venues for the kind of information I'm asking for to have been published in a way we could cite here.

The lack of it, over a sustained time (since 2004), clearly deflates this idea.

Try it again.

We are at an impasse actually.

Either:

we move to some acceptance about the GOP and where it stands with regard to it being equally bad as the Democratic party

(And that has issues because I don't think we've made the case for the Democrats actually being bad, but hey --baby steps first right?)

,or

we recognize there has not been enough presented to actually reach some sane position, thus withdraw this assertion

(Maybe bring it up another day, after having gathered some new information that might clarify things?)

,or

we accept this assertion as being a general waste of time in that it's not really all that supportable and as such largely useless for further rational discussion.

Pick one. I'm now at the latter option as I'm not seeing enough to warrant more discussion at this time. I maintain the parties are not equal in this, sorry.

Looks like Deane wants to keep pounding it home. Maybe he will present something new?

Let me throw another issue on the fire...

We can talk about the political orientation of journalists and reporters all day long, but I think at least as big an issue - maybe bigger - -is the political orientation of media owners and editors. They are the final arbiters of what is and is not reported. I've been combing the 'net trying to find a survey of owners similar to the one about journalists, but haven't found one yet. If anyone has one, I'd like to see which way media owners "swing" politically.

And Herb - you keep talking about the "partisan press" as a monolithic entity. The survey I cited (as did you) that showed about 2/3 voting for Kerry, still leaves at least 1/3 of journalists who do not identify or sympathize with Democrats. One-third is a big chunk of reporters that are not "shills" for the anti-war meme.

This is where Missing's point is very relevant. Instead of talking about the bias of the 2/3, let's talk about the bias of the 1/3. If they can be considered to be in favor of Bush's policy decisions, the war, etc. then where is the solid news that supports that position? Where is the good news that validates the bias of this group? Why do they seem unable to support their biased position with facts?

The point here being that if the facts are irrefutable, then cries of "bias!" are meaningless and indefensible. Bias assumes that there is more than one way to look at an issue. In Iraq, that is becoming less and less true - based on the facts, it is an unmitigated disaster no matter who looks at it. Bias isn't even a factor anymore.

"...we move to some acceptance about the GOP and where it stands with regard to it being equally bad as the Democratic party..."

You appear to have a fixation with one party being equally bad as another. Fine, you can frame it that way if you want. Here's my view:

Many argued during the Civil War that based on one issue alone [slavery], the northern cause was just. Did the north do wrong things? Absolutely!
However the over-arching issue of slavery focused on something so abhorrent and immoral that all else paled in comparison. It was a matter of life itself.

My argument is parallel. Republicans have done PLENTY of wrong things. But just like the north, republicans are on the side of right, given their defense of innocent life. The pro-life cause, which is largely, although not completely republican, also covers multiple issues, including an opposition to so-called mercy-killing, or euthenasia. These are indeed issues of life and death. How can I make such bold assertions? That's a good question, but easy to answer, because throughout history, whenever man shakes his fist at the Almighty and claims an authority to take innocent life, no matter how well-designed, puny man will inevitably and eventually lose.

Disagree all you want. However, just as with slavery, over the long term, history will inevitably vindicate the pro-life cause as just and right.

Herb

Yep. Just like the guy I spoke to. One issue (was a different one for him) made all the crap worth it.

At least you stepped up and said it. Kudos to you for that.

Actually, I was focused on Deanes attempt to marginalize both parties. The GOP looks really bad right now. I'm afraid the bleeding has not yet stopped either.

His idea that we sort of ignore parties and focus on people, still grants deference to the GOP when none is warranted given the horrible things they've done to us and others over the years.

That's my beef.

If you want to support them, in the hopes you might get your morality legislated, have fun with that. At least that's honest!

"And it's also possible a 3rd party candidate could jump in and really screw things up, like 1992 and Perot."

I think the third party this time will come from the Democrat loser.

The "Liberal Media" is actually a group of pretty damn informed people. Often, they have more facts than we have on any given topic. Often, there are things they could not report, because the advertisers drive the bus. A career spent observing humans doing horrible things to other humans will often make you a humanist.

Talking heads can afford to be conservative because they have a leather chair all day and a binky all night. They do not get dirty, they do not go into the field and they are not true journalists. It was that way in Murrow's time, and it is still that way today.

Herb said>>>
You're right there with me and many voters.
I just felt better posting it.

I'm sure that 80% of people wouldn't vote for DUHbya today either....