Hinderaker: Everyone’s Favorite Conspiracy Theorist
Hinderaker: Everyone’s Favorite Conspiracy Theorist
John Hinderaker, who writes at the popular right-wing blog Powerline, is losing it:
[T]he [Washington] Post’s reporters are part of a lavishly funded and monolithic media effort to misreport the Iraq war for the purpose of bringing down the Bush administration.
In fact, the Post’s editors enthusiastically supported the Iraq war. Here’s an excerpt from a February 5, 2003 editorial:
[T]he United States should lead a force to remove Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and locate and destroy its chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear program. The Iraqi regime poses a threat not just to the United States but to global order
Washingtonian Magazine described the Post as “The Nation’s Most Hawkish Newspaper.”
Liberal conspiracy theorists are (correctly) marginalized. Right-wing conspiracy theorists like Hinderacker are celebrated. Hinderaker’s blog, Powerline, was named “Blog of the Year” by TIME Magazine in 2004. He is also a regular guest on CNN.
Can someone explain why, exactly, Hinderaker is still taken seriously?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Can someone explain why, exactly, Hinderacker is still taken seriously?”
I think his name makes them giggle.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:11 amJudd, he is taken seriously because he approaches issues seriously. Taking the war as an example, any serious commentary would need to take an objective look at the progress that has been made vs. the costs (monetary and life). Many blogs do this better than the MSM, which paints a very one-sided picture.
That said, his claim that there is some kind of organized effort in the MSM to take down Bush is probably overstating things. I just think it is the natural by-product of an overwhelmingly liberal press.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:19 am“Can someone explain why, exactly, Hinderacker is still taken seriously?â€
Ummmm, he’s not.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:24 amHindrocket=big money republicans=corporate media=white house=media control=creating the message=Hindrocket=big money republicans…
It’s a closed loop
December 28th, 2005 at 11:24 am“I just think it is the natural by-product of an overwhelmingly liberal press.”
This conspiracy theory of the overtly liberal media is exactly what Hindrocket is talking about and guess what…
It Doesn’t Exist.
Look at the big money interests that own the MSM in this country and then look at who those interests give political money to. Look at the shoddy research they do and how they suppress some stories and emphasise others for the sake of profits and engendering favor with the political establishment.
“The Liberal Media” is a myth and merely repeating the Talking Points about it won’t make it true.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:32 am#2-Personally, I could give a rats ass about Iraq. I didn’t care before bushy’s illegal war and I don’t care now. I care about America. I care about what concerns ME and Iraq was NEVER on the list.
That being said, I am OUTRAGED that we went to war based on a lie. The cost, both monetary and human sacrifice, that this lie has developed. Money that SHOULD have been earmarked to fund AMERICAN projects are now going to rebuild a country that I could less than a shit about.
Sounds selfish? Oh well! Charity begins at home and this country has been going to shit under bushys reign of terror.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:32 amThe VLWC to misreport the Iraq War and overthrow Bush 43 is financed by the Bavarian Illuminati and involves Area 51 and the flouridation of the public water supply. Also pixies.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:36 am#6 — By all means let’s stick our heads in the sand. Maybe if we ignore the crazies in the Middle East they’ll leave us alone. Oh wait, we tried that. Got us 9/11. Oops.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:38 amYea Cynicon – what was the name of that report that Dumbya recieved on 8/5/01? Oh yea, the one titled Al Queada Determined to Launch Attacks on the Continental United States?
Damn, if your unelected feuher could be any more clueless, we wouldn’t be able to give him the death penalty because him being a retard.
btw – assrocket and you are close second and third in that category.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:43 am#7 — I think the wiccans are behind it
December 28th, 2005 at 11:44 am“Hindrocket=big money republicans=corporate media=white house=media control=creating the message=Hindrocket=big money republicans”
there is one essential factor missing from the equation – fear… the folks reporting the news are often either just weenies who are held in check by the suits or unabashed suck-ups who do whatever’s required to get the approval of the bigs… if you have integrity and a desire to report unvarnished, unspun news, you often have to go the route of robert parry at consortium news and sit on the corner with your beggar’s bowl, beseeching passersby for their spare change…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
December 28th, 2005 at 11:56 am#8, Yes, Sadam was a very bad person. However, I consider N. Korea and some parts of Africa to be much more dangerous. N. Korea has Nuclear weapons, and Africa is commiting geniside. So as far as a humane thing and a actual threat to the US, I see these as being more of a threat.
OH wait! They don’t have OIL. Damn that blows that idea.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:00 pm“Liberal conspiracy theorists are (correctly) marginalized. Right-wing conspiracy theorists like Hinderacker are celebrated.”
If this is true (and it may not be – I certainly don’t watch/read/listen to enough media to verify this assumption myself), then don’t we have a conservative bias in the media, not a liberal one (as so many people like to claim)?
#2 – can you provide some supporting info for your claim “…an overwhelmingly liberal pressâ€?
We’ll leave Fox out of the discussion (for obvious reasons), but my definition of “overly liberal” means that media outlets would have been foaming about the lead-up to the war, torture allegations, leak scandal, etc well before they became such common knowledge that they had to say something to maintain any shred of credibility, instead of being labeled as a gatekeeper for what the Administration wants us to hear.
You’re certainly welcome to link to examples of this in the mainstream media if you find them. In fact, I encourage it. I like it when my assumptions are challenged based on factual information, and I have even been known to be open-minded enough to admit that I have assumed incorrectly if proven wrong. (Call me a flip-flopper if you will – I call it being a reasonable adult).
December 28th, 2005 at 12:03 pmcynicon implant,
Hinderacker takes things serious? He wrote this in 2005:
“The Democrats are mounting the most scurrilous political campaign that has been seen in American politics since the Civil War.”
I don’t call that serious – I call just another UNHINGED Bush Apologist.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:04 pmCan someone explain why, exactly, Hinderacker is still taken seriously?
December 28th, 2005 at 12:05 pmBill O’Reilly, Robert Novak, Michell Malking, Gibson, Toensig, et seq.
Oh, and “lavishly funded” … by whom?
December 28th, 2005 at 12:06 pmI think you concede too much by saying liberal conspiracy theorists should be marginalized. We have TONS of proof that the Iraq war was orchestrated by a conspiracy of the Bush administration working with the political arms of the Mainstream Media! We KNOW all this, whether or not Fitzgerald actually hands down the legal conspiracy indictments or not, we know a conspiracy occurred. Whether or not you want to call it a “cabal” or the “White House Iraq Group” or whatever, we know there were coordinated deceptions being done to build a case to invade a sovereign nation. And that there was active, coordinated covering up of information that would not serve the conspirators’ interests.
I think this is indicative of the weakness of democrats and liberals right now. With the information age, we now know things and can prove things that it used to take years to get documents to show something really happened, like Tonkin incident in Vietnam. We HAVE the downing street memos, we HAVE the Libby indictment, we KNOW a conspiracy took place. Politically Bush and Cheney should have been destroyed by now. Massacred. He has done way worse than Nixon, he is on a whole new scale. Clinton was impeached for lying about sex, this administration has actively worked to UNDERMINE the Constitution and MISLED the country to go to war!
These ARE the high crimes that our founding fathers were talking about when they wrote the Constitution. Liberals, progressives, and democrats need to wake up and recognize that giving the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt has UNDERMINED the country and our freedom. They are a gang of power hungry, greedy, organized political criminals and should be treated as such.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:24 pmHell, Coulter still gets face time, and she’s a raving lunatic.
#2- How many contradictory points can you put in one post? If the MSM is so “liberal,” why is someone offering conspiracy theories of a media plot to take down Bush still on TV? The Chewbacca defense?
Judd, enjoyed hearing you on the Ed show yesterday.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:24 pmShoe’s on the other foot now, huh? Hypocrites. I’m glad we as a people are waking up to the utter nonsense that is regurgitated upon us. When we have mediocre in the WH, we have mediocre coming out of the WH. Anyone surprised?
As I skimmed over an apparent troll post I thought I noticed the mention of the “left media.” You have to stop, you are cracking me up. You crazy parrots.
You ever notice, though, how easy it is the skip the trolls? It’s great. There are only a few and they post under several names so it will look like there are more than there really are. Nice, but obvious, dudes. Anyway, it makes this site much more intelligent when you weed out the nonthinking parrots.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:24 pm#13 — pellinore, you are refreshingly open-minded. Check out this link:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20051213.asp
I generally find that MRC does a decent job. They come at it from a conservative angle but they approach things pretty scientifically…
December 28th, 2005 at 12:25 pm#7- You forgot our “Purity of Essence.”
December 28th, 2005 at 12:27 pmHinderaker is taken seriously because he needs to be taken seriously; we can’t ignore him, we need to respond to him. And unless we take his arguments seriously our shredding of them is seen as mere rhetorical flourishes.
All that having been said, yes, the WaPo didn’t do anything to discourage the rush to war, but I thikn we’d all agree that at last in the least year the tone of their coverage has changed.
Hinderaker’s big mistake is in confusing the urge to make a buck – - if the public were behind the war, the WaPo probably wouldn’t go against the wind – - with a conspiracy. Some time ago the bad news reached a critical mass; dawn broke; and the coverage has continued in the negative vein.
But it’s no conspiracy, unless you consider “maximize shareholder wealth” a conspiracy.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:29 pm#14 – It just stinks of someone trying too hard. You ever wonder who they are really trying to convince? Thier days are numbered – just check out Trent Lott. I’m in the south right now and believe me, there is quite an opening of eyes happening here. Nobody is buying Bush’s bull and those defending criminals – dwindling.
I saw my neighbor pulling off his W sticker.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:32 pm#16
Moon, Scaife and saudi, this is common knowlegede bro
December 28th, 2005 at 12:36 pmNo media bias?
Check out the results of this poll “of opinion leaders and the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations”.
While 56 percent of the public believes “efforts to establish a stable democracy” in Iraq will succeed, 63 percent of the news media elite think it will fail; a plurality of 48 percent of the public think going to war in Iraq was correct, but 71 percent of the news media elite consider it a bad decision; the public is split evenly at 44 percent on whether the Iraq war has helped or hurt the war on terrorism, but an overwhelming 68 percent of the news media elite say it has hurt; and 46 percent of the public believe torture of terrorist suspects is often or sometimes “justified,” 78 percent of the news media elite contend it is “rarely” or “never” justified. Plus, news media elite approval of Bush’s job performance — at a lowly 21 percent — is half that of the public’s.
So clearly the media is more anti-war than the general public.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:38 pmReporting the positives from Iraq is fine but that does nothing to change the fact that the entire reason for invading was based on falsehoods. Without rehashing all of the lies the administration told to get the American public behind the cause, the fact that they lied is clear. This alone is beyond impeachable, it’s criminal and the Bush cabal should face war crimes trials if justice is to be done. Iraq was never a security threat to us but they were a threat to our insatiable appetite for cheap oil and the continuation of our willfully ignorant foreign policy in the region. As is Iran, as is Syria. If Saudi Arabia decides they’re no longer going to enable our oil addicition in exchange for protection and armaments, they’ll be threatened by the Bushies too.
Just pay attention to the commercials during primetime on the major networks and you’ll understand who butters their bread. It’s a very simple equation. Only the blind and or foolish believe the mainstream media isn’t extremely averse to reporting the truths about who wields power and how.
As long as the rightwing keeps lying, we’ll keep debunking their lies.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:46 pmCan someone explain why, exactly, Hinderacker is still taken seriously?
I have no answer for you there, however, a glimpse into his past (through the magic of the video wayback machine, Mr. Peabody) at a particularly traumatic and defining moment in his life might give you clue where he got that name…
Assrocket
* Copyright attaturk industries.
Funded by a grant from the Poorman Institute
December 28th, 2005 at 12:50 pm#25 where do you get your information from? I am unaware of the public, these days, believing that Iraq is a good thing.
First, Iraq was a HUGE mistake. We are no safer, and in fact we are more unsafe. Our borders are not protected and now we have hundreds if not thousands of more people who want to kill us because of Iraq. They can simply walk across the border, so safety is not of any concern to the WH.
Second, the war was pre-planned and 2 days before 9/11 Bush was going to sign a declaration authorizing the war in Iraq. So if this news is true, why didn’t he? Because he and his cronies knew that they would get much more support if they LET 9/11 happen.
Finally, do you think that our civil liberties are worth the price? I don’t. Next, they will be manufacturing information about people who protest and convict them as “enemies of the state” and the person(s) will have no means to defend themselfs. Pretty soon it will be that the police can just enter your house because you live on a block where drug dealers do and there will be nothing you can do about it. Is this the kind of country you want to live in?
You really need to wake up to what is going on before it is too late. It will not be long before we are a pre WW2 Germany. We will be killing our own people because someone in the WH says that they are “enemy combatants”.
Enjoy your freedoms while you still have them, because at this rate when you are sitting in your rocking chair you won’t have them any more.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:52 pm20- After reading the MRC posting you link to:
If we are at war, why is it “liberal,” rather than simply objective, to report on it, warts and all? If our cause is so “noble,” why does it require not telling what is going on over there, including violence, political instability, etc.? Since when did “if it bleeds, it leads,” become a supposedly “liberal” position? And, would a similar look at the pre-war coverage, and the lack of any meaningful debate, show quthe same anti-Bush bias from the same sources sited, i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN?
The poll at the end can be interpreted in more than one way. The journalists holding a more pessimistic view of the Iraq situation can be seen as evidence of bias, but it can also be seen as a more informed sample.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:54 pmOne nice thing about the weird, dictator like path this country is tottering down, it’s finally scaring the right wing nut base. Or at least it does after you put things in perspective for them. Allow me to explain: Right wingers (rw’s) are a paranoid bunch. Black helicopters, taking away their guns, gov’t interference, spying -all that. This stuff used to freak them out in the 90’s. Remember Waco? They sure did. Pissed one of them off enough to blow up a federal building in OK. So you’ve got a sizeable segment of the right that fears and mistrusts the goverment. Fast foreward to 2005 and what have we got? The very things rw’s were so concerned about are part of SOP for the goverment. Spying, secret jails and big brother. Yet, for the most part the rw’s go along with it because they buy the “keeping us safe” line. That is until you play a little game called imagination. It goes like this; Imagine that after the bush years a far left winger (LW) is elected, maybe through a very close race that’s decided by the courts. Then suppose that this LW decides that the NRA is a dangerous, anti-american orginazation that should be watched veeerry closely. After all Timothy Mcveigh is the second biggest terrorist to hit these shores after Al Queda, wouldn’t it make sense to watch these dangerous rw groups? So goes PETA, so goes the NRA. This is what has shaken them to at least think about what is going on, and let’s face it, getting a RW to think is half the battle. I only hope it’s not too late.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:56 pm#20 – cynicon
I’ll definitely give it a look. I lean liberal, and the headline of the site leads me to believe that they actually have too much of an agenda to take what they say too seriously (plus you admit that they have a conservative slant): “The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias”
However, I’ll still browse it to see what the conservative angle offers. I tend to give more weight to sites like http://www.factcheck.org – they seem a little more balanced to me – I have seen them criticize both sides of the aisle, and they tend to have supporting documents linked on almost every article. I just wish they would stay a little more current on their topics (I have yet to see anything on the recent NSA scandal, and I’d really like to see their take on it).
December 28th, 2005 at 12:59 pmWhile 56 percent of the public believes “efforts to establish a stable democracy†in Iraq will succeed, 63 percent of the news media elite think it will fail; a plurality of 48 percent of the public think going to war in Iraq was correct, but 71 percent of the news media elite consider it a bad decision; the public is split evenly at 44 percent on whether the Iraq war has helped or hurt the war on terrorism, but an overwhelming 68 percent of the news media elite say it has hurt; and 46 percent of the public believe torture of terrorist suspects is often or sometimes “justified,†78 percent of the news media elite contend it is “rarely†or “never†justified. Plus, news media elite approval of Bush’s job performance — at a lowly 21 percent — is half that of the public’s.
Weekend Update reports that 66 percent of Americans believe that President Bush is doing a poor job in Iraq, while the other 34 percent “believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.”
December 28th, 2005 at 1:00 pm“63 percent of the news media elite think it will fail”
“but 71 percent of the news media elite consider it a bad decision;”
“but an overwhelming 68 percent of the news media elite say it has hurt;”
“Plus, news media elite approval of Bush’s job performance — at a lowly 21 percent — is half that of the public’s”
“So clearly the media is more anti-war than the general public.”
Nice try. Do they actually pay you for this obvious spin?
Why did you leave “elite” out of the last one?
December 28th, 2005 at 1:00 pm#25,
I find it interesting that you speak of the “news media” as if it were a separate entity, a machine of some sort, totally disconnected from humanity. Last I checked, the paper delivery person was, in fact, still a person. The people working to produce the paper were, surprisingly enough, people. And, holy mother of god, the reporters were still human beings! It seems to me that the only entities that are separated and devoid of humanity are the ones who own the media. So my question is, can you name ONE owner/publisher of a major media company that could be considered even remotely liberal?
So, now, with your “smokescreen†argument cleared out of the way, I would be interested in your response to the following questions:
1. Why do you feel that the Constitution of the United States is no longer relevant?
2. Stipulating for the moment that 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died (although more credible sources than george bush place the number MUCH higher) as a direct result of the Iraq invasion, and just below 3,000 innocent Americans were killed on 9/11, what makes an American’s life at least 10 times more valuable than an Iraqis?
3. As a follow up to question #2, what is the actual accepted ratio? (we need to know this so we will know when we have killed enough innocent Iraqis to satisfy your blood lust)
4. Lastly, who is more foolish, the fool or the person who follows the fool?
I look forward to your answers.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:00 pmLike the “war on Christmas” the “liberal media” myth feeds into the false marginilization ploy the Right have to feed thier base in order to have them follow them like zombies (”They” are out to get us/We are all in this together/You can trust us/You’re too stupid to think for yourself).
December 28th, 2005 at 1:02 pm#
#13 — pellinore, you are refreshingly open-minded. Check out this link:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/ realitycheck/ 2005/ fax20051213.asp
I generally find that MRC does a decent job. They come at it from a conservative angle but they approach things pretty scientifically…
Comment by cynicon implant — December 28, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
ROFL!
Pellinore is a penile implant, too
December 28th, 2005 at 1:02 pm#25: OK, so why is it “liberal” to say that the war in Iraq has destabilized the region and not helped the GWOT or whatever it’s called anymore?
Is it, by the way, “conservative” to say that the President oughtn’t to be bound by the law except in matters of fellatio?
& hey, don’t forget that the MSM is also more scientific than the general public; you’re likelier to see creationists among them.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:08 pm#34 — I just gave you the results of the poll — I’m not spinning anything. I know you don’t like them but the numbers don’t lie.
Take out the ‘elite’s and the numbers tell the same story.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:11 pmJ.A.Gigolo – I resent that comment. If I were some raving neocon spouting bullshit, I’d take that as my due. However, I’m just interjecting my point of view, which may be more moderate than most here – I still feel that I have a right to that viewpoint. However, to attack someone like me, who actually cares to look at both sides of the argument (even if I do tend to think the conservative argument is often flawed or outrageous), you’re no better then NED or any of the other trolls around here. dipshit.
BTW – did you even read my posts?
December 28th, 2005 at 1:11 pmMaybe if we ignore the crazies in the Middle East they’ll leave us alone. Oh wait, we tried that. Got us 9/11. Oops.
Comment by cynicon implant — December 28, 2005 @ 11:38 am
I guess it al depends on what you mean by “ignore”.
The Middle East was not exactly ignored before 9/11. The WTC attacks were despicable and horrific, but Bin Laden’s peeve was a legitimate one; that is, the presence of foreign troops in Saudi Arabia -not exactly a sign of a region “ignored” by the US.
That one of the main goals of AlQaeda is to rid Saudi Arabia of American military presence has long been acknowledged in US military and diplomatic circles:
(…)by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principal grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.
Paul Wolfowitz interview with Vanity Fair, May 2003
Read more about this here, here, and here.
What was ignored were the warnings that an attack on US soil was imminent.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:13 pmI agree with #37 about #20: ROTFLMAO!!!!!
December 28th, 2005 at 1:15 pmI went to the site and nearly wet myself laughing so hard!
“Scientifically”! What a joke! The wording itself is so blatently biased to begin with and the “studies” are the spewings of right(WRONG!)wing corporately funded shills!
Heh… yet another piece of evidence that the Washington Post is part of that massive left wing conspiracy we keep hearing about.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:16 pmI don’t care if you resemble that comment. You are a troll, a plant, or a moron.
If you haven’t heard of MRC by now, you are a moron, or you live in a cave. being that you have heard of it, you either embrace it or laugh at it the minute some other troll or moron mentions it here.
Media Research Center Inc. is a conservative media watchdog group run by President and founder Brent Bozell. The Center has a $6 million annual budget and 60 staff members and is funded by larger right-wing foundations (see here).
December 28th, 2005 at 1:16 pm#8 So Reagan arming Saddam and Bin Laden is “sticking our heads in the sand”. You are obviously one of those doomed to repitition as the old saying goes. Did you get a selective memory chip for Christmas?
December 28th, 2005 at 1:17 pm^See? I have never heard of them and I pegged them right away on the first visit to the page. How transparent!
December 28th, 2005 at 1:18 pm#25 “So clearly the media is more anti-war than the general public.”
Could it possibly be that news reporters and the media that publishes them actually start with facts, rather than getting their information as pre-digested spin from pundits on “news” channels?
December 28th, 2005 at 1:19 pm“Take out the ‘elite’s and the numbers tell the same story.”
That’s even weaker spin than the first. The study says “elite” in it? And does it list editors and publishers – or just reporters?
December 28th, 2005 at 1:19 pmWhen’s the shift change Cynicon? You look like you could use a break.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:22 pmTrolls will pull all kinds of little tricks, including working with a shill who pulls this act…
#20 – cynicon
I’ll definitely give it a look. I lean liberal, and the headline of the site leads me to believe that they actually have too much of an agenda to take what they say too seriously (plus you admit that they have a conservative slant): “The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Biasâ€
notice the mutual ass-kissing….
#
#13 — pellinore, you are refreshingly open-minded. Check out this link:
It’s all designed to make you question what you know is so…
They are desperate. It sucks to be a Bush supporter…
Seen many W bumper stickers lately?
December 28th, 2005 at 1:23 pmOn an unrelated topic (but one which Think Progress readers might be interested in), here’s a news post revealed today:
Chicago Turns Down Discounted Venezuelan Oil
December 28th, 2005 at 1:25 pmhttp://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2710
J.A.;
Wait a few minutes, IRI’s just punched in, but he usually uses the can before he starts his shift.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:25 pmyou’re no better then NED or any of the other trolls around here. dipshit.
And I will take that as a compliment since I intend to use every little dirty trick, and worse, in the book to bury conservatism once and for all. Just like scmucks like you tried to bury liberalism. turnabout is fairplay, monkeyboy.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:26 pmMaybe if we ignore the crazies in the Middle East they’ll leave us alone. Oh wait, we tried that. Got us 9/11. Oops.
Comment by cynicon implant
Who are the crazies in the middle east?
Some of the “crazies” don’t even belong there. Can you name which ones are those?
December 28th, 2005 at 1:30 pmI generally find that MRC does a decent job. They come at it from a conservative angle but they approach things pretty scientifically…
Comment by cynicon implant — December 28, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
A scientific approach cannot have a “conservative angle” -facts are facts are facts.
From the MRC web site: On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove – through sound scientific research – that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed Media Research Center (MRC).
This would indicate -at least- bad science. They have a preconceived notion and have “set out to prove it”. Saying this is like saying you will prove the liberal bias in weather patterns: You might actually be able to do it, if you cherry pick your data.
They also have the further task to “neutralize [the media's] impact on the American political scene” -not exactly a sign of a scientific endeavour.
In short, MRC is not a scientific enterprise but a political initiative with a very specific ideological goal.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:31 pmWithout igniting some sort of charges that I’m calling the “public” stupid (I’m not) –
Isn’t entirely plausible that the “media elites”, who after all are following these stories on a daily basis — who are dedicating a career to investigating, talking to experts of all different political persuasions, etc — might just have a better foundation to form an opinion than the “public” – which includes large numbers of folks that get their information solely from Rush Limbaugh, et al?
I’m not advocating a Platonian republic model where the journalists play the role of philosophers, setting policy — but wouldn’t you agree that it’s at least plausible that the opinions of the “media elites” could differ from the public’s because they’ve simply got a better, deeper, and more complete understanding of the issue than the “public”?
I mean — 40+ hours a week of reporting, talking to experts, visiting the locations, etc must surely better equip an opinion-holder than reading the paper, watching TV,m or listening to the radio, right?
December 28th, 2005 at 1:32 pmHowever, I’ll still browse it to see what the conservative angle offers. I tend to give more weight to sites like http://www.factcheck.org – they seem a little more balanced to me – I have seen them criticize both sides of the aisle, and they tend to have supporting documents linked on almost every article. I just wish they would stay a little more current on their topics (I have yet to see anything on the recent NSA scandal, and I’d really like to see their take on it).
factcheck.org is crap. I could elaborate but anyone with half a brain knows this…
Zonk,
I’ll do it for you.
The American public is stupid, ill-informed and incredibly ignorant. That includes our college graduates.
The average Cuban is better informed and educated than your average American. The best informed Americans are at sites like this, (not trolling) and that is a stone cold fact.
People just don’t believe me when I tell them that the average Cuban is better informed and educated than the average American. That’s probably because I am usually talking to a dumb, stupid American idiot who can’t read and is ill-informed by whatever bad information he does manage to take in. His lips are moving when he watches Faux News. The rate of illiteracy in Cuba is .02 %. It’s about 30% here.
Kurt Vonnegut observes, we have some of the best educated idiots in history… right here in America, in Washington, D.C.!
December 28th, 2005 at 1:37 pmIf there was a media bias against the Bush administration that was efforting to have the whole lot of criminals impeached, they’d be reporting on the real stories, not the slop we’re fed on a nightly basis.
Bad for administration= one day of mention gone the next, buried on page 39D.
Good for administration= runs for days on every station noth TV and radio, headlines in bold print. This happens more often than not with stories that were complete fabrications of the rightwing propaganda mill. When they’re debunked, the retractions are rare and they do not reverberate.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:39 pmI’m a stormtrooper of the left. Groove on my Shock and Awe
December 28th, 2005 at 1:41 pm#6 – “Sounds selfish? Oh well! Charity begins at home and this country has been going to shit under bushys reign of terror.”
December 28th, 2005 at 1:41 pmComment by The Debtonator — December 28, 2005 @ 11:32 am
**** No, Mr. or Mrs. Susan, your remarks don’t sound selfish at all – they sound like the average malcontent mewlings of “progressives”. Reign of terror???? When I see your head on a pike or you cheering as the guillotine falls on the rich, then I might give some credence to your “over the top” “description”.
#56 — it’s possible. But every time I see a headline like “Prison rolls grow despite drop in crime” (it wouldn’t enter their mind that crime drops when you put criminals behind bars) it makes me think they might just be finding the information that fits their world view.
I’d like to think they are reporting accurately but I have read too many comments from soldiers saying they can’t understand why the media is painting the negative picture they are.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:42 pm#62,
Let me introduce you to my nephew, who was a marine in Iraq, so he can tell you what he told me, and that is that it is 100 times worse than anything the media has reported.
You’ll forgive me if I lend no credence to your hollow claims of support.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:48 pmSo Gigolo, what are you saying? That the American people too stupid to have a say in what happens in this country? Yeah, we should be more like Cuba. Oh wait, they have no say at all…
December 28th, 2005 at 1:48 pmLeft wing media? You don’t know what left is in America. You think its some weird thing that goes against human nature. Even Jimmy Carter is centre-right. What often passes for political discourse in the MSM in America would be dismissed as gutter sniping and right-wing lunatic fringe chatter in all the literate democracies of the world. The range of political opinion is constrictively narrow. Democrat/Republican/GoodCop/Bad/Cop. You were once a shining beacon, America, a well-spring of fresh ideas, planting seeds of freedom and hope in people around the world. Truth, Justice and the American way. But you’re not that now. What ever happened to Truth and Justice? Words that aren’t heard much anymore. Replaced with Freedom and Democracy. Words that don’t stand on their own but need explanation. Or be backed up by an unbeatable army and a pack of lies. But I didn’t start out to preach. The world is still with you, people to people. We still have faith you can rid yourselves, and us, of the creature from Hell at your helm, and regain your footing. Please remember, the fondest wish of those you refer to as trolls, extreme religious, right-wing Bush supporters, is that you don’t follow your heart, but follow their God. And nothing you do short of that, will convince them you’re a human being. See them for what they are and try and move on; evolution awaits.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:49 pmJ.A Gigilo – I take back the dipshit comment. Not because I excuse any of your previous name calling, though (which I find to be an inappropriate attack). I just should not have gone there to begin with.
BTW – I was not aware of the MRC (but thank you for the link -like I have said before, I welcome input from anyone). I had earlier welcomed cynicon to challenge my assumptions with some supporting information, and that is what he sent me. Given that I’ve never seen or heard of the site (and I try to remain open-minded), I was willing to take a quick look (although my first visit to their homepage did not leave me with much hope that it was objective (see my comment in post #32: ..the headline of the site leads me to believe that they actually have too much of an agenda to take what they say too seriously…)). I’m sure that I’ll see it as a weak argument on his part as ‘proof’ that the media is “overwhelmingly liberal” (which I feel is complete B.S.). I’ll likely make that assumption once I actaully have time to read the site and form my own opinions, however.
My approach is to actually challenge people to show me why my assumptions are wrong (no one here is an expert on any subject, no matter what they think) and give them a chance to refute my assumtions, even if it is a weak attempt. If that makes me a troll, a plant, a moron or an ass-kisser, then call me Planty McAss-Kisser the Moronic Troll.
And by the way, just in case you’re wondering – I can’t stand Bush, I think he is a lying criminal (I actually have read enough info to make that assumption), and think Cheney is Evil incarnate. So we probably don’t differ much in our opinions (hence I see no reasons for the attacks or name calling).
December 28th, 2005 at 1:50 pmYeah Cynicon, we definitely don’t want to be like Cuba. It’s a dictatorship, and it tortures, and the public has no rights like those guaranteed in our Constitution.
Golly gee, I guess that we should give georgie unfettered power so that HE can ensure that we never become like Cuba.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:51 pmBumper Sticker:
INSPECTIONS WERE WORKING
December 28th, 2005 at 1:53 pmOK –
I’d like to think they are reporting accurately but I have read too many comments from soldiers saying they can’t understand why the media is painting the negative picture they are.
But I can likewise point to soldier quotes aplenty that say the opposite… check out operationtruth.com, for example. What makes the soldiers you could certainly cite any more credible than the ones I could cite (and yes, vice versa)?
It’s issues like the torture question that really shakes my faith in the “public” to be able to adequately understand and form an opinion on the situation.
So far as that is concerned — I have not seen a single credible expert that supports the use of torture. Hell, the Israelis, who certainly have a lot more experience and knowledge dealing with the asymetric threat of terrorism than we do — disavow the practice as unreliable and counterproductive.
To me – any support of torture is nothing more than “eye for an eye” bloodlust based on misreading ‘24′ as reality of policy.
I do have faith that eventually the public gets it right — but history is littered with cases of the “public opinion” being on the wrong side. I hate to bring up largely irrelevant cultural flashpoints, but an overwhelming majority of Americans believed mixed marriages were wrong and immoral as recently as 50-60 years ago.
Public opinion polls are nothing more than opinion snapshots in time – not policy dictates.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:55 pmOptimist, I’d like to hear more from your nephew. I would value his insight. I’m serious.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:59 pmCynicon,
What my nephew can tell you will shock you. But, as he puts it, it’s what he cannot tell you that would blow your mind.
What I would recommend would be for you to actually talk to service members who have returned from Iraq. The education that you will receive will most likely change your life.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:08 pmCynicon,
What my nephew can tell you will shock you. But, as he puts it, it’s what he cannot tell you that would blow your mind.
Comment by Optimist
What did he do, shoot one of his officers in the back?
December 28th, 2005 at 2:10 pmBest laugh of the day in these comments. Brent Bozell is the ID of media research. Why do you think he’s on fox so often? It ain’t because he’s done serious research,it’s because he’s got a good and wholly unproductive gig going reinforcing the drumbeat of “we true Americans tilting against the evil (select as many as you like)”:
December 28th, 2005 at 2:10 pmMedia
Academia
Liberals
Communists
Marxists
Moonbats
Defeatists
Cut and Runners
All of the above.
When you set out to find “liberal bias” what a surprise,he found it;and he can prove it.
Too,too funny,but ineffably sad.
I’d like to think they are reporting accurately but I have read too many comments from soldiers saying they can’t understand why the media is painting the negative picture they are.
Comment by cynicon implant — December 28, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
Then I think the deaths of over 2,00 American soldiers, the maiming of over 15,000 and the deaths of around 30,000 Iraqis in the course of this war of choice -is not such a bad thing after all.
Also, I guess we shouldn’t fret over prisoner renditions, the secret prison system, or the torture of prisoners in US custody during this so-called “War on terror” -I am sure these news cannot be that bad either.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:11 pmI saw my neighbor pulling off his W sticker.
Comment by progressive and proud
He probably figured that having one side of his car keyed was quite enough.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:12 pmMost of the editorial pages of major newspapers in the nation supported the Bush invasion of Iraq. There were columnists, op-ed writers who were in opposition. They were more believable to me and they were right. To continue to say that the media is liberal is beating a dead horse — the media is not liberal, has not been so for more than 30 years. They are organizations who subjugate their mission of journalism to the growth of profit and power.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:15 pmHinderacker is an ignorant ass.
Ass Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek,
You dare to libel a veteran with such a traitorous and baseless accusation, such is beneath contempt. You are truly just a slimy coward.
Bring your pansy ass to me and make that accusation to my face so that I can respond accordingly. Then I’ll take you to the authorities myself so that you can explain the basis for your accusation against a US Marine.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:16 pmI saw my neighbor pulling off his W sticker.
Comment by progressive and proud
I laughed at my neighbor who didn’t pull off his Kerry sticker.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:17 pmIRI, I usually think you are funny but that reply to Optimist crossed the line
December 28th, 2005 at 2:19 pm#26, Great post, Jay
December 28th, 2005 at 2:20 pmPresident Carter finds it unpleasant to write his assessment of the Bush administration, but he steadfastly makes it clear that the Bush/Cheney/neocon “war on terror” is in fact a war on America’s reputation and civil liberties. He points out that the Bush administration has used the “war on terror” to justify actions “similar to those of abusive regimes that we have historically condemned.” Consequently, “the United States now has become one of the foremost targets of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles of democratic life.”
Carter reports that the deception, naked aggression, and torture that define the Bush administration have caused a tremendous setback for human rights throughout the world. At an international human rights conference in June 2005, “Participants explained that oppressive leaders had been emboldened to persecute and silence outspoken citizens under the guise of fighting terrorism . . . The consequence is that many lawyers, professors, doctors,and journalists had been labeled terrorists, often for merely criticizing a particular policy or for carrying out their daily work. We heard about many cases involving human rights attorneys being charged with abetting terrorists simply for defending accused persons.” Carter is especially disturbed that the Bush administration is encouraging these abusive policies in the name of “fighting terrorism.”
Who among us ever expected to hear an American president, vice president, and attorney general justify torture as essential to the protection of the American way of life? Carter quotes attorney general Alberto Gonzales, who sounds more like a third world tyrant than an American when he dismisses the Geneva Convention’s provisions as “quaint.” Bush threatened to veto any congressional limitation on his right to torture, and Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon declared that “the president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as Commander in Chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture.”
It is not only Carter who is disturbed, but also members of the previous Bush administration, including the current president’s own father and former National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft. Carter quotes Dr. Burton J. Lee III, President George H.W. Bush’s White House physician as follows:
“Reports of torture by US forces have been accompanied by evidence that military medical personnel have played a role in this abuse and by new military ethical guidelines that in effect authorize complicity by health professionals in ill-treatment of detainees. . . . Systematic torture, sanctioned by the government and aided and abetted by our own profession, is not acceptable. . . . America cannot continue down this road. Torture demonstrates weakness, not strength. . . . It is not leadership. It is a reaction of government officials overwhelmed by fear who succumb to conduct unworthy of them and of the citizens of the United States.”
Carter notes that the illegal detentions following 9/11 were hurriedly legalized by dubious methods which violate a number of constitutional protections of civil liberties. Carter is distressed that children as young as 8 years old are being held in indefinite detention and tortured. Confronted by Seymour Hersh, a Pentagon spokesman replied that “age is not a determining factor in detention.”
December 28th, 2005 at 2:22 pm“I’m a uniter, not a divider”
“If you ain’t with us, then yur against us”
These dipshits aren’t too confused.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:24 pmWhat the tinfoil right always fails to remember about 9/11 is that it was their weak sissy pres’dent who allowed America to be attacked.
Because these tinfoil wackjobs are weak, they resort to the same “I know you are but what am I” sissy boy attacks on the nearest bystander. Just like they did in grade school after getting slapped down by the kid they rode for a week before he got tired of it and found them at recess.
Guess the lesson needs to to be re-inforced again.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:24 pmSeems like right between the eyes needs some more attention. This idiot gets his thrills by being a jagoff. IGNORE IT and it will go away.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:25 pmOn the editorial page, several times each week for several weeks now, my Chicago Tribune has been writing of: What the White House Said. What we knew then. What we know now. It was supposed to be an objective series to clear the heads of the readers and set facts straight — it was more like a reiteration of their stance from the start, their adoration of George Bush, and their editorial support of the war. (Of course, I wrote to them of my opinion.)
December 28th, 2005 at 2:26 pmThe Tribune also owns the LATimes, WGN-radio/TV. After the NYT, the WaPo, the Tribune and its family are mighty powerful; they are among the most notable papers in the nation and they are all conservative.
Hey, it’s the 101st keyboarding brigade to the defense of the wingnutosphere!
Thank god they’re here rather than off in Iraq “defending freedom” or whatever the (p)resident is telling us is the reason for the war this week.
And by the way, I-Right-I, the comment about shooting an officer in the back has got to be the dumbest right-wing comment I’ve seen in a long time. Thanks for confirming my opinions regarding the wing-nut doofus contingent.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:27 pmYes Marie,
My cousin’s husband was a staff writer for the LA Times and took early retirement after the Trib bought them out. Talked to him over X-mas and he told me of what was going on behind the scene, and it was outrageous. Liberal media my a**. The midnight knock upon the door “Vee haf no liberals heer, pleeze vee vant no trouble”
December 28th, 2005 at 2:32 pmIRI, I usually think you are funny but that reply to Optimist crossed the line
Comment by cynicon implant
I can’t always be funny. I guess you haven’t seen the war protestors holding up signs encouraging our troops to shoot their officers. The first thing you need to know about the Filthy Left is they are liars therefore any hearsay evidence regarding our troops can be dismissed out of hand.
There is no insult to the Filthy Left that can cross the line. These are people actively seeking the defeat and death of our troops. The fact that they would deliberately harm their own children shouldn’t surprise anyone with a passing acquaintance with the Left’s fascination with pre-natal infanticide.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:32 pm#71, IRI
December 28th, 2005 at 2:34 pmThat is an unconscionably mean-spirited uncalled for remark. I have always thought you were a mental degenerate and you have proven it time and time again — this was among the worst.
Perhaps Hinderacker needs one of these:
December 28th, 2005 at 2:34 pm#88 – As far as I can see, it was THE worst.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:37 pm“The first thing you need to know about the Filthy Left is they are liars therefore any hearsay evidence regarding our troops can be dismissed out of hand.”
Huh, now the wingnuttys are claiming Bush is a leftie??? Who knew?
December 28th, 2005 at 2:38 pmIRI, why don’t you go and tell your boss, the Bush crime family, that you have failed.
You are so far out there that you are stupid, but then again so is your president. After all, he is always talking with NASA over the wire taps so we are all safe. After all NASA plays a key role in wire taps.
Your hatred is so far RIGHT that you remind me of the KKK. Just like them, you have no idea what you are talking about.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:38 pmIf IRI was my officer; when finished, you could put a light in him, tie him to the ceiling, spin him around and use him as a disco ball.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:43 pmNice support for the troops,IRI.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:48 pmHypocrite. In all the protest marches, I have never seen signs asking for our soldiers to be shot. That must be more delusional drivel from the evil rightwing. Would they plant such signs for propaganda purposes? Would they doctor photos to distribute to sheeple like you?
You bet they would and they do. You may help them — we know you believe their lies and bullshit.
You make me sick.
#93 – I like that image, filthy, may I use it?
December 28th, 2005 at 2:50 pm#94,
I can appreciate your disdain towards Ass Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek, but your comment is as vile as something that he/she/it would normally spew.
Now, what Ass Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek said was deplorable and displayed a complete and total lack of character, morals, and ethics. This is not unusual for him/her/it although it did plumb new depths. However, I would recommend not lowering yourself to his/her/its level, it is beneath you and humanity as a whole.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:50 pmIGNORE THE ASSCLOWN! The attention you all give him/her/it is what it wants, craves and needs.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:52 pm#75 – “….the media is not liberal, has not been so for more than 30 years.”
December 28th, 2005 at 2:52 pm****Of course, Marie, you’re absolutely right– if you don’t take into account the “newspaper of record” (New York Times), the Atlanta Constitution, The San Fran Chronicle, The Seattle Intelligencer, etc. Newsweek, Time, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Maureen Dowd, Robert (”Replaced”) Scheer, Molly Ivins, Helen Thomas (is she still alive???)etc., etc. But you’re probably among those who percieve Jimmy “Nimrod” Carter as “centre-right”. (This is only true when comparing to Marx or Vlad.)
#98 Or the San Diego Union Tribune, Orange Co. Ragister, Hearst, Murdock’s News Corp., Viacom Disney, General Electric . . . Liberal bastions all!
How silly Aphro – is that all they provide you with? Pretty lame spin.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:59 pmYour hatred is so far RIGHT that you remind me of the KKK. Just like them, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Comment by RemoveBush — December 28, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
I have the suspicion I-RIGHT-I is a KKKer since he fits the definition:
From the wikipedia: “Ku Klux Klan” (…) [has] advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism and opposed gay rights; in the past century it has practiced anti-Catholicism, and nativism. It is infamous for violently attacking its opponents, which have included African Americans, non-heterosexual people, people of non-conservative Protestant faiths, immigrants, women seeking equal rights with men, and their supporters.
Ku Klux Klan
Here are some of his posts as evidence:
Left wing non religious Jews are the problem. Period. I wonder if the Germans had the same problem with y’all?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I – October 20, 2005 @ 4:04 pm
I suppose in some perverted way you see homosexuality as a positive human trend instead of something despicable and deadly.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I – December 27, 2005 @ 8:47 pm
That is a problem but nothing a little Puritan Fundamentalist Christianity couldn’t cure. Ever notice that everything the Catholics touch turns to shit?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I – September 22, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
Hey, what does a Mexcian know about ethics anyway?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I – September 25, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
That’s nice Sara…how many NO Negroes can we put Colorado Springs down for? We’ve got about 123,454 more than we really need here in Houston and would love it if you’d take a few.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I – September 13, 2005 @ 9:53 pm
I hate the French, they pretty much invented the Filthy Left.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I – October 1, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
We need more women in the kitchen cooking dinner. Oh, we don’t want to control everything….WE DO ALREADY. Get used to it loser.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I – November 1, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
[Women should NOT vote] Because they f e e l , they don’t think. There are exceptions to the rule and they all agree with me.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:00 pmComment by I-RIGHT-I – November 2, 2005 @ 5:39 pm
YAY IRI
December 28th, 2005 at 3:06 pmRightie Radical Patriot
is a major wienie, one of o them weekend paintball patriots, dressed in cammo gear bought at the local army navy or hunters supply..
shooting your plastic balls of paint, playing blow me up with your friends, is that bout right IRI?
are you a bushwhacker as well IRI, you know we know, go ahead and admit it,you creep around, watch people, have cameras hidden anywhere IRI? or do you use the online ones? Come on We know, tell us already? you skinned animals as a kid, turpentine on the cats behind?,Sadistic little creep grown older, living in the past. your world of hatrid, kill and smite thy enemy, blow them up your rationalization?
bout right IRI?
December 28th, 2005 at 3:12 pmGregor – nice summary on I-Right-I’s little (butt)nuggets of wisdom. What a piece of work that guy is.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:21 pmAssRocket, IRI, et all are tinfoil eunuchs. They follow a weak leader who is a coward, who ducked the war in Vietnam, then inserted a codpiece to appear manly. Problem is their high pitched squeals are five octaves too high. At the end of the day their balls are swinging for their rear view mirror right next to their bronzed baby shoes.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:25 pm100- I always just figured this guy(?) was just a crank looking say something inflammatory to get attention, but that list, while far from exhaustive, is telling. Freud would have a field day.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:32 pmThe fact is that the media is cheering for our defeat in Iraq, as are the Democrats.
The reason why the Liberal media reported the Iraqi WMD stories before the war was because they wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to share the praise when WMDs were found and they wanted to bash Bush if they weren’t found immediately.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:34 pm“Can someone explain why, exactly, Hinderacker is still taken seriously?â€
This guy will be taken seriously as long as there are people in the World who will buy a piece of fiction, because accepting reality is far to painful.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:36 pmAhh, #106 You forget the stories by Judith Miller about WMD. America has a love affair with war and the NY Times delivered the goods in spades in early 2003.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:37 pmRight Gary,
Where are your balls swinging from chicken hawk?
December 28th, 2005 at 3:39 pmJudith Miller was doing her patriotic duty to inform Americans of the WMDs in Iraq.
Most of the media showed their obvious bias against the case for War.
The New York Times has returned to it’s roots of undermining the American war effort, with how they shamelessly published leaked information about terrorist monitoring.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:47 pmthat list, while far from exhaustive, is telling.
Comment by David — December 28, 2005 @ 3:32 pm
Absolutely -the list if faaaar from exhaustive. I think I can fill pages and pages with I-RIGHT-I’s hateful rhetoric.
But tidbits like these are enough to give you an idea of who he is.
Freud would have a field day.
In fact, he has already been diagnosed by a mental health professional, right here at Think Progress:
I-RIGHT-I
December 28th, 2005 at 3:54 pmI’m a Psychologist.
Only guy who can’t get laid degrades women.
Might wanna find a good blow up doll. That is, if she’ll have you!
Comment by kiss me kate — December 10, 2005 @ 11:04 am
Laura Bush’s War on Christmas
So Gary, now that we know that EVERYTHING Judy Miller said was complete bullshit, where does that leave you?
Same place it leaves us. With a con artist administration, a retard as president and reichtwingnuts as those defending America from itself.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:55 pmThe Americans are cowards they pick on Iraq with a population of 20 million in a flat terrain kill 100,000 civilians and are proud of it well lets say the republican lot…….Try Iran, which has nearly 70 million people, mostly of a young population under 35 a mountainous terrain and a much more effective military. You Bush lovers should write your man and advise him to let that sleeping dog lie. As they will kick your ass ……..Proving the point you are yellow bellied murderers that steal oil to help boost your economy as the world boycotts your industrial goods cause of the mess your making of our atmosphere
December 28th, 2005 at 3:56 pmJudith Miller was doing her patriotic duty to inform Americans of the WMDs in Iraq.
Comment by Gary Ruppert
Hey Gary this just in… Your boy recentley said in a speech that the case for WMD was based on faulty intel, FAULTY INTEL!!!!!!!… but of course Bush said he would still sacrifice over 2000 young Americans for some reason… Have you no shame… or would bush being wrong somehow require you to question your belief in him being the President who was appointed by God himself. You simple minded dickhead!
December 28th, 2005 at 3:57 pmJudith Miller was doing her patriotic duty to inform Americans of the WMDs in Iraq.
Comment by Gary Ruppert
Hey Gary this just in… Your boy recentley said in a speech that the case for WMD was based on faulty intel, FAULTY INTEL!!!!!!!… but of course Bush said he would still sacrifice over 2000 young Americans for some reason… Have you no shame… or would bush being wrong somehow require you to question your belief in him being the President who was appointed by God himself. You simple minded jerk!
December 28th, 2005 at 3:58 pmsorry for the double post…
December 28th, 2005 at 4:01 pmJudith Miller was doing her patriotic duty to inform Americans of the WMDs in Iraq.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — December 28, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
Maybe you made a typo and meant to say “misinform” -we now know her reporting was far from accurate. Is misinforming the public a “patriotic duty”?
Most of the media showed their obvious bias against the case for War.
A war against a country that had no WMD and so posed no threat to the US -speaking against it is “biased”?
The New York Times has returned to it’s roots of undermining the American war effort, with how they shamelessly published leaked information about terrorist monitoring.
What you are advocating is the media’s total compliance with the current administration and want the media to stop blowing the whistle on the government’s illegal activities.
In essence you are asking the media to abdicate their duty of informing the public and to become the government’s mouthpiece -hardly conducive to the health of any democracy, since a democracy presupposes and needs an informed citizenry able to make informed decisions.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:04 pmThe Americans military and president are cowards they pick on Iraq with a population of 20 million in a flat terrain kill 100,000 civilians and are proud of it well lets say the republican lot…….Try Iran, which has nearly 70 million people, mostly of a young population under 35 a mountainous terrain and a much more effective military. You Bush lovers should write your man and advise him to let that sleeping dog lie. As they will kick your ass ……..Proving the point you are yellow bellied murderers that steal oil to help boost your economy as the world boycotts your industrial goods cause of the mess your making of our atmosphere
December 28th, 2005 at 4:05 pmWell Gregor, on that level, the media has already done it’s part to disinform or uninform us.
Just think what might have happened in the ‘04 elections if the NY Times had mentioned that bushco was tapping our phones without warrents? Yes, this is the same “liberal” Times which let Judy Miller ride us to war in Iraq.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:07 pmI really do wish that everyone will stop using the term “liberal media” even in defending the media. The “liberal” label is being thrust upon us as a means of negating the media as a whole.
Just because Fox has a news channel does not make all news untrustworthy. Nor, for that matter, does a left-leaning publication make all media liberal.
Think about who benefits when the media becomes marginalized, it is certainly not the truth.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:16 pmWell Gregor, on that level, the media has already done it’s part to disinform or uninform us.
Comment by kindness — December 28, 2005 @ 4:07 pm
Sadly… yes, I agree.
What I was trying to say is that, instead of asking for more self-censorship, the public should be asking for more vigilance on the part of the media. That is their job. That is what the media ought to be doing.
Asking the media to not report on whatever issue we don’t like, is not the way to go. It’s like the people who were outraged at the fact that the prisoner torture pictures ever came to light, instead of being angry that torture was happening at all.
A censored media is not what the citizens of a democracy should be asking for. That is one of the sure ways to wind up in a totalitarian state, where the public is ignorant of what government officials do.
Yes, this is the same “liberal†Times which let Judy Miller ride us to war in Iraq.
I agree. I also wish people stopped talking about a “liberal” media whenever a mild criticism is presented or any question is asked.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:16 pmThe Americans military and president are cowards they pick on Iraq with a population of 20 million in a flat terrain kill 100,000 civilians and are proud of it well lets say the republican lot…….Try Iran, which has nearly 70 million people, mostly of a young population under 35 a mountainous terrain and a much more effective military. You Bush lovers should write your man and advise him to let that sleeping dog lie. As they will kick your ass ……..Proving the point you are yellow bellied murderers that steal oil to help boost your economy as the world boycotts your industrial goods cause of the mess your making of our atmosphere
Comment by bill
Bill must be from Kanaduh.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:20 pmI prefer “SCLM-So Called Liberal Media” with thanks to Eric Alterman for coming up with that. If we did really have a liberal media Bush wouldn’t be president because EVERYONE would have reported the truth about the stolen election in 2000.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:20 pm#96 What I said does not come near the vile comments spewing from IRI’s filthy mouth. I am not apologizing for anything I said. I cannot stoop so low as to meet his mark.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:39 pmI don’t usually respond to the trolls – I speak of them in the third person, but he was unconscionably hurtful today.
96 What I said does not come near the vile comments spewing from IRI’s filthy mouth. I am not apologizing for anything I said. I cannot stoop so low as to meet his mark.
I don’t usually respond to the trolls – I speak of them in the third person, but he was unconscionably hurtful today.
Comment by Marie
The truth hurts and because it is so, I am happy.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:44 pm#96 Optimist, What I said does not come near the vile comments spewing from IRI’s filthy mouth. I am not apologizing for anything I said. I cannot stoop so low as to meet his mark.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:44 pmI don’t usually respond to the trolls – I speak of them in the third person, but he was unconscionably hurtful today.I hope he is gone for the day.
A vast majority of Americans agree with the President when it comes to monitoring terrorists.
Once again, the Democrat Party is in the minority
December 28th, 2005 at 4:46 pmHey Gary this just in… Your boy recentley said in a speech that the case for WMD was based on faulty intel, FAULTY INTEL!!!!!!!… but of course Bush said he would still sacrifice over 2000 young Americans for some reason… Have you no shame… or would bush being wrong somehow require you to question your belief in him being the President who was appointed by God himself. You simple minded jerk!
Comment by good vibes
Hey Dummy, this just in:
On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration’s arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others….
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID
Intelligence agencies warned the Clinton and Bush administrations that Hussein was reconstituting his once-impressive program to create nuclear weapons. In part that intel reflected embarrassment over U.S. failure before the Persian Gulf war to grasp how close Iraq was to building nukes.
WHAT WE KNOW TODAY
Four intel studies from 1997-2000 concurred that “If Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year.” Claims that Iraq sought uranium and special tubes for processing nuclear material appear discredited.
THE VERDICT
If the White House manipulated or exaggerated the nuclear intelligence before the war in order to paint a more menacing portrait of Hussein, it’s difficult to imagine why. For five years, the official and oft-delivered alarms from the U.S. intelligence community had been menacing enough.
On all nine arguments for war, the Chicago Tribune finds the White House’s statements about war either accurate or wrong but relying in good faith upon erroneous intelligence.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512280311dec28,0,7879020.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed
December 28th, 2005 at 4:48 pmBush was mistaken to claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:55 pmWell Gary, why don’t you just head on over there and show us where they are?
December 28th, 2005 at 4:57 pm128.. comment by IRI
Way to reference an article that upon reading referneces no sources at all.
“Four intel studies from 1997-2000 concurred that…”
I ask, what intel sources?
IRI, your posts always lack substance, and are usually hate filled dither. You have lost all credibility and are a disgrace to those you speak for (real conservatives). If you told me the sky was blue I would have to walk outside and look for myself
December 28th, 2005 at 5:01 pmAs a former member of the press corps (albeit local and not national) I was exposed to the leftward leanings of my colleagues on a daily basis. At the time, I was not registered with either political party and found that this gave me greater credibility in covering politics.
It’s very easy to see the bias in the media, and I agree that most of it leans to the left. However, for those of you who don’t think the media is biased, I suggest you compare a transcipt from Fox News to the New York Times’ coverage of the same story. It won’t take you long to figure out that both media outlets are fronting opposing political agendas. For my money, that’s not reporting.
When the NY Times runs a three part segment on our progress in Iraq and Fox News profiles the legislative accomplishments of Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton, then we can start to talk about “journalism.” Today, all we have are editorials and propoganda.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:05 pmTell me are you proud you picked on a weak country and killed 100,000 civilians or what YES OR NO
December 28th, 2005 at 5:06 pmMarie,
Apparently my comments are numbered differently. I was responding to the person who thought that Ass Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek should be blown up and then used as a disco ball.
I agree that he/she/its comments were unconscionable, which is why I challenged he/she/it to deliver that libelous accusation to me in person, which I am certain that he/she/it will not accept because his/her/its cowardice knows no bounds.
Most of the time I just ignore Ass Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheeks comments as they are mindless drivel.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:07 pmBush was mistaken to claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — December 28, 2005 @ 4:55 pm
Funny, this is an argument that even neo-con apologists have abandoned now. From the link to the Chicago Tribune I-RIGHT-I provided:
Biological and chemical weapons
Many, although not all, of the Bush administration’s assertions about weapons of mass destruction have proven flat-out wrong. What illicit weaponry searchers uncovered didn’t begin to square with the magnitude of the toxic armory U.S. officials had described before the war.
Iraq and Al Qaeda
No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein’s regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war.
If you have evidence of Iraq’s WMDs maybe you can share it with the rest of us, and with the administration. They’d be delighted to show something to the American public in order to push up the support for Pres Bush.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:08 pmMarie,
you seem to be a smart and compassionate person. The other day I wrote something along the lines that we “can’t fight Moloch on his own turf,” or some such quote about the corporate Right wing. I-R-I responded, “you are Moloch.”
Insane to say it, but it did hurt just a little. That kind of blank rage and thought-free attack brought me immediately back to the cruelty of the big American schoolyard of childhood, where a capacity for such nakedly aggressive traits make one an alpha male. As adults, they make one a dangerous and cruel abuser.
It is possible that I-R-I’s infantile rage, his inability to entertain logic, and his willingness to join in lockstep with authoritarian powers represent a history of personal victimization turned outward. Or maybe it’s a collosal put-on.
Anyway, thought I’d write and let you know that I don’t think you were out of line in your comments and were nowhere near the mud that IRI gets down into. Don’t lose your self-respect and don’t let these hate-filled nationalist parrots steal your composure.
Fellow traveller,
GTL
December 28th, 2005 at 5:08 pmThe Deke,
I agree with your position, let the various forms of media report what they will and then the public can decide its value. This is a much more democratic approach than labeling and dismissing all media.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:10 pmTell me are you proud you picked on a weak country and killed 100,000 civilians or what YES OR NO theres just NO excuse to be proud of what youve done …
December 28th, 2005 at 5:11 pmGary Ruppert,
Your logic is confusing in saying that bush was simply “mistaken”. So, if I claimed that you were a murderous thief who has a penchant for pedophilia, and then that claim turned out to be false, would I be “mistaken†or “lyingâ€?
December 28th, 2005 at 5:15 pmWhy is Hinderacker still taken seriously? Duh.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:26 pm#128 has taken a snippet of the editorials and reported what he likes. The Tribune was faulty in its inquest; they simply regurgitated the White House/Republican spin on the nameless, but selected, sources and used them to make their case seem more strong and right. The Tribune has its conservative/Republican agenda to which it is loyal, right or wrong.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:30 pmThe name of his website is the “tell.” POWERline. As opposed to Truthline, Justiceline, Equalityline, or – God forbid – Compassionline. Nope, it’s about the almighty power.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:30 pm#136, Thank you. His comments weren’t even directed at me but his cruelty really pissed me off.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:33 pmRight Wingnutters take idiots like Hinderacker seriously because they have convinced themselves that they couldn’t be THIS WRONG about the was in Iraq . Besides it’s pretty hard to misreprisent the news comming out of Iraq without free press , jounalist have never been so gagged . More have died in Iraq than Viet Nam .
December 28th, 2005 at 5:35 pm#131, Good Vibes: IRI never had any credibility to begin with. If you check Gregor’s post #100, that’s just a small sample of IRI’s vitriol. He/it hates EVERYBODY.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:36 pmGary, IRI-Please stop! He wanted to go to war! No matter the cost! It’s common knowledge now! He’s a liar and a criminal. And given the slim chance Bush has everyone’s interests at heart, he’s the LAST guy who should be handling these matters. Especially now that he has them so F*CKED UP.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:38 pmNobody cares about the Neocon agenda anymore. The real conservatives have been sufficiently scared away from these quacks.
Marie,
To borrow a politician’s phrase, “I’d like to associate myself with Gun-Toting Liberal’s comments in #136 above”. What you wrote was nowhere near as bad as someone tried to make you think it was. In fact, it wasn’t “bad” at all. I have never seen “war protestors holding up signs encouraging our troops to shoot their officers.” I am sure he made that up. He seems to have the kind of sick mind that would do that, or get paid to do it as you suggested some might have been.
You just keep being you, Marie. I often find what you write to be very refreshing and enjoyable to read. Perhaps you might consider going back to your policy of ignoring the trolls.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:43 pm#147, I think I will do just that — ignore the idiot trolls.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:47 pmHey, Marie, I’m with Wayne – I was surprised that Optimist jumped on you like that. Nothing you said was wrong or hateful. Keep up your excellent posts!
Hey, Aphrodite, hope all is well with you. Enjoy your holiday!
December 28th, 2005 at 5:49 pmits the tortellini conspiracy stupids! everyone knows the tortollinis live up the butts of the Rightwingers. So called tortellini can create anything it wants. It knows that our culture is teetering on the brink of extinction. Therfore, the more t…ds that gather in the anus of the rightwing the better off they are to make any and all things phony as long as it suits their purposes. However, beware the spaghetti vipers who have been ubnraveling in the rightwings intestines. said intestines I have been told are ready to explode, as they did during the past 2 election cycles and once they explode will cover the entire American Geographic system with bull..it with such a stench that this time even the Rightwingers will not survive!!
December 28th, 2005 at 6:02 pmA fun place to vent your frustration: http://www.cafepress.com/strategerytees
December 28th, 2005 at 6:04 pmGuys! Please, I’ve already responded to Marie that I was not referring to her post in my comment. For reasons that I cannot explain, my comments are numbered different. For instance, Wayne A. Shneider’s comment to Marie shows on my screen as #148, yet it is referred to after as #147, I don’t know what the eff is up with that.
Marie’s comments were in no way offensive or inappropriate. The comment that I was referring it to, as it appears on my screen, is as follows:
#
If IRI was my officer; when finished, you could put a light in him, tie him to the ceiling, spin him around and use him as a disco ball.
Comment by filty left the building — December 28, 2005 @ 2:43 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:06 pmOptimist,
Understood. Apologies if you felt accused of something you didn’t do. On my screen, my last post shows as #147.
Perhaps we should develop a convention for referencing other posts that doesn’t rely strictly on its number, which seems to change for some people and not others.
And I agree that what you were referring to is far worse than anything Marie has ever posted. I don’t advocate violence as a solution to any problem. Besides, who needs another disco ball?
December 28th, 2005 at 6:31 pm#82 – “What the tinfoil right always fails to remember about 9/11 is that it was their weak sissy pres’dent who allowed America to be attacked.” – Citizen
****Thank you Citizen!!!You prove that the left is synonymous with schizophrenia. On one hand, you critcize for NOT stopping an attack and…..then criticize for trying to prevent another attack!! Time for new meds, dear.
#118 – “Proving the point you are yellow bellied murderers that steal oil to help boost your economy as the world boycotts your industrial goods cause of the mess your making of our atmosphere.” – Comment by Bill
****Bill, Please continue to keep posting – what a pleasure to have someone articulate the opposition viewpoint untilizing the mental dexterity of a 7 year old.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:52 pmPerhaps we should develop a convention for referencing other posts that doesn’t rely strictly on its number.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — December 28, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
I started referencing the post number, until I realised it was wrong sometimes.
What I do now is paste a snippet of the comment I am replying to, with the blogger’s name & time stamp.
Seems to work everytime. Can I suggest that as a convention?
December 28th, 2005 at 6:52 pmWhat I do now is paste a snippet of the comment I am replying to, with the blogger’s name & time stamp.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — December 28, 2005 @ 6:52 pm
Hey, that looks like it would do the trick just fine. :)
Besides, it’s usually just a small snippet that we want to address at any one time anyway.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:56 pmThink box cutters haven’t been around for decades? Think bin laden, a business associate of George Bush for decades, didn’t know he was a weak minded fool having seen all Bullsh’s business failures and general infantile behaviour over those years? Think he didn’t know when to strike? His plan: strike America hard, let Bush’s mental acumen and leadership skills finish the job. Worked like a charm.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:08 pmHi Jane! Hope you and Wayne have a GREAT New Year!!! I managed to juggle and blend two celebrations – bet you can guess which group I didn’t serve ham to!! HA!!
December 28th, 2005 at 7:12 pmSomewhat off-topic but…
Why does everyone here who is not a Republican use the term “MSM?” That term was coined by right-wing extremists as code for “liberal Jew media.” It’s probably not a term we on the Left should be using.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:29 pmHi, Aphrodite–I guess that you wouldn’t have enjoyed the bacon-and-sausage-laden brunch that we had for Christmas (ha-ha)! Didn’t have too much of a celebration, it being the first Christmas since my parents died. Looking forward to a New Year of debate with you! Gotta run, but I’d like to wish you and all here a very Happy New Year!
December 28th, 2005 at 7:38 pmand the hyphenated word “off-topic” is a code word for Nazi sympathiser.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:38 pmThank you Mr./Ms. Dixon for your authoritative description of MSM and the birth of the acronym. But please… don’t let my liberal Jewish relatives know the otigin….they are still dumbstruck that they actually have a conservative relative. What they don’t know – more are joining the conservative team everyday.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:46 pmThe Bushies are putting the final nail in the conservative coffin, unless they get their highly anticipated apocalypse, the GOP will be an afterthought for many, many years to come.
I used to think that the trolly wingnut posters here were legitimate, but not anymore. The handful of clowns that frequent TP couldn’t possibly linger so long here unless there was something in it for them. Nobody could be that stupid.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:59 pmHe’s so white he glows?
December 28th, 2005 at 8:02 pmHindraker is taken seriously because it is Bond as satire. Dueling laser guns, stolen space shuttle, villains cracking off one liners – it was 007 on weed. Plus both the Jaws and Holly Goodhead characters are more fully develop in this movie.
December 28th, 2005 at 8:29 pmoh, Assrocket again?
How can serious people accept remarks like this?
“[T]he [Washington] Post’s reporters are part of a lavishly funded and monolithic media effort to misreport the Iraq war for the purpose of bringing down the Bush administration.”
Does he also know about their secret society decoder rings? maybe picked up on their gang signs, somthing? anything. nothing.
Its opinion, bad opinion unsupported by the facts.
The assclown is working the refs again.
Weakling.
Brent Bozell without the beard or glint of bad craziness bubbling under the surface.
I half expect him to start blaming Bush’s decline on the Elders of Zion… but actually, subliminally, he did.
Invoking Right Wing Rule Number 1(Oppressor); Subsection J (Jews); when in doubt, blame jews.
note the remark “lavishly funded,” exactly echoes the right wing thrust used against jewish billionaire george soros about the “lavish” sums of money he has given to anti-republican causes.
December 28th, 2005 at 10:26 pmApologies in advance if this is common knowledge, but…
The “liberal media” was a canard that somehow gained legitimacy, at least in the eyes of Republicans, during the Reagan administration.
In reality, it’s a pre-emptive move to counter factual reporting of Republican policies like Iran-Contra, illegal spying on U.S. citizens, and outing an active CIA agent.
In sports, it’s called “working the ref”. Eric Alterman’s book “What Liberal Media?” has quotes from leading conservative figures admitting that there is no real basis for the complaint.
The one “fact” that is brought up is a survey that shows that a majority of media staffers/journalists identify themselves as liberal.
I have no doubt that this is true – but irrelevant. Staffers don’t edit or publish the news. The overall content of media is determined by those at the top of the pyramid; and they are overwhelmingly conservatives. A quick look at the political contributions will show you how which party the majority of their support goes to: the GOP.
Even the most recent NSA domestic spying story was suppressed for A YEAR by the SCLM. Not that a report about BushCo spying illegally against US citizens would have had any effect on the tsumani that was Bush’s margin of victory.
Would a liberal press cover the so-called RatherGate and the (largely baseless) allegations of the not-so-Swift-Boat-Vets but largely ignore election fraud, war profiteering, massive embezzlement in Iraq, the Downing St memos, the continuing rollback of environmental protections, the politicizing of the FDA, and the lack of “real” progress on Homeland Security (as shown by the FEMA response in New Orleans)?
Perhaps the GOP should change their mascot from the elephant to the lemming.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:10 amSo Gigolo, what are you saying? That the American people too stupid to have a say in what happens in this country? Yeah, we should be more like Cuba. Oh wait, they have no say at all…
Comment by cynicon implant — December 28, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
You are an idiot. I’d bet your average Cuban’s vote has a better chance of being counted than your average American’s vote, thanks to your corrupt party. Certainly true for the black population there, and our black population agrees.
Politics of Cuba & Elections in Cuba
The Cuban constitution states that, “the Communist Party of Cuba…is the superior guiding force of society and the state”. Members of the Communist Party of Cuba are selected by the party in a thorough process that includes interviews with co-workers and neighbors. Those selected are considered model citizens because they are viewed as strong supporters of the revolution. It makes recommendations concerning the future development of the revolution, and it criticizes tendencies it considers counterrevolutionary. It has a relatively large influence in Cuba, but its authority is moral, not on any legal authority. However, Human Rights Watch [11]states: ” Although Cuba allows voters to elect members of the National Assembly, only one candidate may sit for each seat. The constitution further clarifies that the courts are “subordinate in the line of authority to the National Assembly… and the Council of State,” as is the Office of the Attorney General. The Council of State has authority to issue instructions to both the courts and the Office of the Attorney General. The Council of State is an entity presided over by President Castro, selected by the Cuban National Assembly, and considered the “supreme representation of the Cuban State” under Cuban law.”
Elections are held by secret ballot and everyone age 16 or older can vote. The Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party, and no other party is legally allowed to exist. The vast majority of candidates are members of the Communist Party despite the fact that only 15 percent of the Cuban electorate are members. Party members, as well as non-party members are allowed to stand and do get elected.
The people nominate and elect candidates for the municipal assemblies. Candidates for the National Assembly are nominated by municipal assemblies and put to a yes/no vote; citizens are to vote for several candidates at both levels of government and may vote for none, some, or all of them. If the candidates do not receive more than 51% of the votes, new elections will be scheduled.
Legislative power is nominally in the hands of the National Assembly of People’s Power. However, save for two sessions a year, legislative power is exercised by the 31 member Council of State which is elected by the National Assembly from itself.
Executive authority is formally vested in the Council of Ministers, a large cabinet comprised of 8 members of the Council of State, the heads of the national ministries, and other persons. A smaller Executive Committee consisting of the more important members of the Council of Ministers oversees normal business.
Fidel Castro has been the head of government since 1959, first as prime minister and, after the abolition of that office with the adoption of the 1976 Constitution, as President of the Council of State, which also serves as head of state. He is also First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, and since 1976 a member of the National Assembly from the municipality of Santiago de Cuba. (The 1976 Consitution and its 1992 revision require that the President of the Council of State be a member of the National Assembly).
Candidate Nominations
No political party, including the Communist Party of Cuba, is permitted to nominate or campaign for any candidate. Candidates are nominated at local levels by the local population at small “Town Hall” type meetings.
Suffrage is afforded to Cuban citizens resident for two years on the island who are aged over sixteen years and who have not been found guilty of a criminal offence.
[edit]
National elections, 2003
The national elections for the 609 members of the National Assembly of People’s Power were held according to this system at 19 January 2003.
[edit]
Municipal Elections, 2005
The turnout in the previous municipal elections was reported to be 95.76%. After a massive campaign to get more people to vote, Justice Minister Roberto Diaz Sotolongo of Cuba’s National Electoral Commission reported that approximately 8.2 million Cubans of the country’s population of approximately 11 million elected 169 municipal assemblies on Sunday 17th April, 2005.
In summary:
96.66% of registered voters cast ballots, of which
December 29th, 2005 at 12:22 ammore than 90% of ballots were in favour of the nominations list.
More than 600,000 citizens were involved in the preparation of
37,280 polling stations, in which
13,949 deputies were elected, of which
52.48% were incumbent.
Yeah Cynicon, we definitely don’t want to be like Cuba. It’s a dictatorship, and it tortures, and the public has no rights like those guaranteed in our Constitution.
Golly gee, I guess that we should give georgie unfettered power so that HE can ensure that we never become like Cuba.
Comment by Optimist
Optimist,
That isn’t exactly true. It’s anti-Cuban, anti-communist propaganda, not unlike the lies used to get us to invade Iraq. Or the lies that will be used to get us to bomb Iran, or Syria. If I had a choice between living in Iraq or living in Cuba, I would pick Cuba in a heartbeat. Some Iraqis will tell you life was bad under Saddam, but not as bad as this. Like they used to say about Mussolini, at least the trains ran on time. If things keep going the way they are in this country, I would pick Cuba over the USA in a heartbeat. There is much you do not know about Cuba. Much of what you think you know about Cuba is lies.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:30 amI’m sure that I’ll see it as a weak argument on his part as ‘proof’ that the media is “overwhelmingly liberal†(which I feel is complete B.S.). I’ll likely make that assumption once I actaully have time to read the site and form my own opinions, however.
Pellinore,
I will forego addressing you as Planty McAss-Kisser the Moronic Troll. Perhaps I was a bit too strident, and for that I should apologize but probably won’t. Cynicon and the other trolls aren’t conservatives, or even Republicans by any definition, or in any sense of those words. They are pure and simple anti-liberal, anti-progressive and worse. I am often attacking and ridiculing anyone who even suggests there might be some reason to consider the possibility that the media is “overwhelmingly liberal†or even slightly liberally biased. To even consider that indicates to me the person is completely out of his mind and living in another universe. Our media is crap, unless you have a hardon for missing white women, shark attacks and common crime.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:43 amSo Gigolo, what are you saying? That the American people too stupid to have a say in what happens in this country? Yeah, we should be more like Cuba. Oh wait, they have no say at all…
Comment by cynicon implant — December 28, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
And using you as an average American, the average American is a stupid tool of the state. A “useful idiot”. Liberal media bias. You moron.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:49 amBenjamin Ferencz was chief prosecutor in the Einsatzgruppen trial at Nuremburg.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:17 am
Gigolo – if that’s as close as I’ll get to an apology, I’ll take it. I can certainly respect your point of view, even if I do find it disturbing that you so quickly pounce on those that disagree with you.
I feel that keeping an open mind is often more important than being ‘right’ or consistently dismissing opposing thoughts from “anyone who even suggests there might be some reason to consider the possibility…” of an alternate point of view. This is a very closed-minded stance if you ask me, and doesn’t really gain you or the other party any ground in the argument. However, if you just want to argue and have your point be heard, and “damn all the rest,” that’s certainly your prerogative, and you do seem to have that method cornered.
Maybe it’s because I’m so tired of the Administration mouth-pieces doing the same thing (quickly dismissing any dissenting voices), or maybe it’s something else, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on our methods for pursuing dialog with those we don’t see eye to eye with. I’m in favor of challenging those I disagree with to prove my assumptions wrong or attempt to change my viewpoint, while you like to immediately launch into attack mode.
BTW – I am still unconvinced that the media has a liberal bias, and in fact believe the opposite (most of these recent ‘scandals’ of the past few weeks have been known about for some time, but seem to have come out conveniently between election cycles – I find it hard to believe that this was not intentional). I was finally able to check out cynicon’s site (MRC), and that piece of work certainly does not sway me into believing his claim of an “overwhelmingly liberal†media.
December 29th, 2005 at 2:16 amI do have to hand it to him though – he did try, and do I have to give him some props for his efforts in actually participating in dialog rather than just spouting the same talking points that some of the ‘conservative’ whackos tend to pass off on these boards (I-R-I, NED, etc). He could have just dismissed my opinions as invalid or crazy and moved on (he could even have thrown in a bit about hating freedom or something, like that).
I believe that no one will be able to sway me from my opinions (they had better have a really good argument if so), but I have enough respect for those that want to try to at least listen to their arguments. Case in point – I read your posts on Cuba, and found them to be informative. I certainly know more about Cuban politics now than I would if I had just dismissed your points from the get-go or gotten locked into an unending flame war with you and not read up on the information you provided and linked to. I consider myself that much more well-rounded for having read it. (see – it pays to be open-minded sometimes) :P
#6 — By all means let’s stick our heads in the sand. Maybe if we ignore the crazies in the Middle East they’ll leave us alone. Oh wait, we tried that. Got us 9/11. Oops.
Comment by cynicon implant — December 28, 2005 @ 11:38 am
Correction: The Bush regime tried that. They were told by Tenet and Berger that Al-Queda was the #1 threat to the United States and what did they do? They changed the focus to Iraq.
December 29th, 2005 at 2:25 ami am anti cuban refugees. all republican trolls who claim to have suffered. baloney.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:25 ami am anti cuban refugees. all republican trolls who claim to have suffered. baloney.
Comment by Bobbytoo
I wouldn’t say that too loud around here. These humanitarian Marxists around here will send your ass back to Castro. They’d consider it doing you a favor.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:32 ami am anti cuban refugees. all republican trolls who claim to have suffered. baloney.
Comment by Bobbytoo
Most Carribean refugees come from Haiti now. Where we have intervened militarily, on the wrong side, as usual.
Gigolo – if that’s as close as I’ll get to an apology, I’ll take it. I can certainly respect your point of view, even if I do find it disturbing that you so quickly pounce on those that disagree with you.
I don’t. I didn’t “pounce” on optimist in #170, but I can understand why you feel I pounced on you. I did. I apologize.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:32 amI wouldn’t say that too loud around here. These humanitarian Marxists around here will send your ass back to Castro. They’d consider it doing you a favor.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
I wish we could send you down there. Not to Gitmo, that would be too cruel, but you could use some re-education in Castro’s Cuba.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:34 amGigolo – agreed Optimist did make a comment about Cuba that seems to contasin the bias most people still hold from way back.
I appluad your methods there – you by no means pounced, but rather educated the dissenting party by posting some very thoughful an insightful info (at least I thought it was anyway).
Apology accepted as well, and I apologize if my last post seemed a little bit preachy – it was late and I was tired after a long day at work.
As for cynicon, I hope we didn’t run him off. At least he was posting some information in trying to prove his viewpoint, rather than spout the usual, party-line drivel. If he’s gone, all we’re stuck with is I-R-I – talk about a waste of breath, although I do find that poster’s viewpoints so out in left field (or should I say right), they are almost comical (when they’re not downright hurtful).
December 29th, 2005 at 10:25 amPellinore,
I think that anyone who still supports this administration, or acts in the capacity of an apologist for it in any way, should be run off to the political and lunatic fringe where they belong, with Nazis, fascists, organized criminals and crackpots. But that’s just me…
December 29th, 2005 at 11:05 am#39 – It was my impression that you didn’t listen to polls. Well, good, next time we post with respect to poll numbers you won’t give us the “polls don’t mean anything” jargon again. Good.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:11 am#144: Your last statement is absolutely not true (thank God). Over a million people all told, AIUI, were killed in the Vietnam War, more than 58,000 of whom were American troops, as opposed to the more than 2,000 American troops killed in the Iraq war (possibly not including those who died in transit or elsewhere, something notably not included in the official death figures, IIRC). BTW, apparently about a million people were also killed in the Iran/Iraq war in the ’80s.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:31 pmGigolo – with Cuba being such a haven for egalitarianism why don’t we swap?? Let one poor bastard who’s had to live life in a “worker’s paradise” switch places with YOU. You can spout all of your anti-American, anti-capitalist $h*t all day long (and all your comrades will CLAP and CHEER!!!!) Just don’t change your mind!!!! Want to read the most pathetic take on Cuba – try the chapter in P.J. O’Rourke’s “Eat the Rich”. It is very eye opening about the “necessity” of prostitution – but only for those impoverished gals who like to eat.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:45 pmAphro, if you wish to be read, then lighten up on the freakin punctuation. It looks silly and childish, as if you just got a new toy.
As it is now, we are finding your posts that much easier to ignore. Besides, it hurts your eyes to have to weed out all of the garbage.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:04 pmAlso, you should take a clue from the civil posters here that feel as you do but can indeed articulate themselves as adults and relish open intelligent discussion. A good back and forth, I say.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:08 pmAs usual “PP”, your intolerance is telling. Your degree of conformity is pitiful. Progs are often for the individual – as long as they’re just LIKE THEM – I shudder at the thought!!!!! I would think weeding through opposing points of view would break up the monotony of continuous pessimism and whining!!! Just thinking of you!!
December 29th, 2005 at 3:09 pmGigolo – with Cuba being such a haven for egalitarianism why don’t we swap?? Let one poor bastard who’s had to live life in a “worker’s paradise†switch places with YOU. You can spout all of your anti-American, anti-capitalist $h*t all day long (and all your comrades will CLAP and CHEER!!!!) Just don’t change your mind!!!! Want to read the most pathetic take on Cuba – try the chapter in P.J. O’Rourke’s “Eat the Richâ€. It is very eye opening about the “necessity†of prostitution – but only for those impoverished gals who like to eat.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
You moron. Any Wal-Mart employee would jump at the chance, if they just knew it existed. That’s why it’s important to keep the proles ignorant, ill-informed and working 23 hours a day to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, and the health insurance paid up. You make me laugh!
December 29th, 2005 at 3:42 pmBTW,
P.J. O’Rourke is now, officially an idiot. Animal House was classic, and still is, but he can’t hardly put two coherent sentences together these days (it’s the Irish curse, the bottle). I just saw him on Maher recently and I was embarassed for him.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:46 pmThat reminds me… in a certain way, 9-11 did change some things. It turned some incredibly intelligent and thoughtful people into completely fearful morons and shit spouting useful idiots.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:49 pmMy Dear Am-Idiot – P.J. O’Rourke could have a BAC of 2.8 and out think circles around you. As for Wal Mart – take a peek at how much $$$ some of their employees – not executives – have made due to their stock options. You sound like an under-appreciated, minimum wage “worker” Better hurry – I hear the bi-plane leaving for beautiful, pitiful Havana.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:33 pmHinderaker also believes Dubya got into the Texas Air National Guard without a spot of help from family connections. He should have been forcibly retired from the world of serious discourse ages ago…
December 29th, 2005 at 4:36 pmWhy did the chicken cross the road?
December 29th, 2005 at 5:42 pmTo get into the Texas Air National Guard.
#
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get into the Texas Air National Guard.
Comment by Marie — December 29, 2005
Sweet!
MA is ducking the questions again. I’ll grant you this, O’ Rourke was funny once, and sharp. But his latest book
December 29th, 2005 at 6:40 pm(Yesterday: #32,792, Today: #35,580) is getting the crap kicked out of it by Al Franken’s latest. (Yesterday: #86, Today: #120)
#
My Dear Am-Idiot – P.J. O’Rourke could have a BAC of 2.8 and out think circles around you.
“out think circles around me”
What’s your BAC right now?
December 29th, 2005 at 6:45 pmYou have 3 minutes till show time! Hurry, tune in!
Sue goes nuts about the report that Bushy has successfully bankrupted America.
Hurry, click on my name for my Radio Show!
December 29th, 2005 at 8:30 pmIf you miss it, check the broadcast schedule for the next airing of The “What the World Needs Now” Show.
December 29th, 2005 at 8:32 pmAs I skimmed over an apparent troll post I thought I noticed the mention of the “left media.†You have to stop, you are cracking me up. You crazy parrots.
Comment by progressive and proud
progressive #19
Isn’t it positively hilarious how the right wing, inbred, republiscum traitors have no problem crowing about how their greedy, corrupt, trickle down CORPORATE MASTERS own everything EXCEPT the media?
December 30th, 2005 at 3:39 pmDecember 30, 2005
More old news
From the chatter on the web, it’s clear that there are still a few diehard Bush/Blair supporters out there who believe this is about democracy and security.
I hate to disillusion such people, but everyone should be aware of this document:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay12.html
(This was released with other Enron court documents. To anyone covering the Enron story, it meant very little. Now, however….)
December 30th, 2005 at 6:33 pm[...] Blog Name: Think Progress Article Title: Hinderacker: Everyone?s Favorite Conspiracy Theorist John Hinderacker, who writes at the popular right-wing blog Powerline, is losing it: [T]he [Washington] Post’s reporters are part of a lavishly funded and monolithic media effort to misreport the Iraq war for the purpose of bringing down the … [...]
February 15th, 2006 at 9:25 am[...] Blog Name: Think Progress Article Title: Hinderacker: Everyone?s Favorite Conspiracy Theorist John Hinderacker, who writes at the popular right-wing blog Powerline, is losing it: [T]he [Washington] Post’s reporters are part of a lavishly funded and monolithic media effort to misreport the Iraq war for the purpose of bringing down the … [...]
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:23 am