A TRILLION for a war in Iraq,
A TRILLION for Bush’s cronies,
THAT’S THE WAY THE MONEY GOES!
POP! Goes Osama!”

Re-read your own post. There is nothing there that mentions consistency in their vote.

As a matter of fact, there is no mention of the overall percentage of the journalists that cast a vote in those elections, e.g., perhaps those who bothered to cast a vote were primarily Democrats. There is no mention of the voting pattern through the years, in other elections, i.e. Congress -that would be consistency. You don’t know if that was the only time those people voted Democratic. You simply don’t know, and there is nothing in that data to help you extrapolate.

You only have three data points. Hardly a basis to infer a trend.

Plus -again- that was not the claim. Re-read the original post. It was about political afiliation, not voting patterns.

Yeah, calling people who vote Democratic Democrats is disingenuous. You nailed it there buddy. Next up, the Democrats who consistently vote for Republicans. Anything to avoid the fact that most American journalists vote Democrat and are 2:1 liberal vs. conservative, even though the American public is close to the opposite in composition.

Barfly: The overarching point is that your proof is over a decade old. The more recent study cited earlier by what’s his name showed the same results, although it did not ask respondents who they voted for in recent elections. It showed similar levels of liberal vs conservative, and showed that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal-leaning compared to the American public.

Comment by Lucifer

The overarching point is that your proof is over a decade old. It is no longer valid. Nice try, though, Old Scratch.

I am sure that most journalists have voted for a Democratic candidate at some point in their lives. To go from that fact to say that 80% of them are Democratic is disingenuous -when you know that was not the claim. As a matter of fact, your source again contradicts the original claim.

But prevaricating is your specialty, isn’t it Lucifer?

What’s next, a poll that shows all of them have met a Democratic candidate at some point?

BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me.

And the fact is, we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November, 2002, United Nations resolution to give a final change to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn’t do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action. But, all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict.

Your claim that he did not deny its accuracy is entirely false, as this exchange shows. He says:

1. No, we did not fix the facts (which the documents supposedly said).
2. No, we hadn’t decided on military option at that point (which the documents supposedly said).

In summary, Blair denied both claims from the sentence quoted to him by the journalist, and thus denied the accuracy of the memo itself.

Blair was never asked about the provenance of the memo, only to comment on whether its supposed contents reflected what happened, to which Blair replied equivocally in the negative.

Beyond all of that, consult your dictionary for the definition of “proof” and you will see that there indeed exists no proof that the document even exists in the form reported in the press. Evidence, sure. Proof, no.

Devil dude – read it again – Blair was asked to deny the memo and he didn’t. He didn’t deny its accuracy, he merely said that what they did afterwards proves that what was in the memo was negated by the UN resolution. The proof is by omission: if it was inaccurate, all Blair had to do was say so, even cast a shadow of doubt on it. But he didn’t.

Turtle: So that Blair admits that a memo was in fact written about a meeting that in fact did take place, means there is proof that the Downing Street Memo is accurate as it was reported in the press? I know that President Bush received an Executive Summary of the October 2002 NIE, so does that give me the liberty to write up what it might have looked like, claim it’s the real deal, and then point to the non-disputed fact that such a document exists to prove that mine is genuine? I’d say you might want to check a dictionary for the definition of “proof”, and then compare it to the definition of “evidence”.

He, like most of your ideology that post here, lie without reservation.

The monikers you use: StevehsConscience or SteveshsConscience (if that’s your real name) are lies. Fair is fair, hermeunetics are hermeunetix.

And I don’t hate you.

Sincerely,

StevshsConscienceSteveshsConscience’sConscience (aka stevesh)

I do realise that facts are fungible for you, but that was not the claim either.

That claim has been debunked. Give it a rest already.

And -Jeebus on steroids!- your “study” is 30 years old. Don’t you have more recent data?

Way upthread re: disaster (Pre-Vietnam, I guess) I’d say:

Washington D.C. razed – W of 1812. (Napoleon was a Godsend – Brits forced to give up one front).

Lee, et.al. annihilating Union Armies (in our own civil war) up until 1864. Particular debacles were Chancellorsville (real bad for my Irish boys), “The Wilderness.” Cold Harbor and the “Peninsula” campaign were horrific even though Grant was pushing to Richmond.

North Africa pre-Patton.

Lost tens of thousands of planes and thousands of flyers in mid-WW2 airwar. Results? Still being debated.

Chinese crushed MacArthur in Korea.

If I called my Dad I could steno and keep this going for hours. Hint: we usually prevail when we stick.

Yes, that there is no proof the Downing Street Memo exists. There isn’t. You can scream as loud as you want, but there still is no proof that the document actually exists in the form presented by the journalist Michael Smith.
Comment by Seixon — July 10, 2006 @ 12:02 pm

And yet. Tony Blair confirms it’s existence in the form that we all have seen and when offered a chance to deny it obfuscates around the interpretation instead of denying it’s accuracy:

However, A look at the full transcript of what the two leaders said is instructive.

Both admit the UK meeting did in fact take place and Blair admits the memorandum is authentic when he says “And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.” This leaves open the possibility that, no matter what was later done, at the time of the Memo’s writing it was an accurate account of what was going on.

Journalists themselves are a second supply-side source of bias. Charges of a liberal bias in the news place great weight on surveys revealing the liberal views of a majority of journalists. The survey evidence is consistent and strong. In Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter’s (1986:20–53) 1979–80 survey of journalists at elite media organizations, 54 percent of respondents identified themselves as left-of-center, versus 17 percent right-of-center. The journalists who voted for a major party candidate in presidential elections between 1964 and 1976 overwhelmingly went for Democrats: Lyndon Johnson 94 percent, Hubert Humphrey 87 percent, and George McGovern and Jimmy Carter 81 percent each. David Weaver and Cleveland Wilhoit (1996:15–19) in 1992 found that 47.3 percent of journalists identified themselves as left or left-leaning versus 21.7 percent right-of-center. In terms of party affiliation, 44 percent identified with the Democrats versus 16 percent Republicans and 34 percent Independents. Of the Washington journalists surveyed by Stephen Hess(1981:87), 42 percent identified themselves as liberal
versus 19 percent conservative.

The underlying point being that liberals outgun conservatives 2:1 in the journalism field (while the the proportion in the general public is close to the inverse), while the overwhelming majority of them tend to vote Democrat regardless of what they identify themselves as.

When people like Seixon ignore basic facts, yep, it’s a discourse killer. When people like you support people like Seixon, it says you’re one of the discourse killer. I suspect you aren’t a discourse killer – yet. But conservatives quickly become discourse killers to avoid facing reality. Sorry, but we’ve seen it all before. Reality has a liberal bias, and most cons hate reality even more than they hate liberals.

You don’t lean to facts, when it comes to math. It’s either accurate or not.

And his particular claim was the number of DEMOCRATS, not political leanings. If you count 36% (almost identical to the general population) versus 70% (his claim) as leaning towards. Well that must be the ‘new-math’. Most rational people would argue that 36% leans more towards the 32-33% of the general population that are registered democrats.

As I said before, thanks for proving him and yourself wrong. Too bad you don’t have the chutzpah to just admit that what you posted undermined, him (and yourself), instead of now trying to ‘neocon’ your tracks with a distorted effort to rewrite the ‘intention’ of the posts.

Would that everything posted, linked and commented on here be so crystal clear as the nuclear, “Seixon lied.” It’s just not. Ever. Comment by stevesh — February 5, 2007 @ 9:27 pm

Actually he did, and you helped prove him and yourself wrong.

NewsBusters combats media bias, of which there exists a great deal due to the fact that over 70% of journalists are Democrats. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:08 pm

What does Pew Research say:

When it came to the subject of party affiliation, 36% of the journalists said they were Democrats in 2002 compared with 44% in 1992.

Seixon said it was a ‘fact’ that over 70% of journalists were democrats. This ‘formal’ poll, proves this to be a lie.

I bet if you asked Seixon, he’d say he knew about the journalists poll, and that it’s a ‘flawed’ study. That’s the crap he always pulls when he gets caught in a lie. He’s an arrogant twit, and that’s why everyone smacks him around. He, like most of your ideology that post here, lie without reservation.

Don’t take it personally. The “fact check your…” is intratube speak. I think Atrios or digby may have even coined it!. Sheesh, you guy’s are as touchy as Cafka’s Carapace.

Probably my bad, as the general flow here seems to invariably run to insult, I was getting into the TP spirit.

People’s Irish (or Norwegian) get up here – discourse kill, but maybe that’s the point.

That said, the article actually leans toward Seixon’s point, if not exact language. Would that everything posted, linked and commented on here be so crystal clear as the nuclear, “Seixon lied.” It’s just not. Ever.