http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/31/236_exclusive_fox_news_not_the_1_8029.php

liberal has come to mean anything that the extreme wingnuts don’t agree with…Chuck Hagel became a liberal when he expressed opposition to the war in Iraq, even though he consistently gets a high rating from conservative groups…

Did T5 mention Dana MIlbank as a “a demoratic and raging liberal”?

Oh, those “raging liberals” in the media….
July 30th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

I do so wish they would learn to keep up with the talking points.

What a coincidence.

Oh, those “raging liberals” in the media….

Actually giving them to Olbermann?…no, but if you watch his show you will immediately see that he repeats them on a nightly basis.

Just like O’Reilly, and wingnut propaganda.

But that started to change in 1980 with Reagan. Up until then, I subscribed to the National Review, but was dismayed to find that a formerly magazine ofsharp jaundiced social commentary became a mag fill of ‘Yay! We won! Look at us! and just loved everything Reagan did. There were conservatives who were just plain horrified when America became a debtor nation under Reagan, but you wouldn’t find it at NR any more.
And Newt Gingrich sealed the deal. The only Republicans were movement Republicans: if you didn’t toe the line you were thrown out.
And it made (and makes) no sense: Social Darwinism but no real Darwinism; fiscal conservatives saying deficits don’t matter; Fundamentalists Christians supporting a President who never goes to church and lets his daughters rngage in underage drinking bouts with Ashton Kutcher–and elitists who flaunt their MENSA memberships supporting idiots.

If you had an actual ideology, Quagmire, there would be places where you and I would agree, whether you were a fundie or a Randophile–but you’re nothing more than a movement conservative whose position is dependent on mine because we’re the enemy.

Doesn’t it bother you, to have a high opinion of your own intelligence and to be subordinate to fools and upper class twits of the year?

Tracy_5 Says:
“It’s arguments like these that you advance that make you seem so silly and overmatched.”

Are you suggesting that Olbermann and MSNBC aren’t mouthpieces for the liberal Democratic party? Maddow isn’t a demoratic and raging liberal? Who is Milbank? David Schuster?

I’m suggesting that for every Olberman, MSNBC has a Scarborough. Chris Mathews is far more right than he is anything else. Rachel Maddow doesn’t have a show on the network. She’s an occasional commentator, and a very bright one. Dana Milbank is also only an occasional reporter. But MSNBC is hardly a “mouthpiece for the liberal Democratic party”. For one thing, there IS NO “liberal Democratic party”. It’s very nearly as corporatist as the Republicans. For another thing, if MSNBC was a “mouthpiece for the liberal Democratic party” it would not have fired Phil Donohue when his was the highest rated show on the network.

Face it, Trace, there is no “liberal media”. It’s all corporate, and it’s all cowed by BushCo, has been since 2001. The only reason Olberman is allowed to do his “Special Comments” is because viewers respond to them, the political atmosphere isn’t poisonous for them any more and they get ratings. That’s all.

Just throwing out names that you think are “liberal” doesn’t make your point. David Shuster, for instance, shows no liberal bias in his reports, and you haven’t demonstrated any. He’s a real journalist, unlike Bildo, but since he’s willing to report on the less savory aspects of a criminal administration, wingnuts like you think he’s a “liberal”. His reports are not unfairly presented. He’s professional with his guests.

From the article to which you linked:

“I really do take on people with power,” (Mathews) said. “Deceit is what drives me crazy, either by Bill Clinton or the hawks in this administration.”

If the government fails the people, it is the media’s responsibility to report it, is it not?

Your “liberal media” meme is losing air by the minute, Trace. Best find a new one. Good luck.

EVERY b.s. detector in America knows why he’s making such a big deal out of this.

/sarc

Why does our troll keep on about KO? I’m pretty sure he didn’t call anyone a “liar” or “idiot” for describing what he does.

Bill0, on the other hand, went off like a rabid weasel because someone suggested he didn’t just pull all his material out of his as#.

Heck! Bill0 should be overjoyed at the implication there’s a source for his bile. Being a mindless dupe of the White House is a slightly higher form of creature than extreme Reichwing hatemonger. I think it would elevate Bill0 somewhat in most people’s eyes.

Only when they aren’t radical enough. Faux will never forgive them if they don’t attack Iran.

Faux News has twenty-four hours a day to “catapult the propaganda”.

It’s arguments like these that you advance that make you seem so silly and overmatched.