Sir,

A soldier's personal appeal to God during wartime offends no one that I know of, not even the Democrats. What offends is the claim by those promoting their own ambitions and agendas that they are doing the work of God. As we all know, it is not the soldier who decides to invade and occupy another country illegally. The soldier, unfortunately, is only a tool to promote the political agenda of his or her government, right or wrong.

I have always found it interesting that no matter how blatant the Republican Party has been in their use of the Right-wing, Christian base as a powerful tool to win elections, that those who are being used are not offended. But then I suppose this isn't really about God, is it?
This is about power, control and fear.

What also offends is your insinuation that those of us objecting to this kidnapping of our democratic process makes us 'hysterical liberals' who claim that Senator Obama is Jesus Christ. It is people like you, who offer nothing in the way of solutions for bringing our country together to make intelligent choices that are based on reality, instead of delusion and ignorance.

My vote will be based on which candidate has superior judgement, temperament, intellect and vision for the future path of our country. Senator McCain does not meet these qualifications and Sarah Palin is no Abraham Lincoln.

Suzanne Gentling
Glen Rose, TX

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 13, 2008

I am a left over Hillary Clinton supporter who has changed!!!
I saw the image of a missing Michelle Obama at ground zero and was shocked into reality.
Race is an outdated issue to rest my vote on.(Rice and Powell)
Palin called for change and the end of lobbyists and Biden's son quit his job as one.

Press attempts to corrupt the vote and bias against women, with tougher questions for them than the men.
Well I have decided that women have enough power to corrupt the vote.

Palin 2008
Hillary Clinton /Maize Hirano 2012

I will not be lured into a vote for a MIA and disgusting 1st lady.
Terry Kerry didn't have my approval , and Michelle Obama is no different.
The dem party needs and overhaul.

Comment by woman citizen | September 13, 2008

Fortunately, we elect presidents based on the electoral college and not the popular vote. Texas will go for McCain-Palin regardless of the offense anyone takes at paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln during wartime.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 13, 2008

It does seem the Democrats are confused.

First, they think Obama is Moses.

Then they think he is running against Gov. Palin.

Then they confuse him with Jesus.

Now they think that making a relevant historical reference means Gov. Palin and her supporters think she is Abraham Lincoln.

Let me try to be clear. Obama is not a prophet. Palin is not Lincoln and McCain is the nominee for the Republicans.

In any case, I brought up Lincoln only to make a poinL It is the liberal media that gets hysterial about separation of church and state everytime a conservative president or candidate utters the word God in connection with policy or politics, even as most black churches in this country are turn out the vote machines for the Democrats. My point is really rather elementary — invoking God is as old as the Republic and only today's Democrats seem to come unhinged about it.

Comment by George Shadroui | September 13, 2008

The liberal media?

Isn't this is a contradiction in terms?

After all, the media in this country is owned by just a few corporate conglomerates.
These people traditionally vote Republican because they want to maintain the status quo.
The status quo is working wonderfully for them (well, until recently).

How's it working for you?

PS: Interesting that Ms. Palin would also invoke the words of Harry Truman, a
Democrat, in her acceptance speech. Maybe she's on to something.

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 13, 2008

Susan: As a fellow Texan, and a person who actually has an education, your ignorance is embarrassing. The editorial and news gathering/reporting function of the news media is separate from the ownership. It’s like saying that the manager, coaching staff and ballplayers of a team have identical interests across-the-board to the corporation that owns the team.

Please stop reinforcing the stereotype of the ignorant southern buffoon by trying to enter an adult conversation with a grade school understanding of politics and civics.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 13, 2008

Suzanne, very well said.

Comment by Last Angry Man | September 13, 2008

Phillip,

I may live in Texas, but I think of myself as a real Human Being.

Your analogy that a 'team' does not execute the same agenda as its management, is ludicrous. If it does not, something is wrong.

You are welcome to your opinion of me, but that does not change the reality of the Corporate kidnapping of our country. Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of media ownership. While the Democrats, in their somnolence, certainly have been complicit in this development, the Republicans take the prize. They have been the dominant party for all but twelve of the last forty years. It does not take a phD in anything to see that a few interests in this country have a much greater influence via the media than the rest of us. Americans are angry, frustrated and have indicated they want things to be done differently. Putting the Republicans right back into office just does not make sense.

It is clear that the Republican Party is rejoicing in this wild card called Palin. McCain is weak. Palin is ambitious and the powers who promote her, ruthless. This has unexpectedly re-energized this party. If this means they must embrace an ultra-conservative who might some day be President in order to hold onto the presidency and its powers, so what? Their agenda is not about putting America first. Gov. Palin is even farther to the right than George W. Bush, who has done more to damage our country than possibly any other president in our history. Palin is just the next one chosen to be the pawn.

Is this what I want for our country and for the world?

I don't think so.

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 13, 2008

Ms Gentling I would love to debate you about the bizarre comment in regards to President Bush, but for now let us stick with the punch lines that you call talking points.
What media are you identifying as being owned by corporations? The only one where there is a true corporate ownership is General Electric owning NBC and MSNBC. I gather you must believe that these two are right wing mouth pieces. If you believe that then truly you are too ignorant to discuss anything.
The others CNN owned by Time Warner, Fox News privately owned by Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. ABC is owned by Disney and yes on his days off Charlie Gibson dressed as Goofy and gives tours of Disney World.
The New York Times and the Washington Post are privately held. Ahhh so much for the evil corporations taking over your mindset. You can remove the aluminum foil from your hat now.
Ms Gentling name a poll, a survey, and you will find that you are in the minority. Whether it be the big bad corporations, to no liberal bias in the media. Soon, very soon you will be in the minority in the voting for President. This is a conservative country, not a liberal one, you will just have to get used to it luv.

Jack

Comment by jfking | September 13, 2008

Disclaimer: I'd meant to post agreement with another poster in another article, but messed up by agreeing with Suzanne in this one. I do not agree with her at all. My error. Mea Culpa.

Comment by Last Angry Man | September 14, 2008

Just for the record (and Suzanne's benefit), I'm a real human being too! Glad to get that key point out of the way in analyzing her comments.

Facts make no difference to emotion-driven liberal thought. Point out the silliness of a statement, and they double down and simply restate their original point with even greater conviction.

It’s also futile to argue a point based on a faulty premise. If the premise doesn’t make sense, the arguments that follow are even less credible. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to appreciate this. But again, we shouldn’t discount the importance of a minimal education in civics and politics before someone tries to enter an adult conversation.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 14, 2008

Media ownership is a matter of fact, not debate, and can easily be researched on the internet. Here is just one of many websites you might look at for starters:

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

Another interesting subject to 'google': Rupert Murdoch.

The point is, anyone who believes that the corporate moguls are not interested in influencing policy and opinion through their ownership of the media, are naive. Trying to obtain accurate, unbiased, meaningful information these days takes a lot time and hard work. With all due respect, those of us who just accept the information being fed to us without digging down deep, will never know what is really going on.

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 14, 2008

This woman is a fool. Media ownership doesn't automatically determine media content. This is a third grade understanding of politics, and a continuing embarrassment to the public education system in the State of Texas that she cannot comprehend the difference between the two.

Citing facts that have no demonstrable relationship to a conclusion is not a proof of anything. The people who own the "national media" are also males. That doesn't translate into only a male point of view being represented, anymore than it forces a singular ideology on that media.

The only examples where this is even remotely true is with private ownership (as in the case of The New York Times family of newspapers) where one family can dictate a liberal point of view. Publicly-held corporations are subject to a whole host of constraints from stockholders and other entities that result in firewalls between news content and ownership.

This is what is meant by "digging deep" instead of accepting liberal platitudes as a substitute for understanding reality.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 14, 2008

A well constructed, fair and balanced article with a good hook. I plan to return to this site. Comment section a bit frothy, though.

I would agree there is some corporate hijacking going on, but I would question its partisanship.

An example:
For instance, General Motors has contributed $29,000 to Sen. X's campaign. In exchange, he earmarked $10 million dollars for them in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. That's a substantial return on an investment.

I won't name the senator or party, but it is one of mine. It doesn't matter whether or not I approve the project or whether or not I support the senators party. The point is that I have been priced out of the democratic process.

Comment by jdwill07 | September 14, 2008

Uhhhh Ms Gentling I just have one final question for you. GE's most profitable division is their military division. GE also owns NBC and MSNBC both of which are pacifist and very anti-military. Do you not see where that alone blows up your theory?

Comment by jfking | September 14, 2008

jfking: You introduced 5 variables: GE, NBC, MSNBC, pacifist and anti-military. That's too many facts to get in the way of a good theory based on liberal platitudes. How can you possibly expect an answer? The best we can hope for is a restatement of her original thesis, with a reference to being a good human being and the need to "dig deep" without actually thinking about what one says before they say it.

Still, on reflection, it's better than we get from most liberals, so I guess I shouldn't compalin.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 14, 2008

It's always funny when you try to take a troll off of their single talking point. It's even funnier when they're too stupid to even understand that single talking point properly in the first place.

Like, evil corporations are, like, totally bad and stuff. And like, take it to the streets!

Comment by Patrick Mulligan | September 14, 2008

jdwill07: I hope you will return and participate. We have a spirited, but respectful give-and-take with opposing points of view, but no tolerance for platitudes and outright ignorance disguised as thoughtful comment.

I once had a student insist that “the President is the leader of Congress.” This is a factually ignorant comment. For example, one can argue that the president strongly influences congressional action by submitting a budget, but you can’t say that the President “passes” legislation. It’s as dumb a comment as insisting that corporate owners control all media content regardless of whether they are publicly or privately held. And dumb – or a variant of that word — is really the only way to accurately describe the person expressing that thought.

Accordingly, people who insist on making dumb statements are treated with derision. People who want to argue an opposing point of view have their points addressed and responded to in a different manner. Contrast comments 1 and 3, where I respond to a misinformed opinion, with comments 5 and 6, where I react to blatantly ignorant facts.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 14, 2008

Suzanne,
I agree with you that Mr. Jackson's analogy about the sports team wasn't the best. I think maybe what he was aiming at was their personal interests. Management wants success in the form of revenue; players want success in the form of stats, which equates to them both wanting success with wins, although that theory is very well contested when you look at the Arizona Cardinals .I think the key point you missed in Mr.Jackson’s analogy was when he said "across-the-board." Yes the entire team shares an interest, but that interest is a balance, and not an equal one, between appealing to the each individual and to the public. No different than a news group.
The New York Times (talk about liberal) did a study a while ago which they looked at CNN and Fox, and determined which party the largest portion of their viewers associated with. Personally I think it should have been MSNBC or NBC (National Barack Channel) and Fox.
Anyway, the study showed that the largest portion of CNN’s viewers, at 44%, are Democrats, while the largest portion of Fox News viewers, with 41%, are Republicans.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The point I’m making with the study is that the news, as objective as we all would like it to be, needs sponsorship, and to obtain it you have to appeal to an audience. So, you end up with news from either a more Democratic leaning viewpoint, or a more Republican leaning view point. The problem though, you have one Fox, and you have basically three more CNN’s, with CBS, the more liberal ABC and NBC. But that doesn’t balance out with the public, why? If there is a need to appeal to different ideologies, then why do four of the major news nets, not including NPR, seem to lean a little more liberal? I think it’s not because of the stations themselves, but a reflection of the journalists. Most of America’s mainstream journalists live in big cities. Their views are often more reflective of bigger cites which tend to be, especially in social circles, more liberals. And it’s true that more journalists (print and television) tend to view themselves more often liberal than conservative, even though the majority view themselves as moderates. But when add that too their viewpoint coming from larger cities you end up with a more liberal media. The question I’d pose to you Suzanne is if the media isn’t biased toward conservatives, then why is it that more conservatives than liberals complain about the Medias objectivity?
I think, with the lack of comfortable outlet’s for conservatives in t.v. and print, the medias’ bias may in some part be responsible for conservative radio’s success. Conservative radio personalities started talking, and conservative listeners started listening, the listeners increased, and more radio personalities appeared and so on.
I do feel Suzanne that ownership can play some role; you obviously can’t completely separate the interpersonal relations between ownership, management, and so forth. And our opinions and values obviously play a role in how we conduct our selves at work. However I feel your argument about ownerships influence doesn't seem to be supported by fact. Example, again NBC, while GE does own most of NBC, I’m pretty sure Universal Studios covers the news department, and we all know which way the wind blows in Hollywood. But if ownership is so influential, you mentioned Rupert Murdoch, while he has News Corp. which seems mostly conservative, didn't he also help Hillary Clinton with campaign fundraising?
Again, it goes back to the journalists, not so much the ownership.

Comment by Notebartello | September 14, 2008

oops
I shouldn't have linked NPR with the television and cable stations. I meant PBS, though they're practically the same.
I do like the news hour, but most definitely not a fan of Bill Moyers or his journal :)

Comment by Notebartello | September 14, 2008

Notabartello:

Regarding the baseball team example, what I had in mind was something you alluded to in your comments. Players (and their union) have radically different interests than management when it comes to the philosophy of baseball — salary caps, trading players, drug testing, etc., in addition to each of the players having their own individual interests (wanting to improve their stats, wanting to win for the team, wanting to keep their position on the team even though another player might be better in that position, etc.)

It would be kind of silly to suggest that because both the players and owners would like to end up in the World Series, their views about their team, or baseball in general, are identical. It’s the same silliness that assigns a commonality of ideology between the news room and the corporate ownership because Company X owns a newspaper or TV station. Publicly owned corporate owners do not tell the reporters what to print, the editors what to edit, and TV stations what to broadcast. They do to a larger extent where a single private entity owns that media and is not accountable to its shareholders (again, the New York Times comes to mind). But that wasn’t the point Suzanne was making.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 14, 2008

While ownership of the media may have some bearing on how news is reported, it is far less important than the attitudes of those who actually write the news and of their editors. The bias of news editors is, in fact, paramount. Editors, not owners, dictate the day to day content of the publications for which they bear sole responsibility and control. Owner’s are more interested in revenues; and, as long as revenues are unaffected by this bias, will not interfere in the running of the paper or station.

As to measuring bias, a lot has been done on this and the results are unequivocal that both print and televised media lean heavily leftward. The Media Research Center reports a four-to-one liberal dominance in news reporting (http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf). Other sources report similar results, and even liberal sources like Wikipedia acknowledge the imbalance. Yet, even this statistic underreports the bias because polarization is even stronger at urban-based news centers (e.g. major networks, NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, &c), and it is these urban-based organizations (i.e., syndicates and networks) that dominate much of what gets disseminated ( a little less since the Internet, talk-radio). Even today these syndicates exert enormous control over what we hear and read. As with individual papers and stations, the syndicates are controlled by senior editors, and it is their bias that gets reported most.

Perhaps the best confirmation, however, is what we read and hear every day, and the frequent meltdowns of major news-personalities (Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, &c) when things don’t go their way. I vividly recall Jennings on-air weeping in the 2000 election when forced to report Al Gore had lost, only to cheer up when told it was a false-alarm and deflate again when it was confirmed. And, who can forget Dan Rather caught ‘doctoring’ evidence with which to tar Bush? We witnessed Couric throwing a fit and Mathews gagging. The bias is bad enough, but the denial can be incredible; and this denial reigns from newsroom to boardroom to living-room. I actually had to find a report of the Jennings meltdown before my liberal sister would believe it happened, even though she sat glued to the TV all night. These are just some of the more egregious examples, but there is hardly a day goes by conservatives are not treated to fresh displays of bias. When was the last time you heard a conservative reporter having a similar emotional display or caught doctoring the news? Like an elephant in the room this bias is the more outrageous not because we see it happen, record it, and hit replay but because liberals go to extremes denying it exists. Conservatives admit to bias and adjust accordingly. Liberals have grown intellectually dishonest about it because they've gotten away with it so long.

Most liberals have been hearing this bias so long (and agreeing with it) they no longer recognize it as such. To the ordinary liberal the bias they hear sounds reasonable because they can imagine no other. The ordinary liberal may scoff at us saying their favorite news reporter is up to his butt in bias, but will shift along with the media whereever it shifts. Over time, the media can be pulled rightward (i.e., closer to the median), and the audience will follow. This is because average person is disinclined to fact-check his sources and is perfectly comfortable having his/her opinions handed to them from someone ‘authoritative’ (so long as it does not shift too far or fast).

To the political-liberal, however, this same bias ‘is’ conservative because insufficiently radical. If Katie Couric isn’t pounding her fist demanding withdrawal from Iraq or stronger abortion guarantees, the radical assumes she’s too ‘conservative’. This ignores being conservative is less a matter of degree than it is of substance. The main difference between Couric and a radical, then, is one of intensity. Couric and the radical share the same agenda, but Couric is a pussycat where the radical is raving lunatic. If Ms. Gentling is, therefore, dissatisfied with Couric’s toning down of the liberal message, what does that say of her own bias. This is radicalism so deep it no longer knows or cares what average person thinks, it only knows what it thinks the message should be and what we should think. It only knows it needs to keep up the drumbeat if the fraud is to be maintained, and scared to death people might learn how to think for ourselves.

Comment by Bob Stapler | September 14, 2008

Bob, yes. I take the subway frequently here, in this highly Liberal, young student rich environment, and I get to listen in. The sheer amount of Left political bias I hear just popped off as if fact is appalling.

Needless to say, I keep my mouth shut. I am outnumbered.

Comment by Last Angry Man | September 14, 2008

Lots of discussion going on! Many of the comments are thoughtful and interesting.
It seems there is one thing perhaps we can all agree on: dissatisfaction with the media.

First of all, I'm not trying to prove my point of view as if it were science or mathematics. While I would never refer to myself as a political conservative, I live my life conservatively. I don't identify with 'Liberal' either. I find many of the left-wing blogs to be just as extreme as some of yours. Labels: good for the file cabinet but too limited for human beings. I believe that we have a whole lot more in common than what is different. I also believe that we all love our country and want what is best. Can't we somehow stop all this name-calling and work together? There is no relationship on Earth that will improve without the exchange of ideas.

I can't comment on Couric, for example, because I watch practically no TV or radio, other than music. I get most of my information via the internet and in discourse with friends. When I do watch television, it is PBS. Searching for insightful information that rings true can be hard work, as we all know.

Ownership of the media by a FEW corporations is a problem and let's not forget the influence of the advertisers who pay for the programs. Like one gentleman said above, making money is the goal, whatever it takes.

A few years ago, I heard the term, 'corporate oligarchy' as a description of what our country has become. As you know, an oligarchy is government by a few, usually for corrupt and selfish purposes. This rang true to me. I don't think all corporations are bad but I do believe their power here in America and in our government has become paramount.

I am old enough to remember another America…one that was clear, strong, inventive, courageous, compassionate, not spoiled.
We have so much to give to the world. But if we do not clean our own house first, the world will never benefit from our gifts.

It's late, the moon is bright and the night is still and quiet…

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 14, 2008

Suzanne: If you watch "practically no TV", don't listen to the radio except for music, and get most of your information from the internet and friends (not newspapers, TV news and radio talk shows/news) why do you hold such strong opinions about corporate ownership of the news media?

I think maybe I just answered the question. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and now that the silliness of your emphatic statements have been exposed, you want to tell us that all you aspire to is a mythical time in the past where the country was in harmony with clear, strong, courageous policies.

Somehow, I don’t think you really want us to return to the Eisenhower years, whose campaign slogan was “clean house” from the excesses of the previous Democrat administrations. Or, I don’t think you really favor the JFK foreign policy (Bay of Pigs, CIA assassinations, Vietnam War), or LBJ’s continuation of that war.

Instead, you now offer a bunch of platitudes to support your original claim in Comment 1 that McCain and Palin are not qualified to lead this country.

You are a living, walking, talking example of the banality of the Left which tries to pass itself off as a thoughtful and progressive because Liberalism has been exposed as a bankrupt policy. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and stringing together a series of pleasant words and speaking about bright moons and still nights only underscores the total vacuity of your thoughts.

If you like Obama better than McCain because you like Obama better than McCain, just say so. But stop insulting our collective intelligence with drivel disguised as analysis, particularly when you insist on making emphatic statements about something you now admit you know absolutely nothing about — except for a couple of Google searches and a few conversations with your “friends”.

It's early, the sun is rising, and the real world awaits me.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 15, 2008

To Mr.P.E.J.

If I had a dollar for every hour of television I have watched, I could retire. It just doesn't do much for me anymore and I seriously doubt that my TV habits have any bearing on the Corporate media issue. Do I really have to spend my evenings with Katie Couric to engage in the conversation? If this is such a non-issue, how come so many people in this country are so concerned?

I do believe Obama is a better choice than McCain. My original choice was Ron Paul. Even though he had an enthusiastic beginning, he was soon marginalized (by the media??). I absolutely did NOT want Hillary to be the nominee. I voted for Obama and since then, my enthusiasm for his character and candidacy has grown.

My reference to an older America was intended to be more of a comment on the character of Americans, not its policies. Maybe I'm just getting misty-eyed again, but it seems to me that many Americans have become so rude, selfish and narrow.

And as far as my late night reverie is concerned, there are other levels to reality besides the cold, harsh, ugly one we face every day. You ought to try it sometime.

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 15, 2008

Suzanne: Give it a rest. You have no idea about the content of TV news, radio news, news from the newspapers, etc., because you admit to not reading/watching any of this. Watching reruns of Three's Company don't contribute to any knowledge of the supposed nexus of philosophies between corporate ownership and the absence of a liberal media as you insist. This seems to be a difficult concept that you — and only you — have failed to grasp.

You make foolish, ignorant statements about things you know nothing about. At some point you’d think that even a fool would stop trying to defend this nonsense, but still you persist with non-sequiturs and outright lies. We’ve had our share of Ron Paul supporters drop in on this conversation. None of them now supports Obama. Other than opposing the Iraq war (for entirely different reasons), there’s nothing in common between the two men. Bob Barr, maybe, but Obama! Give us a break!

You not only have no understanding of politics, you can’t even construct a coherent argument to support anything you say. You’re a fraud in addition to a fool, and I have no problem pointing out the obvious. [And I’m trying real hard to wipe out any image of what your “late night reverie” might involve. It’s morning, and my breakfast still hasn’t full digested.]

Please spare us your moronic observations. They’re only good for their comedic relief, which I’m more than happy to keep illustrating.

Ron Paulinistas for Obama. Right.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 15, 2008

To the commentator above who mentioned Murdoch's contribution to Hillary's campaign: I, too, ran across that bit of information and found it puzzling. My first thought is that there was a strategical agenda there. What do the rest of you think?

Also, here's a link with an article on McCain from The Economist. I thought it was balanced and insightful.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=12009710

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 15, 2008

Ms Gentling,

In comment #5 above, you said "After all, the media in this country is owned by just a few corporate conglomerates. These people traditionally vote Republican because they want to maintain the status quo."

How do you show this to be the case? Did you take a poll of media moguls to determine party affiliation or voting record?

Last time I checked Ted Turner considers himself a flaming liberal and votes Democrat. Rupert Murdock is an Australian liberal who doesn’t get to vote in our elections, yet endorses Obama; calling him a “rock star” and “fantastic”. In fact, most media moguls vote liberal and rank high among the party faithful, and have done so for a very long time. In fact, I am willing to bet you’d have a hard time finding more than a couple top media owners and general managers who aren’t dedicated liberals. The reason is simple, the media and liberal-socialism are natural allies. Socialism is about top-down control and the media wants to maximize its influence. Conservatives (real conservatives, not a bunch of RINOs) represent more of a threat to this hegemony than any “I’m all about free-speech” liberal. Why?, Because conservatism favors diversifying sources and opinion as the surest means of preserving the integrity of the press and speech. It is fine talking about protecting free-speech, but it becomes an empty phrase whenever speech is strongly monopolized. I’m sorry, but it is you who have swallowed the Kool-Aid corporations and socialists are incapable of forming alliances.

Comment by Bob Stapler | September 15, 2008

I think the 'follow the money' or 'who owns what' conspiracy theory of the media misses the point. I think 'media bias' is an organic phenomenon and flows from individual actors. It's bent is illustrated glaringly, though, by what is going on relative to Sarah Palin currently.

The problem posed here is one for the Democrats, and it comes from their 'friends', not their enemies.

Starting off, 80-90% of mainstream media newsrooms are self declared Democrats and contribute dollars accordingly. They routinely put a finger on the scales because, deep down, they want to win. It's only human. But they likely support Democrats because they are progressive liberals.

Additionally, a large segment of entertainers are vigorously progressive liberals and use their megaphone to amplify their views.

How did the media/entertainment industry get this way? Who knows, historical pendulum, university, or group think; whatever, that is how it is.

But this is a mob not a cabal. It is not under any chain of command. Add in the Kos Kiddies and the 'netroots' and it is an increasingly surly and anarchist one. Pitchforks and torches.

And the mob has reacted hysterically to Sarah Palin because she is such an anti-thesis of who the progressive left is. She unabashedly declares for values they sneer at.

The Democrats problem is this mob is out of sync with maybe 60 percent of the country which is actually trending towards social conservativism, possibly as a response to the excesses of the late 1960's, 1970's and early 1980's.

The sectors of this mob feed each other. From Kos's keyboard to Bill Maher's lips to MSM 'opinion' pieces that pick up the meme. It only took one demented Kos diarist to weave a tale of Sarah Palin's latest baby not being her own to unleash a storm of speculation and innuendo across all the mediums.

My prediction is they will lose the election for Obama. Many Americans will see this mob as a single storm front and reject them.

I personally have found Obama engaging, intriguing and hyper-intelligent. I am a center righty, but was considering him. Unfortunately this election will not be a referendum on issues or plans for economic revival and energy independence. Barring a financial meltdown or some other catastrophe, this election will be another round in the culture wars.

Comment by jdwill07 | September 15, 2008

Interestingly enough, I just watched a Firing Line episode between Bill Buckley and David Susskind — circa 1968 — the topic of which was "the prevailing bias."

Susskind at least was honest — there were more folks in media who were liberal, he suggested, because liberalism worked and the media folks were smart, clever folks who understood that and so they were liberal too.

Buckley smiled and suggested, nevertheless, that the opportunity to hear opposing views seemed the democratic and "liberal" thing to do. Susskind: "conservatives are boring."

And so it went. Forty years later and we are still wandering in the desert of liberal group think.

Comment by George Shadroui | September 15, 2008

There is an interesting psychological take on the D vs. R divide at
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

It says Dems/liberals can't fathom why Reps/conservatives think the way they do, but vice versa is not true. I think the author is a liberal that made an anthropological journey of discovery, or something.

A taste:

…, I would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?

Comment by jdwill07 | September 15, 2008

"Please stop reinforcing the stereotype of the ignorant southern buffoon by trying to enter an adult conversation with a grade school understanding of politics and civics."

"This woman is a fool."

"You make foolish, ignorant statements about things you know nothing about."

"Please spare us your moronic observations."

"You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and stringing together a series of pleasant words and speaking about bright moons and still nights only underscores the total vacuity of your thoughts."

Once again, Dr. Jackson, I have to ask: Why do you repeatedly stoop to personal attacks when frustrated by an eloquent commentator who doesn't subscribe to your worldview?

Comment by Dr Kilovolt | September 15, 2008

Dr. K:

There's a difference between saying "I like Obama", and insisting that something that is patently, factually incorrect is true. There’s a difference between saying “I like Obama”, and pretending that you’re a Ron Paul devotee who sees common ground with Obama.

Disagree with my position, and I’ll present a counter point of view. Insult my intelligence, and I’ll call you a fool.

I understand that some people don’t like to see a fool called a fool, or an idiotic statement characterized as idiotic. I prefer clarity to political correctness — particularly when I’m addressing a fool.

As Forrest Gump said, “stupid is as stupid does.”

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 15, 2008

Dr. K:

By the way, we can test whether your objection to my choice of words “fool”, “ignorant”, “vacuity of thoughts”, etc. — which are appropriate descriptions of foolish, ignorant and vacuous statements — are politically incorrect (but accurate) descriptions as I contend, or “personal attacks” as you contend. Nowhere have I called Suzanne “retarded”, a coke-head, sleazy, or any other description Taguba and others routinely use to personally attack conservatives.

So, here’s the test. Instead of saying that “I think Obama is misguided, unsophisticated, and naïve in his thinking, and that some of the things he says are just plain “dumb” (57 states, criticizing McCain for not using email when McCain can’t type because of his war injuries, etc.), I’m going to follow Suzanne lead and now make a factually incorrect claim: “Obama is a Muslim”.

I’d like you to respond to the “Obama is a Muslim” statement. When you show me that he isn’t, I’m going to link to a kook fringe website and show you that he is.

When you debunk that, I’m going to continue insisting that he is a Muslim.

I expect you to treat my words with the utmost deference and respect, and never characterize my statement as anything other than a simple disagreement over disputed facts, while I continue to insult your intelligence. Then I’ll believe you’re serious about what you said, and not just objecting to having a dumb statement that there is no liberal media because “After all, the media in this country is owned by just a few corporate conglomerates. These people traditionally vote Republican because they want to maintain the status quo.”

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 15, 2008

Eloquent commentator? And, who would that be DK? We’ve already sampled your eloquence and, no offense, yours suffers some serious defects. In time, you may learn how to debate and you aren’t stupid, but it takes more than a taste for debate, it takes sound arguments that can stand up to challenges and some inkling how to frame them so your points aren’t lost in a sea of obfuscation. Arguments need to include proposition, exposition, proof, and resolution. Logic requires mastery of deductive & inductive reasoning, consistency, completeness, soundness, syllogism, modalities, predicates, dialectic, rhetoric, and sufficient knowledge. Ms. G is a sweet lady (except when she unknowingly hurls insults and incites rebuke) and her spelling and grammar is a little better than yours, but she is hardly eloquent and has a lot of homework before she can hope to match some of the minds here.

Ms Gentling,

I am sorry to bring it up, but since I have. You decry our incivility and, I can tell from your choice of words, you are trying hard to be civil. However, so far you have told us you think the Republican Party is only “about power, control and fear” (aka, corrupt), implied Palin is a tool of ‘powerful unseen forces’, regard conservatives (us) as rubes, dupes, delusional and ignorant, regard our rant “as extreme as liberal blogs”, the media a ‘conservative tool’ in the hands of evil corporations, our faith masking malevolence and superstition, and that our soldiers are squandered and unsupportive of the war they fight. If this is your idea of civility, it misses the mark. Despite your perception of being more civil and impartial than those you scold, these remarks make you more than a little insulting and partisan. Yet, I realize you don’t see this incivility anymore than you fail to see your own bias or that of the media you think least partisan (PBS is decidedly to the left of NBC, ABC CBS and the NY Times, and as partisan as it gets). You admit to relative political-ignorance, indiscriminate viewing habits, inattention to spin, and a failure to check your facts before saying things which, frankly, ought to embarrass you as a purportedly intelligent being. You further claim to be neither liberal nor conservative, yet your biases convince me you are much more liberal than you admit to yourself or others. You say this because you want us to believe you are impartial and just in making these criticisms, when, truly, you are not. Justice requires having your facts in order before speaking your mind (i.e., well-informed) and impartial requires you give serious and charitable consideration to all evidence (not just evidence that suits you).

You complain of the ‘incivility’ of others because our debate is sometimes overheated, suggesting we should tone it down more to your liking. You call us naïve and ignorant, even while admitting to ignorance and making some of the most naïve statements we’ve seen on these boards in a long time. You describe our scribblings as ‘extreme’ as those on the left, without giving any proof of it; and despite our reluctance to treat you as your remarks somewhat merit (we only brawl with those who pick fights; and never with women, children and imbeciles). I apologize for any rough treatment you have received, but you did ‘choose’ to enter this debate, and debates are notorious for sometimes heating up. If you are looking for tea and sympathy, this isn’t the place and I suggest you try some more gentile venue or just listen in. We are gentlemen, here, but that does not mean we must be pushovers or take abuse, no matter how ‘sweetly’ served.

Comment by Bob Stapler | September 15, 2008

Perhaps there is a missing part of the puzzle that Suzanne needs and no one has yet supplied. The assumption is that Suzanne is defective in logic or thinking skills, but that doesn't seem to me to be accurate.

Suzanne is perfectly logical and consistent within her limted universe. She has only a sparse exposure to conservative thought, which she evaluates accordingly. We, who have an extensive background in all facets and perspectives, have let loose on her according to our great body of experience and knowledge.

So, I suggest that we start from the beginning with her, since she is by her own admission greatly segregated from the mainstream press, as well as thoughtful, reasoned presentations of the conservative worldview. Bring her up to speed rather than assuming that she possesses a body of diverse knowledge.

First, what is conservatism? It is the worldview that embraces personal responsibility, the individual as the highest position in society, the family as the core unit of culture, and the free, voluntary exchange of goods and sevices betweeen willing parties.

Conservatism presumes that individuals know best what is good for them. Conservatism asserts that people should receive the rewards and bear the consequences for their own decisions. Conservatism believes that the fruit of one's labor belongs to one's self.

Conservatives are acutely aware that people in governmental power cannot be trusted to do the right thing for anyone but themselves, so power must be as local as possible. That allows the powerful to be held in check. Conservatives prefer the government the Founders conceived of, with limited, specific, ennumerated powers. This government was intended to serve the people, but only within constitutional boundaries. In contrast, our government causes people to serve government and to labor in accordance with its aims.

Conservatives value the tried-and-true traditions, institutions, and practices that made America great. Conservatives believe in progress, but the progress has to earn its place and demonstrate its merit. Anything that attacks the foundations of our culture and attempts to impose its will on the people is not progress.

Conservatives believe that our rights are endowed by the Creator. A religious people is crucial to the success of this nation. Religious influence has been the key to our diversity, our success, our tolerance, and our great strength.

Suzanne will need to understand these concepts before she can undertake an informed debate. She has relied on non-conservatives explaining what conservatism is, so she is in possession of a caricature, a false understanding. When she understands who conservatives are, she then is equipped to discuss ideology.

Comment by Mountain Man | September 15, 2008

Ok. I find that, because of the many good comments above, I'm having to re-visit my view about my statement on the 'liberal media'. I must concede that maybe this was a biased comment on my part and that I certainly do need to gather more information. Finding unbiased information on this subject is difficult and since I have made a
discriminate choice not to watch much TV…well, you know. What I remain convinced of is that the corporate influence in our government is dominant and that our media presentations of information, among other things, are affected and that ALL of us should be concerned.

Impartial? No, I am not. More Liberal? Yes, definitely. On a political scale that ranges from disengaged to rabid, I belong in there somewhere. Just where, I'm not certain and frankly I don't care. I hate labels and sound bites and the programming that goes along with them. ( Here's another inflammatory opinion of mine: I think Karl Rove has done more to lower the standard of discourse and independent thinking in this country than anyone I know of. But he sure can get the job done, can't he?)

Do I know everything to such an extent I could write a thesis on it? No, of course not. My intentions here are to pose questions…questions, I believe, each American should be asking. The fact that I will be voting Democratic this election belies my fury at all of them in our government who have not done their jobs. We're in deep trouble, people. What are we going to do about it?

More later when I will attempt to address some of the specific questions. Thanks.

ps: Mr. Shadroui: I thoroughly enjoyed your reminder of Firing Line with Buckley and Susskind. I'm sure if I were to see it today I would get much more out of it than I did when I may have seen it back in '68. (I didn't watch a lot of TV then, either!!).

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 15, 2008

Suzanne, there is a great deal of specifically pointed mis-information out there. One has to be very cautious before one buys into it, else you find yourself talking and believing someone's party line.

Clearly, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, the Left dominates this art. Simply put, with almost every public "claim" they make, they are to some extent lying like a rug. And has been noted, the MSM is itself dominated by the Left. It's quite blatantly apparent.

Note what is happening during the current election cycle: the Right states Obama has insufficient experience to be President. In exchange, the Left makes constant accusations of everything from senility to evil conspiracies.

The Right asks to be clearly informed of Mister Obama's background and associations, and we continually read of how that information is "unavailable." Tell me there isn't something rather sinister about that?!

You said it all when you commented how difficult it is to find unbiased information. How true. Just remember, the bias you will read from the Right is tame and open, and is not a thousandth percent of the bias of the Left, who delay, deny, obfuscate, and outright fabricate.

'Nuff said.

Comment by Last Angry Man | September 15, 2008

Suzanne: I will retire any further characterization of your remarks as I had previously now that you've joined the conversation on a different level, and are no longer maintaining factually indefensible positions.

The only caution I'd give you in a search for unbiased information is that there is none. Unless you’re dealing with a historical date (July 4, 1776 instead of June 4, 1776), or an irrelevant historical fact (was John Adams right handed or left handed?), there will always be assumptions behind statements. How one approaches a topic will determine how one assesses the “facts’ surrounding that topic.

It’s the assumptions that need to be understood, stated forthright, and then addressed, not free-floating facts. One can’t control the influence of corporations on American politics (if indeed it should be ‘controlled’) unless one first understands how corporations, unions, political parties, news organizations, individuals, etc. function within that system. Lamenting the power one group supposedly exerts without understanding the complexities of the social and political system in which they and others operate just means spouting off an opinion instead of giving an analysis of a situation.

There’s nothing wrong with offering an opinion, if it is given in a somewhat sophisticated way that takes this into account. But unless there’s more behind the opinion than your feelings, it isn’t going to carry much weight in a conversation.

To show you what I mean, here’s three examples from my own essays. You’re probably not going to like some of my conclusions, but these are indeed some of the questions people should be asking as they look at how things actually are, and how they can be improved.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/07/23/philosophy-vs-reality/

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 15, 2008

Suzanne: One more thing. "Conservatism" isn't monolithic. We have our fringe elements too. The difference is, unlike some of the Left-leaning websites you might visit (Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc.), we do not tolerate stupidity on the Right any more than we do on the Left.

See:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/09/11/in-their-own-words-the-undisguised-racism-of-the-far-far-far-right/

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 15, 2008

In the article I mentioned upthread, there is an example of a liberal (anthropologist) confronting and attempting to define conservatism. We have -
… a 29 year old liberal atheist who had spent his politically conscious life despising Republican presidents …
- going to India and embedding in a conservative culture - In September 1993 I traveled to Bhubaneswar, an ancient temple town 200 miles southwest of Calcutta.

What transpires is one definition of conservatism, albeit a traditional Indian strain. But some elements apply to our American conservative culture.

…And once I liked them … it was easy to take their perspective and to consider with an open mind the virtues they thought they were enacting. Rather than automatically rejecting the men as sexist oppressors and pitying the women, children, and servants as helpless victims, I was able to see a moral world in which families, not individuals, are the basic unit of society, and the members of each extended family (including its servants) are intensely interdependent. In this world, equality and personal autonomy were not sacred values. Honoring elders, gods, and guests, and fulfilling one's role-based duties, were more important. Looking at America from this vantage point, what I saw now seemed overly individualistic and self-focused.

I would want to be careful about defining an extended definition of conservatism. A moral order is a key goal, but in this Indian example, one gets such an order does not give the individual the leeway our traditional western culture does. In fact, you could arrive at cultures which enshrine practices such as slavery we find repugnant, yet internally consider themselves to be in a moral order. Still, you could take most of Mountain Man's points above and translate them to Indian conservative culture.

What is important to my point is the journey of someone who can't understand and demonizes the conservative viewpoint. It requires empathy and experience. The irony, of course, is that progressive and conservative are yin and yang. The circle is not complete without both. The hypocrisy I see it that many 'progressives' pronounce themselves the enlightened ones but in the same breath declare they cannot understand (or abide) the conservative and religious. Though, to be fair, that knife can cut both ways.

Comment by jdwill07 | September 15, 2008

Yeah, baby. I love the way you are all stepping up to the plate on this. I think we all recognize that Suzanne is not the typical left-wing inflamer that frequently shows up here. People like that come 'round for a week or two, then go on their way when we ask the to please think.

But we want people here who are up to the challenge of presenting and defending their ideas. Another point of view is what makes these comment sections worth the time. Suzanne is clearly not a troll, she does parrot the leftist talking points, but not in that hateful democraticunderground.com sort of way.

So, I'm encouraged. In that vein, I'll point out to Suzanne that all we really know about Karl Rove are what his enemies have said about him. True? I have never seen anywhere in the MSM a personal story about him. What was his upbringing, where did he go to school, what are his influences, what do his friends say about him?

We don't know, and I'm guessing we never will if the MSM has its way. That would humanize him, that would allow a crack in the carefully-constructed strawman. He has been on TV more and more as a commentator lately, and I was surprised to discover a thoughtful, smart, and engaging man, nothing like the persona his enemies have created.

So, Suzanne, here is your first test. Go dig up some information on Karl Rove that wasn't put together by someone who hates him. Get a balanced picture, and then see if you still think he has lowered the standard of discourse (especially compared to, say, James Carville).

Comment by Mountain Man | September 15, 2008

Mountain Man:

My 'first test'? Are you kidding? Go look it up yourself. Wikipedia might be an impartial enough source to start off with. Hey, you could even write an essay on it for the rest of the group. Yeah, MM, this can be your test. And make that essay at least 10,000 words, OK? And remember, don't let your bias show.

For Everyone:

Here's my final statement on the liberal media issue: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm
I stand by my original comment.

Thanks for the primer of conservative ideology but I'm really not shopping. In my opinion, the only thing an ideology offers, besides an intellectual exercise, is a safe place for those who really don't want to have unanswered questions and who want to believe that everything is either black or white and all wrapped up in a nice, neat package because the insecurity of life is too fearful.

Well, here's what I call fearful. Years of unethical practices in our financial systems, ignored by those in power these last eight years because a few people in this country were actually making money-of course it was leveraged money but denial is great while it's working. If you all can't even find your portfolios in the morning, maybe you should rethink putting Republicans back in the White House, especially with a presidential candidate who admitted he "…just doesn't know much about economics."

And what is your ideology doing for the Gulf Coast or the crisis in our educational system or healthcare or our crumbling infrastructure or the Pandora's box the Neo-cons opened up in the Middle East? The 'war in Iraq': even the language is incorrect. We aren't at war. There has been no declaration of war. Our Republican administration invaded and occupied another country under false pretenses. Is this your ideology at work? This hideous squandering of human and material resources is just sickening.

I'm looking for the brightest, most intelligent, most forward-thinking, educated person we can find for our President and I don't care what party, race, gender or religion that person might be. I may not have an ideology but at least I'm in touch with reality.

Adieu and good luck. We sure as hell are going to need it.

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 16, 2008

So much for "posing questions" and searching for answers.

Another liberal enters the arena of ideas, and punts. It's just too much trouble to actually learn something when you have a website that reinforces your original opinions which are not based on facts, but the opinions of friends.

Anybody really surprised?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 16, 2008

By the way, follow the link Suzanne gave to a 10 year old anonymous article citing studies from the 80's and 90s. "But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal."

Any bets on whether Suzanne even understands what the "Fairness Doctrine" is? I guess she assumes that because it has the word "Fairness" in it, it's "good". Just like the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is both democratic and a republic, and functions for the people because, well, that's what is says.

I think it was Limbaugh who said "the most expensive thing we have in this country is ignorance". Fortunately, as i pointed out in my original comment, both Suzanne and I live in Texas, so her presidential vote is meaningless.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 16, 2008

Phil, hope springs eternal. It's too bad when the spring turns muddy, eh?

Suzanne is a disappointment, not because she's on the political left, but because she's a total closed mind. Like too many of her ilk, she is adept at regurgitating leftist talking points, but when asked to even consider a point of view other than what has been spoon fed to her she blows up.

Phil, you were right. Even when you're wrong, you're right. I bow at your feet, O Great One.

By the way, I wonder if Yonkel has followed this exchange. I am happy to provide him with a textbook leftist for his review.

Comment by Mountain Man | September 16, 2008

MM — I'm just older than most people, so I've been exposed to idiots longer than most others.

Few people on the extreme Left or Right are really interested in a discussion (witness my give and take with the "kith and kin" crowd.)

To understand an issue requires work. To defend a position requires even more work. When someone starts off making absolute, factually incorrect statements, they've already drunk the Kool-Aid. They're not really looking to test their ideas. They're looking for a forum to promote their opinions.

And we all know what I think about opinions and certain body parts.

Take care, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 16, 2008

Really, what a shame. One appears on what is a debate forum, then does not debate, merely parrots the same comments, repetitiously. What, then, was the point? Self-validation? Twisting someone's knickers?

And people such as Suzanne wonder why they aren't well-received.

Comment by Last Angry Man | September 16, 2008

Don't give up on Suzanne just yet. So far she's parroting the old-media, but not giving us any specifics. For example, her blaming of Rove for lowering the level of discourse, whereas Rove has been laying low for many months. Come on Suzanne. You can do better than that. Don't just parrot the ideas of others. Analyze! Ask yourself at every point you utter a liberal talking point "Is something I know or something I've had drummed into me?" If the latter, drop it and move onto something else. Ask if your conviction of a Republican malfeasance has legs or, more likely, is the product of a Democrat witch hunt. If the latter, walk away from it because I assure you we'll pulverize those who persist in it.

By the way (and once again). Wikipedia is NOT a neutral source of information. It is an 'open' source, meaning anyone can (and they do) spin the information. Moreover, it is a liberal moderated and dominated source. The moderators have been good, but don't wield much editorial control over the result, so it is mob ruled. That doesn't keep us from using it, but it is a good idea to get confirmation on material deposited there. Conservatives have not contributed much to it, preferring to build our own repositories. Where conservatives have made attempts to contribute to Wikipedia, liberals sometimes swarm to keep us out or rewrite our articles. If you can't get confirmation, then you should warn people the citation may be compromised. I will say Wikipedia is a lot better (more factual and objective) than a great many liberal sources, but it is my opinion it is still slanted.

Comment by Bob Stapler | September 16, 2008

Too true. Bob, in my online science Moderation "job," I fequently lecture people about Wikipedia, and how it is NOT a credible nor accurate source.

Comment by Last Angry Man | September 16, 2008

Suzanne,
I hope you continue to log in to IC and at least read the articles and the discussion that follows. It's only useful to a point to have people who share the same world view participating in discussion with out any input from the “out side”. The fact that there are 50+ comments to this article, mostly in response to your involvment, is a testament to that. Plus, it’s in your interest to be involved in actively seeking and understanding other view points, because if you didn’t, whether you admit it or not, you would end up being amongst those with a narrow “black and white” outlook that you apparently despise. Your ideology, which everyone has, would be influenced only by those you allow to influence it, unless it is your very ideology that has does the limiting on those who influence you, in which case the preponderant sources of narrow size and scope would already cause you to see things in more “black and white”.
As far as subscribing to an ideology, I think it’s fair to say that any reasonable (key word) person doesn’t just necessarily follow a set ideology, especially as it relates to politics. It’s a bad analogy, but even a blind person when being lead by a dog has to use their other heightened senses to figure where exactly they’re going. Point being, I know some pretty hardcore “conservatives”, but really they’re just hardcore republicans, who can be highly critical of many Rep. Leaders at times.
I think Suzanne that you are confusing those who just follow a party, absolutely, like a sports team or something, as opposed to those who have a certain world view and find that when it comes to politics and that world view, certain parties more closely share those values.
That’s how I arrived at my particular political posture. I literally sat down and realized that when I discussed politics with my friends, a lot was based on conjecture, theories, emotion, opinion, basically a pathetically limited understanding of what really is going on. So, I evaluated my philosophy. I looked at my morals, my ethics. I realized I have, probably because of my Catholic upbringing, a very Natural Law kind of philosophy. I looked at history and the many views of certain issues and I tried to be as open minded as possible. My family certainly does play a role, however not exactly how I would have thought. My parents are Republican, but my grandfather is about as ardent a Democrat as anyone I know, and I always got my “politics” from my grandfather. However, I quickly and surprisingly related myself with the “right”.
Even though I am a conservative, there are many issues where one can easily argue I stand on more of the liberal side, and even more still where I stand on more of the libertarian side. But at the core, I am what is and has been called conservative, and it is on those values I stand and look at the world.
Thanks.

Comment by Notebartello | September 16, 2008

correction
I meant to say
Your ideology, which everyone has one…

Comment by Notebartello | September 16, 2008

JD Will,

I am afraid you have me scratching my head, both as to what you are trying to say (about us) and where you stand (liberal, conservative or neither). You call yourself “center-righty”, but, please, give us more to go on than that. Also, you have twice put this Edge article in our laps, so you are determined we both read and comment on it. You also tell us you find Obama “engaging, intriguing and hyper-intelligent [and] … was considering him” without any reason you’d think so.

I find him intriguing too, but that is because he’s got a shady past he wants kept dark. Obama is unarguably intelligent, but hyper-intelligent? The guy hasn’t articulated a single coherent strategy on anything as yet, and certainly no policy we can dissect for content. It’s all platitudes. He’s just as cagey regarding his past and dealings. A con man is also intelligent and far better than, say, an astrophysicist at convincing others of his intelligence. Is that the measure of ‘hyper-intelligent’, a man who plays his cards so close few can trust him? Would a truly intelligent politician persist in politics that are as radically socialist and racially divisive as Obama’s? He talks of bringing us all together, yet succeeds only in driving us further apart. Wouldn’t the ‘hyper-intelligent’ statesman-politician have either found a way around that or gotten off the field as too divisive (even if it weren’t his doing)? Without his teleprompter, he stumbles, hems & haws, and sounds no more intelligent than the next guy caught unprepared. Try this test. Imagine he’s a got an ‘R’ next to his name, he’s old as McCain, and he’s white. Got that picture firmly in your head? Okay, is he still hyper-intelligent or just ordinary intelligent? At best we can call this guy above average intelligent, but he’s no genius. I will grant you he is engaging, and that’s about all he’s riding on. That and the black-glass ceiling his core constituency wants broken.

Center-right doesn’t really tell us much because most people, no matter how outrageous, think they (we) are close to center. For some, ‘center’ means where they think the center should be or would be given most people think ‘correctly’ (i.e., ‘as I do’). Saying you are right of center only vaguely tells us you share some opinions with those of us who are recognizably or unabashedly conservative. Therefore, boldly state where you stand on key issues (e.g., Iraq, illegal-immigrants, abortion, drilling in ANWR, &c), as that give a clearer picture of who you are.

As to the Edge article, here's my analysis. It was written by a liberal who is “trying to reach out”, but who has no clue to who we are or what we represent. This pompous ass claims “we can [now] map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait”. So, there you have it folks. It’s not your fault you are a conservative, it is a birth defect. The rest of the article is similarly dismissive, demeaning and smug. No mention that many (if not most) conservatives share genes with siblings, parents, and offspring who are inexplicably liberal; and, no mention the misplaced faith in liberal-socialism to solve all the world’s ills without any loss in personal freedom just might be a mental aberration.

Worse, he has no clue to the history and true nature his own professed party. The whole article starts with a presumption that “the economic interests of working class and rural voters” is better served by Democrats. This is a presumption that has been proved false time after time; both logically and empirically. The most he can claim is Republican policies have also been sometimes unsound. However, that has been most pronounced when Republicans adopted the ‘progressive’ economic-playbook. Even then, Democrat policies have been far more disastrous than Republican ones, and have been consistently so since socialism became the norm. And, unless Democrats suddenly stop playing god with the market, there is little chance this guy’s argument will make any greater sense tomorrow.

He next claims “strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities” are what turn people against liberalism. Wrong. What turns people against liberalism is the failure of liberalism to deliver on inflated unworkable promises. We are also turned off by what is now paraded as ‘liberalism’ but which long ago morphed into something sinister (socialism), and the further left radical-Democrats push their party, the more those working-folks, farmers, and parents abandon ship. Classical-liberalism has little in common with the modern variety (American conservatism is, in fact, a good deal closer to classical-liberalism than is modern-liberalism). The very term conservatism connotes that which conserves, and the American version of conservatism seeks to conserve our founding principles and virtues, no more and no less. Of course, liberals make this claim also, but it is they who insist they can ‘tweak’ the Constitution without substantially corrupting it and make reference to international law to correct its supposed ‘defects’. Given sufficient ‘tweaking’, do they really believe our founders would still recognize it as their creation? How then do they call themselves liberal when they have strayed so far from liberalism? People sometimes wake up to the fraud and theft of their birthright, and that is why so many of us abandoned the liberal brand (though we have never abandoned classical-liberalism).

Yet, this is still not the height of this ‘gentleman’s’ hubris. He declares “Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies …” I nearly choked on that one. Yeah, a fairy-tale also explains things away, but that doesn't make it true. Let’s see, the party of segregation, moral-relativism, abortion, Bill Clinton, a record of pork and corruption so deep it makes Republicans look saintly, a media with a credibility problem, an affinity for radicalism, legislating from the bench … nope, no lack of moral clarity that I can see.

The article just gets better the further you dig into it. This pigmy with delusions of divinity (says liberals must take off their halos the better to see us) tries to get his short, fat arms around the moral underpinnings of religion, and can’t imagine a single reason for ancient religious practices beyond those of health or pragmatism. I am a rank amateur in religion, but even I could do better. And, then he has the gall teach this lack of comprehension to others as though the height moral philosophy.

I absolutely recommend everyone read this tripe, if only so you know what we’re up against.

Comment by Bob Stapler | September 16, 2008

If you want to see the true color of media bias, just take a good look at the Sarah Palin TrooperGate coverage. The media is not trying to find the truth, it is trying to "decimate" Palin, as Chevy Chase suggested Tina Fey do.

Palin recently sent an official document detailing the reason why she fired Monegan: insubordination. That Monegan did not fire Wooten is just further proof of his incompetence, but apparently Monegan himself was quite a character, going behind the governor's back for his own political purposes. That he lasted as long as he did was surprising. Yet, I scourged Google News and could not find this tidbit in any major news organization. I stumbled upon it through other links.

The only thing liberals and conservatives have in common is personal accountability. Conservatives tend to hold themselves personally accountable for their own mistakes, just like the liberals hold conservatives accountable for liberal mistakes. I would not be surprised in the slightest if Palin still gets blamed when she is exonerated, though it will do the media little good. The 2000 election is a prime example. The Democrats lost the election, yet it could not be a gracious loss, it was a stolen victory. The criminal conspiracy to put Dubya in the White House went as far as the Supreme Court. The media made a one day event turn into a month long scandal. Great political theater, but typical liberal antics.

Comment by Anderson | September 16, 2008

I'd said this before, but it bears repeating:

The core radical far Left is a dying breed. It's been 40 years since their beginnings, and they are simply fading away; time itself is their enemy. Not for nothing are these sorts of Democrat nasty tricks and frenzied claims of dirty-dealing becoming more and more strident of late. If they do not win the White House this time around, they will never have a chance to again dominate politics as they would have it. So it's time to bring out every piece of ammunition they have, right now!

An acquaintance in his early 60s mentioned a story to me that he remembered vividly. An old Conservative politician was engaged in an argument with a young Liberal peace activist in the late 1960s. "You can't win this one, young man," said the Pol. "That's true," the young man replied, "but I don't have to. Soon enough, I'll be at your funeral."

The Shoe is on the other foot now.

This, I think, is where the constant barrage of smears, sly innuendos, cries of "they cheated," conspiracy theories, dirty tricks and so on by the Democrat attack machine spring from. Clearly, the "Old Guard" Democrats are deeply worried that for them, it's now or never.

Comment by Last Angry Man | September 17, 2008

A question for all of you:

In your opinion, what are the most important qualifications for President of the United States? Does Sarah Palin meet these qualifications?

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 17, 2008

Wow, an actual question from Suzanne. Are you seeking information, or are you preparing to spout leftist talking points? I'll assume that you actually want to know the answer.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Article 2, section 1. She qualifies.

In addition, she has more executive experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined. She has ran for and won offices at the local and state level with overwhelming victories. She is not in favor of people killing their unborn children. She has confronted and took down entrenched, corrupt politicians. She connects with people very well personally. She is a brilliant speaker, a tenacious leader, and does not back down.

She doesn't plagerize from other peoples' writing. She hasn't described Obama as "…the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…" She didn't get a sweetheart loan deal with the help of Rezko. She didn't associate with unrepentant terrorists like Ayers. She hasn't hid her grades and test scores from college.

I could go on, but I anxiously await the rejoinder from Suzanne. But before she starts reciting "facts" about Palin, she should review this website and its links: http://sarahpalinrumors.blogspot.com/.

Comment by Mountain Man | September 17, 2008

Maybe someone can give Suzanne a link, as long as it doesn't contain too many words. Or, ask one of her friends to give her a call.

Or ask her whether Governor Bill Clinton was "qualified" to replace a sitting President of the United States in 1992 based on Clinton's experience as governor of the state ranking 49 or 50 in all national standings.

Or just ask whether Obama has the qualifications to be President?

No. After all we've already said, and after all the information Suzanne said she has no intention of reading to understand the pressing questions she needs answered, what's the point in continuing the discussion with someone who wants to convey the image she deeply cares, but not actually do the work necessary to understand what she's talking about.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 17, 2008

Oh, and she has been subject to the most nasty, unrelenting, cruel smear campaign imaginable and still is cheerful and positive. No one should have to put up with the hate, distortion, and character assassination that she has had to endure. But she has done so with class and nobility.

Comment by Mountain Man | September 17, 2008

The most important qualifications would be those listed under the Constitution. She fits them just fine.

Any more questions?

Comment by Anderson | September 17, 2008

Are these qualifications as listed under the Constitution the only qualifications to look for in a candidate for the Presidency?

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 17, 2008

Both Anderson and I cited the constitutional qualifications, Suzanne, but I wrote about several more things in addition. Are you going to respond to them?

Comment by Mountain Man | September 17, 2008

Suzanne doesn't know the difference between "qualifications" and "capabilities" — i.e. managerial experience (running a governmental or military entity, not a campaign or senate staff), political and economic judgment, leadership abilities, and the myriad of other factors that go into assessing the credibility of a political candidate.

She also apparently doesn't know who is running for President on each ticket, and who is running for Vice President.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 17, 2008

Suzanne,

I have a few questions for you. Does Obama meet the qualifications for the Presidency? Does he meet your standards for the Presidency? Is he more or less qualified than Hillary Clinton? Is he more or less qualified than his running mate, Joe Biden? I feel many people here are trying to help you get a better understanding of their point of view, but it would be interesting to get an understanding of yours from your own words.

Comment by Anderson | September 17, 2008

Anderson: before you get any more invested in Suzanne, glance at her previous posts. She avoids listening to any news sources, but has firm opinions about the non-liberal biases of the news media because her friends and a 10 year old website told her that corporations own the major media, and corporations are "conservative", therefore the media cannot be liberal.

She claims to be on a search for answers to her questions, but comments (#44) that she's "really not shopping" for any contrary views — and besides, there's a lot of words she'd have to read to educate herself to arrive at an informed opinion.

She claims to be a Ron Paul supporter who naturally gravitates toward Obama now that Paul is out of the race, ignoring what we all know that Obama and Paul have nothing in common except their opposition to the war (for different reasons), and that Paul supporters would naturally embrace Bob Barr if they wouldn’t vote for McCain. Just ask Dan Phillips how much he supports Obama!

She's as disingenuous in her questions as she is vacuous in her thought process.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 17, 2008

To Mr.Jackson
Your right about Obama and Paul. Right, except one thing, they're not like every other candidate. That's how someone like Suzanne connects with the two of them. I was talking with, basically being tag teamed by two friends, both have Obama bumper stickers, pins and are absolutely gaga about the guy. And at one point in the conversation one of my friends said something to the extent of "I would have definitely voted for Ron Paul, but he would never be allowed to president because of the establishment". I'm thinking, these two candidates are nothing alike. Most notably being, that Ron Paul knows who he is and is unabashedly committed to his message, and to the PRINCIPLES behind that message. Obama just eloquently says change, plucks the heart strings of many, and appears to stand on nothing. But that is what scares me about this election, these two people invoked the spirit of revolution, of new beginnings, and that's whats captured so many people. Policy is second to how they make us feel. And what's worse is they've seem to have reached so many, especially my generation. Apparently many people have never considered the difference between Paul and Obama, just that are different from everyone else.

Comment by Notebartello | September 17, 2008

Notebartello: I've got friends like that too. From 2000-2007 they were strong supporters of the "maverick" John McCain who put principles before his party (i.e he bashed Bush). Then as soon as the primaries came, they abandoned McCain because he was an "unprincipled man" and hitched their star to Obama, who they claim has principles (as long as they don’t get in the way of funding his house or aggrandizing himself in other ways).

There's a name for people who say they would have voted for Paul, but now gravitate toward Obama. Democrats.

I never trust people who claim to have no philosophy like Suzanne, or who say that principles matter over philosophy, but always end up strongly objecting to every conservative issue as unprincipled (only supporting conservatives who lose their party's nomination, then immediately endorsing the Democrat candidate regardless of their unprincipled baggage).

It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make them look thoughtful and progressive, while covering for the utter emptiness of their principles and thought processes.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 17, 2008

Mountain Man,
I address some of the additional qualities you mentioned above plus a few of my own.

Executive experience: a lot of people have this but would not make a good president; many do not, but could make a good president. Her resume is not particularly impressive to me.

Tenacity: always a good thing if one's judgement is excellent.

Does she have good judgement? Not much to work with at this point. She has a lot to prove to me in this area, which would require observing her in many more difficult situations. Since there's no time for this between now and election day, I will not give her points in this area.

Speaking abilities: 1. presentation-she's good at that
2. content-all I have been able to glean about this is a carefully scripted acceptance speech and plenty of campaign bites. I will say, however, that her "…don't blink" responses in the Gibson interview, regarding her decision to accept McCain's offer and in reference to the building tensions with Russia, were disturbing to me.

Fights political corruption: we all can appreciate this. Is she honest? I don't know.

Anti-abortion: I uphold her right to her personal choice about this but do not favor this issue as an agenda for the Presidency.

Pleasing personality: well, this certainly would help every January, when we civic-minded citizens are forced to watch the State of the Union speech. Personally, I am not attracted to her as many others are. My instincts are telling me that something important here is missing. But of course, I'm sure those of you on this thread most likely reject the 'validity' of instinctual information.

Works well with others: some say she does and some say she is a tyrant. I don't want anyone who is not skilled in this area or one who doesn't listen.

Sophisticated and nuanced understanding of foreign policy? Frighteningly deficient here, in my opinion.

Ideologue? It appears so. I don't believe an ideologue from any persuasion would be productive.

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 17, 2008

"It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make them look thoughtful and progressive…"

You forgot "nuanced" and "sophisticated."

Comment by Mountain Man | September 17, 2008

Smoke and Mirrors Part II, with a bit of unsophisticated nuance thrown in for good measure:

Why are we talking about the VP candidate on the Republican ticket instead of the Presidential candidate on the Democrat ticket?

"Some say" Obama is a socialist. Well, I guess all we need to do to form an opinion is say "some say". I don't want anyone who is a skilled socialist as president.

Whew! This real good thinking is real hard work!

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 17, 2008

"Some say" has now become the new standard by which I shall form all my opinions about Obama and the Left.

No need to identify who the "some" are — just acknowledge that someone, somewhere, said something, then tell people I don't want what "some say", and use that to justify your biases … er, impartial, truth-seeking opinions.

And to think I wasted all those years getting a Ph.D. in the unnecessary effort to actually know what I'm talking about before I form a judgment.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 17, 2008

An ideologue not productive?
Hum, you might be right.
Look no further than Jimmy Carter. Ah, bitter old can't shut up Jimmy.
Ideologue? You can say he was.
Productive? Well actually yes, he produced the angst that ushered in Regan years. Oh and the Camp David Accords, which kind of fell apart due to..hum..oh yeah..Islamic terrorists.
SO I guess if you don't want failed domestic and foreign policy you shouldn't vote for an Ideologue. No one wants a repeat of the Carter years. Oh, except maybe Obama, he seems to idealize the guy, and talks of policy that models Carters.

Comment by Notebartello | September 17, 2008

Bob Stapler,

Point of order question. On many sites a thread is dead after a day, yet here this thread seems to be alive after four days. Is this the norm here? Should I expect a response to be read after five days?

I am working now, and would like to give you a proper response to your challenging questions, but cannot respond before tomorrow.

I have several disagreements with your parsing of the Edge article. I think the author (who was clearly talking to liberals) was sincere in trying to 1) confirm and engage them by putting them at ease with a familiar formulaton of conservatives 2) challenge them by showing some contradictions in their worldview and share a journey with them 3) drive home a point that the conservative moral foundation is something they need, and need to reconcile to their 'whole'.

I am certainly not trying to say something about the conservative group here, but instead, to them about the communication divide that may be worth exploring.

No more time, hopefully more later.

Comment by jdwill07 | September 17, 2008

jdwill07: There's no set standard. When I write an article, I keep responding until no one wants to talk anymore. Other authors never respond at all to any comments made.

As for the comment sections, one of mine went on for about 300 entries over a couple of weeks. Again, it all depends on the mix of people involved.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 17, 2008

Two people with opposing ideologies can argue ad infinitum and the end result will most likely be the same two people with the same opposing ideologies.

Does a person embrace a particular ideology based on logic? Probably not. Each of us is a unique combination of influences and programming which is really what determines one's ideology.

Are those who are voting Republican in this campaign doing it because of ideology or because they believe another Republican administration offers real solutions? Does the Republican Party even represent the ideology of that voter? (or the Democratic?)

As a voter, what is the more important consideration? Ideology or practical reality? One example is the current meltdown in the financial industry. These unethical practices that have become the norm within our oldest and most esteemed financial institutions have been going on for a long time; a few people making lots of money while the rest of us watched our standard of living deteriorate and our options dwindle. (I started to smell a rat around 2000, and I am anything but knowledgeable in economics and finance). Now? Now these companies (several at least) will be rescued by the taxpayer, which is just another way of allowing profits to be privatized but losses, socialized. Is this because of the Republican agenda? I'd have to say yes (although the Democrats are complicit).

I do believe the incompetence of George W. Bush's administration and the subversive (my word) agenda of the Neo-Conservatives, along with the Corporate dominance has taken us to the cleaners.

My common sense tells me that if the Republicans have been dominant for all but 12 out of the last 40 years, including the last 8 (Democratic congress the last 2), is there any practical reason for putting them back into office? I don't think so.

Will the Democrats fix all the mess if elected? Impossible. No one could. Will they make a good stab at it? I hope so. I'm not about to vote for McCain for a lot of reasons and this is just one of them.

Comment by Suzanne Gentling | September 17, 2008

Some people say that “Two people with opposing ideologies can argue ad infinitum and the end result will most likely be the same two people with the same opposing ideologies.” But if one of those people admits their only source of information is friends and 10 year old websites, then they’re really not in a position to make any intelligent observations about ideologies.

Some people who say “does a person embrace a particular ideology based on logic? Probably not. Each of us is a unique combination of influences and programming which is really what determines one's ideology,” has absolutely no idea of those unique influences might be, other than to mouth platitudes and then decry the lack of logic in ideologies.

Some people ask “As a voter, what is the more important consideration? Ideology or practical reality?”, and then use the “current meltdown in the financial industry.” Some people would point to studies on this subject going as far back as Verba and Nie in the 1950s, but this would require educating oneself about the subject. Unfortunately, there are a lot of words in these studies, and some people are not "really not shopping" for any contrary views. So some people would ask once again what the hell this woman is talking about when she mouths platitudes without understanding the substance of the issue.

Some people talk about “unethical practices that have become the norm within our oldest and most esteemed financial institutions have been going on for a long time;”, but fail to note that al lot of the regulatory excesses are traced to the Clinton Administration.
Some people talk about “a few people making lots of money” (we call them entrepreneurs and risk takers), and some people talk about “the rest of us watched our standard of living deteriorate and our options dwindle”. Some people might question why someone would just sit back and allow their SOL to deteriorate instead of bettering themselves like the majority of the people did. Some people might “smell a rat around 2000” without understanding that Clinton was president in 2000, and Bush didn’t take office until 2001.

Some people say they are “anything but knowledgeable in economics and finance”, but that doesn’t stop them from smelling rats and making categorical statements about people making supposedly excessive profits and not understanding even the vaguest things about a market demand economy.

Some talk about the “incompetence of George W. Bush's administration and the subversive (my word) agenda of the Neo-Conservatives, along with the Corporate dominance has taken us to the cleaners,” without bothering to understand or define what a Neocon is, tossing out vague platitudes like “Corporate dominance” (this is a friggin capitalist system — what other institution is supposed to be “dominate?”), and then makes the absolutely incomprehensible analytical observation that “My common sense tells me that if the Republicans have been dominant for all but 12 out of the last 40 years, including the last 8 (Democratic congress the last 2)”.

What planet is this woman on? Is she talking about Democrat control of the House of Representatives houses of Congress for 55 of the last 75 years? Is she limiting her analysis only to both houses of Congress since 1995 (that’s 11 of the last 13 years?) Is she beginning her common sense historical Analysis with the Kennedy Administration that favored lower tax rates and lower capital gains taxes like present day Republicans? (And by the way controlled Congress from 1954-1995). Does she do anything more than string together random thoughts and pretend that she’s offering deeply felt fact based convictions?

Some people would think only a self-absorbed dilettante masquerading as a Ron Paul Obamacrat would use all of the above to arrive at the conclusion “I'm not about to vote for McCain for a lot of reasons and this is just one of them.”

Some people would say the person offering these positions is just ideologically-driven hack pretending to be a deeply thoughtful, caring observer of current events.

And some people would be right.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 17, 2008

Regarding post 59, Suzanne, just substitute the name Obama instead of Palin, and your statements still hold. He was in the US Senate for a mere 149 days before he started campaigning for president. We just don't know much about him, even after two years of him on the campaign trail.

Please note, HE is the one who is running for president, Palin is not. HE is the one who keeps his transcripts a secret, so we don't know how he did in college. HE is the one who chooses strange friends and mentors. HE is the one who says he will cut income taxes for 90% of us but doesn't tell us how this is possible when 35% of people already don't pay income taxes.

And, we have absolutely no way to determine if X or Y will make a good president. Talk about change is cheap. "Good" is a fluid term. Only after a president leaves office is it possible to make such a judgment.

You know, you have a way of completely ignoring specific points brought up, and you instead just meander on your merry way. There are nearly 80 comments on this thread, many of them directed at you. You have yet to address anything in any substantial way, but instead seem to pretend that these comments don't exist.

Have you graduated from high school yet?

Comment by Mountain Man | September 17, 2008

And now Sarah Palin's e-mail has been hacked.

What is the media's response? She had it coming:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5830813&page=1

She's getting hammered, as usual, this time for her e-mail practices. No condemnation on the attack or the invasion of privacy, which is something liberals complain about all the time. Nope, she had it coming. Had they actually found something of worth, that would be plastered all over the news, despite the source. I am getting sick of this garbage.

Comment by Anderson | September 18, 2008

JD Will,

I understand. I work also and can't always spend as much time as I'd like discussing politics. I do look forward to hearing why you think there is some substance to this guy Obama. I don't think he's quite as scary as some folks, but I am decidedly against his program; which is joke. I think he's just one more slightly corrupt politician, one to whom winning has become more important than substance, and one with a past he knows can hurt him and he's unwilling to divulge. He's also one who drank so much of the Kool-Aid, he is no longer accessible to reason.

I am not that crazy about McCain either, but at least I can tell who he is and predict the kind of policy he will follow. He has been hailed as a maverick, but this is hype and really means he too drinks the Kool-Aid (see http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72173). He believes in global-warming, continues to push amnesty despite the strong passions against it, co-authored McCain-Feingold, continues to vote against ANWR drilling, voted with the gun-control lobby, aquiesced in the Ginsberg confirmation and abetted in the blocking of Bush appointees. If this is the measure of a maverick, it is a strange measure. These are more the hallmarks of an appeaser. I plan to vote for McCain, but I'd have been a lot h