What Would Jesus Do?
Probably not call for the murder of a democratically elected leader!
posted by Stephen Medvic @ 4:39 PM
20 comments
On The Hustings
Hustings /hustingz/ n. A place where political campaign speeches are made; the activities involved in political campaigning. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
About Me
- Name: Stephen Medvic
- Location: Lancaster, PA
I'm an assistant professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College. My teaching and research areas include campaigns and elections, political parties, public opinion, the media and ideology.
Links
Previous Posts
- It's Been a While
- It's (Still) the Economy, Stupid
- London, Rove, etc.
- Felons and Terrorists: Democratic Constituencies?
- O'Connor's Retirement and the Dems' Response
- Charlie Cook on Safe Districts (and a Soc. Sec. Pr...
- APSR Study Gets NY Times Coverage
- 2008 Frontrunners
- In Response to Kevin Shaw
- Casey vs. Santorum
20 Comments:
A democratically elected communist ... that's the ultimate example of political pandering to the voters.
Vote for me, and the government will give you EVERYTHING!
Bush's tax cuts and defecit spending are the other side of the same coin: vote for me and you won't have to pay for ANYTHING.
Right. The average American works five months of the year to pay their taxes. Let's just elect a communist and give it all!
I missed you, man. :)
Well RR, since he's a Democraticly elected commie - we should whack him in the name of Jesus.
Reminds me of late night liberal talk show host Craig Killborne's spoof showing a large photo of President Bush ... under crosshairs with the caption "Snipers Wanted". I don't remember hearing any outrage from the left on that lapse of judgement.
Everyone gets to put their foot in their mouth sometimes ... even Christians. Kind of a "being human" thing.
Maybe you missed the point
1.) A religious blowhard with millions of devout brainwashed followers that controls a large portion of a political party
2.) A comedian blowhard that no one watches.
Wonder why the there was a difference in reactions from people?
So, the magnitude of public outrage should be proportionate to the rank of the leader, the amount of brain dead followers and the level of influence exerted to a major political party?
How about we exchange a Pat Robertson gaff with one of Jesse Jackson's beauties. Or Howard Dean. Better yet, Michael Moore.
It appears the barometer determining and reporting the level of public outrage is closely tied to the political agenda of the media outlet. And as is usual and traditional, the mainstream media is quite bias against conservative, Christian, and Republican Americans.
Or as you (Dale) so eloquently described the leader and group, "A religious blowhard with millions of devout brainwashed followers". Proving my point.
I am christian. I do not for a second follow Pat Robertson. He claims to be christian, but he is blasphemous.
Doesnt anyone have anything better to do than bitch about the "liberal media"; its non-existant. Its currently picturing white people "scavenging" in New Orleans while black folks loot. Its currently not covering how Bush took funding away from flood preparation and long term plans to solidify the response to strong hurricanes to fund his little war (which the LIBERAL media tripped over themselves to support). The LIBERAL media had no problem replaying the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads over and over ad nauseum. The LIBERAL media has no qualms about putting Roberts in the best possible light despite GLARING civil rights and privacy abuses. The LIBERAL media jumps at any chance to ignore Bush undermining social security. The LIBERAL media had no problem villifying Clinton for not keeping his pants zipped but have not reported for 3 decades the girlfriend of H.W. Bush who is well known to live in Alexandria, Virginia. The LIBERAL media was more than happy to replay and BLAME Clinton for the problem in Somolia despite the fact BUSH put the troops in there. The LIBERAL media is more than happy to repeat the conservative LIE that Reagan ended the Cold War. The LIBERAL media has yet to attempt to organize against any 1 Republican enfringement on our human rights, our right to privacy, our right to not be Christians if we dont want to be. The LIBERAL media insists on not covering the 10s of 1000s of dead iraqis, but dont miss a beat when a single American dies. As IF foreign lives are less important. The LIBERAL media is non-existant. The CONSERVATIVE media is an organized system of outlets consisting of FoxNews, Washington Times, Columbus Dispatch and other newspapers, talk radio and authors such as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and the like.
The REST of the mainstream media are pitiful little poodles humping the pantleg of any sensational story they can get their hands on. They dont care about whether its conservative or liberal - they dont give a damn. They want to shock and draw in viewership.
Today its the dead soldiers in Iraq, yesterday it was the broken zipper on Clinton's pants.
Funny thing is - all the far out lefties think the MSM is biased to the right, all the far out right wingers think the MSM is biased to the left. How can both sets of views be true at the same time? Is it possible both are invalid. Yes.
Nate, please wipe the foam off your chin … it is difficult, but not impossible to beat “rabid liberalism”. It will require a real desire to learn the truth, and an open-mind. But first, you need to become aware that the political information you have processed throughout your life has been tainted. Liberal media bias is real, is easily recognizable, but tough to recognize. Your brain will require complete re-programming.
Believe me, it’s worth it. Your miserable, grouchy, negative outlook on life will slowly improve. You will probably become clean-shaven and buy a gas-guzzling SUV. Finally, you will go door to door campaigning on behalf of Ann Coulter for President. A smile will return to your face, and you will only associate with happy people who also wish to enjoy their short life on planet earth. Let’s begin;
Freedom Forum sponsored poll (1992) Of the 1,400 members of the national media who were surveyed:
44% considered themselves Democrats
16% Republicans
34% Independents
89% voted for Clinton in 1992
7% voted for Bush in 1992
"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Source - Times Mirror Center for the people and the Press, May 1995
Nate, your assignment tonight is to visit and thoroughly read this website http://www.mrc.org/ . There is a lot of material to cover. Expect a quiz in the morning.
Student: Nate
Question # 1.
Which major media outlet is repeatedly blaming President Bush for the slow response to the hurricane Katrina natural disaster?
A. The New York Times
B. CNN
C. NBC
D. All of the above.
Question # 2.
Which of the following "special interest groups" is receiving broad major media coverage of their pronouncments that the alleged slow humanitarian response to the victims of Katrina is strictly due to the race of the victims?
A. DNC
B. Congressional Black Caucus
C. NAACP
D. All of the above
End of test #1. RR
Liberal media bias is real, is easily recognizable, but tough to recognize. Your brain will require complete re-programming.
Media bias is easily recognizable, but tough to recognize. Well, hardcore conservatives have never been noted for their logical consistency. Apparently eliminating your capacity for it is the first step of this so-called reprogramming.
The answer to #1 is:
"None of the above... FoxNews"
Oh, for the want of an "edit" feature on this blog.
Dale, this test is for Nate!
I know... I'm just helping him out. :)
As I await Nate's return, Dale ... what is your opinion of this? And yes, I already know that the Washington Times is an ultra-conservative right-wing rag owned by a mega-maniac religious freak. I am hoping you respond to the substance of the topic, and not the messenger.
Today's Washington Times editorial by John Leo:
"On Aug 6, as her 15 minutes of fame was just beginning, Cindy Sheehan used an odd term in an interview with Mark Knoller of CBS TV. She referred to Iraq's foreign insurgents and terrorists in Iraq as "freedom fighters." Mr Knoller cut those words out of his report, he told me, because he really wasn't interested.
He should have left them in. In fact, alarm bells should have rung...startling an antiwar mother would talk that way about people...who may have killed her own son. Second, "freedom fighters"...is the telltale lingo of the hard, anti-American left.
Mr Knoller recalls other reporters on the scene watched his interview that day in Texas, but apparently weren't any more interested...than he was. Apparently none bothered to report it. The freedom fighter remark reached the public only because an antiwar group...filmed the CBS interview...bloggers and conservatives commentators noticed and circulated it.
It's worth reviewing what she said:
(1) The neocons deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks of Sept 11
(2) American soldiers are being sent to kill innocent people in Iraq
(3) Her son...died for oil and was murdered by President Bush
(4) The president stole the election and is part of the Bush crime family, a lying bastard, a Fuehrer, a filth spewer, the biggest terrorist in the world, and an evil maniac guilty of blatant genocide.
The mainstream media's lack of interest in these verbal grenades is astonishing. According to a computer search, not one made it into news coverage by the N.Y. Times. The story line - moral mom vs. stone-hearted president didn't allow much room to note Sheehan's great contempt for America...also her vituperation of Bush for years...she campaigned against him in 2004, vigorously promoting his impeachment...declining to publish her outlandish verbal abuse, mainstream reporters protected the public...that Sheehan had simply thrown her lot with the extreme America-hating left."
rr
Well, first of all, let's say it plainly... the Times is owned by the Moonies.
As far as the substance goes, my take is that you have a loon writing about a loon. I don't have any great love for Sheehan; much of what she has to say is pretty silly, and she only distracts people from the more serious criticisms of the war and teh Bush administration. You should love her, as it gives the right the chance to say that everyone critical of the Iraq war is as whacky as she is. But I don't think Leo has anything especially incisive to say. Calling people who disagree about what is best for American "America-hating"? Why don't you tell him to wipe the froth off of HIS chin? Let's get past the name calling and talk substance.
At least one of us will get past the name calling and talk substance. Beyond the general descriptions of "loon", "silly", and "whacky".
The substance of Leo's article pertained directly (in part) to the calulated and documented decision of the mainstream media to OMIT background qualifiers and quotations from Cindy Sheehan. Even you qualified Leo's article; "Well, first of all, let's say it plainly... the Times is owned by the Moonies". That information is more than the ENTIRE mainstream media supplied about Sheenan's background and any possible personal agenda she had prior to losing a child.
The mainstream media created Sheenan to promote an anti-Bush agenda to the average American citizen. She was and continues to be a rabid anti-Bush liberal with an agenda much deeper than an upset Mom who lost a son. That is the substance of the article, and it was only reported accurately in the blogs and ultimately the Washington Times.
Dale, you received an F on your first essay ... lack of substance.
Frankly, I don't think that anything Leo says about Sheehan would cause the public to look at her that differently. I don't think that the average person assumed that she was president of her local George Bush fan club before her son was killed. In fact, if she had only become hostile to the war when her own son was killed, that would only make her opposition to the war seem a lot more shallow. Maybe if it were widely reported that she thinks that the neo-cons intenionally allowed 9/11 to happen, that would cause people to have some doubts about her judgment. But hey, she is no more wrong about that than Bsh was about WMDs. :)
Good luck & keep writing such awesome content.
Virgin Linseed Oil BP
flaxseed oil
Post a Comment
<< Home