Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Who are you going to vote for in the 2004 presidential election? Let's find out who would win on CC.

My vote is for Kerry

By Jer728 (Jer728) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit

Come on. We know it will be Kerry here.

By Copper45 (Copper45) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit

I know. It will be Kerry in the actual presidential election too. However, younger people tend to be lean toward the Democratic end (AP Gov) so it should be a terrible majority.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit

there are a couple of threads that have proved that

kerry

By Legendofmax (Legendofmax) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Ke-rryy!

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

are you blind to what we have been doing for the last month?

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 11:08 pm: Edit

If I would were old enough, I would vote for Michael Badnarik.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit

Jlq, I'm not blind to the past month nor the past 30 years, which is why I'm voting for Kerry. Bush is the worst president I've lived under, dislodging Nixon from that niche.

Kerry.

By Mtmomtok (Mtmomtok) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 12:41 am: Edit

Kerry

But Bush will win because Ralph Nader will run ruining it for Kerry. Ralph Nader is a republican spy. By running, Nader takes away very much needed democratic votes.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:47 am: Edit

Thedad -- Jlq3d3 is referring the past month on this forum ... there have been more than a couple threads concerning these subject.

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:51 am: Edit

I personally am going to vote Bush. I have done much research on the topics that are hotly discussed, and I have come to my own conclusions, not be forced fed by what the media tells us, which if you know much, it tells us what it needs to sell. There has been a lot of deception, i'll agree on both sides, but nevertheless, i believe that for what Bush has had to put up through his presidency, he has done well. And i believe through my research that the wars were justified. Actually, the Iraqi war should have occurred in Clinton's terms, if the UN had any real bite with its bark.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:16 am: Edit

I am still confused how the media is liberal? It does not make any sense yet it's continually used by conservatives. Anyone want to give me an explanation for why the major corporations which control the media would present a liberal bias?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:37 am: Edit

thedad, I was talking about the "who are you voting for", "bush", "pro-bush", "pro-kerry", "pro nader", and all the other politcal threads that were done just in these past few weeks.

mtmom, you dems can't complain about nader. Your beloved Bill Clinton would not of become President in 1992 if Perot didnt run. He got I about 15% of the vote, much more than Nader got or is going to get. And all the polls said the vast majority of perot voters would have voted for Bush if he had not run. Nader is not even similar to Kerry on many core issues (iraq war, no child left behind, patriot act, many environmental things, special interests..), so its not like he'll split the vote. Nader is actually a clear cut choice, not some political flipflopper.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 03:04 am: Edit

I'm not trying to start a controversey b/c I actually do agree with some of your sentiments concerning Kerry. Nevertheless, I think you should look at some of things Rice said while at Stanford and compare those to the administration's actions -- you'll see some dramatic flip-flopping as well. Also, it is difficult to pin down motive -- people should be understandably concerned over a political one, but people do change their minds. I know I have several times over the past five years concerning political issues. I hope it is the latter b/c I actually see that as a good thing -- ideological flexibility has been the real problem with the Bush administration not the conspiracist argument of lying, blood for oil, etc.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 03:21 am: Edit

Sorry: I meant the lack of ideological flexibility has been the problem.
Example of Rice's changes: She said that sometimes it's better for US to use quiet power + was critical of Kosovo intervention. We can argue over the merits but this administration certainly has not been using "quiet power" or been wary over intervention. There are more but I cannot seem to find the source ... sorry.

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 03:23 am: Edit

i was just mentioning how the media tends to downplay somethings that would help conservatives. The media from what i have seen is out there to make money, just like any other company, and since blood, and torment and suffering tend to catch people's eyes, they tend to be what is on that big front page article, which makes many people mispercieve that there is more danger than there really is.

Another reason why the media might be seen as taking a more liberal stance is the issue of freedom of the press. The media would like to get a hold of every thing, and if somethin is withheld for security reasons, a big stink is sometimes made. Also, though big corporations may own stations, is it not true that the way that the information gets across is dependant on who gets it across. If someone who is opposed to an issue is assigned it, wouldn't they either put a spin on it or not give much effort to the project. I may be wrong on this, but even though the big companies own the stations, aren't the celebrities and famous faces who give the news to the masses the ones who have control over how it comes across? Who knows. I may be wrong on what i think, but time will tell.

sorry if i rambled or didn't answer you question well.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 03:42 am: Edit

Yes, but conservatives in power help them make money also. As corporations, they would like to see conservatives in power given the tax benefits. Whether it is good or bad is up to debate, but the money argument doesn't really fly because of it.

Also the media has not been playing the most sensational aspects of the war -- these images would've "sold" more than the one's used (I'm not necessarily talking about wounds, etc. but more along the line of showing the caskets -- something tasteful). I honestly believe this is not critical of the media but shows that it isn't liberal at the minimum.

I've used this example before and I think it illustrates that the media is not liberal at least in this aspect. A few months ago, Nightline produced a piece that read the names of the soldiers who had died in the war in Iraq. It had no political connotations -- it was just a memorial. The ABC affiliate in Baltimore decided not to air it -- coincidentally the same people happened to donate a large amount to Bush's campaign. I see this as a sign that the media is not liberal.

Also a tidbit of info that I just thought of (not really important): the majority of classified material really shouldn't be -- it is only classified b/c it's easier to classify it paperwork wise than making it unclassified.

Also I don't consider trying to get information from the government as conservative or liberal.

Furthermore, I don't believe that the media outlets in charge just let the lower people run with whatever they want. I may be wrong, but I just don't believe it.

I really don't see your answer as substantial enough to perpetuate this opinion. This is not to say that it is a myth -- I just have yet to be convinced.

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 05:39 am: Edit

I remember that nightline memorial, but to me it did seem to have the undertone of trying to show people that many people have lost their lives, with the unmentioned part of (for an unjustified and pointless war). That was just me, but everyone sees things based on their own experiences.

I didn't say anywhere that the lower people in the media outlets are let loose to run with whatever they want. I tried to emphasize that it is all in the delivery of an issue that is the important part. The upper echelons of the media don't want to get rid of their "star" attractions, namely the big name celebrities and anchors, becuase then they would loose viewers and as a result money. As these stars get more famous they can do more with what they are given with less repercussion and since they are the ones who we see the most, the view of issues seems to sway towards their view.

When i said classified i didn't mean pure classified information. i meant secret, top secret, and even more classified information from which many security warnings and basis for action are made.

I guess it also depends on where you live. For the past 4 years i've been in DC, and have consistently seen issues being spun. However, i've been all over the US, due to family moves. I'll admit, being in a military family probably makes me more consevative than many, but i've noticed that many a news agency tends to spin things anti-republican.

By Seleucus26 (Seleucus26) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 07:04 am: Edit

kerry

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 08:02 am: Edit

Bush all the way.

By F3arxn03vil (F3arxn03vil) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 08:06 am: Edit

I don't like Kerry at all, but I don't think Bush has earned the right to a second term (I'm not completely against him, but he just doesn't deserve it). Now that Edwards is Kerry's running mate, that ticket is almost def. getting my vote.

By Elleneast (Elleneast) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 08:07 am: Edit

Kerry gets my vote.

I am with Thedad in viewing Bush as the worst President elected (??) during my lifetime.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:17 pm: Edit

I think it is a gross exaggeration for someone to say Bush is the worst President. I mean, the economy is not bad and is doing well, he is doing a good job in preventing more terrorism and weaking al quaida and its shelters, and has removed an evil genocidal tyrant who has and would again attack us, our allies, neigbors, and hundred's of thousands of his own people. I think Bush actually gave some credibility to the toothless UN, who for 10 years ineffectivly passed resolutions that Saddam laughed at and disregarded, knowing the cowardice and selfish interests of many UN countries. Bush showed that the civilized world means business and won't let evil grow in a world that could care less until that evil has directly hurt them, and by that time they would be powerless(france in ww2 is a lesson many liberals forget to easily).

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit

I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that Nightline just read names. I don't know how that could be construed as partisan.

I think I have legitimate complaint with the media -- they really haven't allowed the American people to pay tribute to these young men who have died in our name. Pat Tillman is really the only one who received an adequate tribute. I just keep thinking of all that was done for Reagan and compare it to some young kid who gets his name and maybe a picture on the local news. I don't care what that says in terms of partisanship -- it just isn't right.

Time will tell with Bush, but we're free to judge him now.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:56 pm: Edit

I like the way that libertarian Jacob Levy describes the election

This time, it seems very clear to me that the Bush Administration has failed basic tests of competence in policymaking and execution, and of trusteeship of long-term interests like alliances and trade negotiations and moral credibility. I expect to dislike an awful lot of John Kerry's policies. But I don't expect that kind of failure of the basic responsibilities of the office. Four or eight or twelve years ago, I guess I wouldn't have known how important I found those considerations, as I hadn't seen a president who had failed along those dimensions. Now I have, and I do.

Kerry/Edwards will restore integrity, decency, and competence to the White House.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit

I will never vote socialist.

I will never vote theocrat.

I will not vote this November.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 05:26 pm: Edit

I don't feel like voting either :/

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Kerry/Edwards will restore integrity, decency, and competence to the White House.

You will have to go back a lot more than 4 years for that.

Integrity, decency, and competence when attached to Democratic Party form three of the most blatant oxymorons.

By Simba (Simba) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 08:19 pm: Edit

I wonder who gave us Watergate, Iran-Contra Gate and Enron.

I wonder who are the bible thumping ayatollahs, gamblers who preach virtues, junkies and sexual perverts who want to be senator.

I wonder who are the chickenhawks who never fought for the country, but still manage to question someone's heroic behavior.

I wonder who are those who are raping our environment as well as the treasury. I wonder which company considers US treasury as their own piggy bank

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 08:48 pm: Edit

Kerry /Edwards!

And for those of you who actually believe there is a liberal media bias, here is an article worth reading but written by a left leaning writer/pundit. journalist.http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2

I can't wait for the debates. Bring it on GW-Worst president EVER!

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 08:59 pm: Edit

And for those of you who are considering not voting, read this from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Editorial: Patriotism/It requires thought, and action
July 4, 2004 ED0704

A flagpole 150 feet tall -- so massive it requires three struts larger than most ordinary flagpoles to support it -- has gone up in recent weeks out front of a Wal-Mart/Home Depot complex in Avon, Colo., down the Eagle River a piece from Vail. The flag it flies is equally enormous -- and it has caused a real ruckus among residents of the Vail Valley.
Opponents labeled the oversized flagpole an eyesore and demanded it be torn down. Proponents accused the opponents of being unpatriotic, un-American and a few other, unprintable things. Inadvertently, the sides in this dispute have put their finger on an important issue: the meaning of patriotism in the era of open-ended war against nonstate terrorists.
The Avon flag is emblematic of an unfortunate American phenomenon that predates the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but has accelerated since. It's best described as patriotism inflation: Many Americans seem out to prove, as if it were provable, that they are more patriotic than the next Jane or Joe. The bigger your flag, the more ribbons that festoon your vehicle, the more unswerving and unquestioning your devotion to policies promulgated by Washington, the more patriotic you are. Questioning voices, nuanced stands and outright opposition to the war in Iraq leave you in danger of being branded an evil, ungrateful and un-American wretch.
Take, for example, the ubiquitous yellow ribbons adorning pickups throughout much of the West. "Support our troops," they say. Well, yes, but everyone supports "our troops." Americans learned the hard way in Vietnam to separate their criticism of military policies from their view of those sent to carry them out.
But some Americans seem to have missed the most valuable Vietnam lesson of all: The single most important thing you owe the troops serving abroad in your name is your absolute best effort to ensure they are being deployed in a just and necessary cause, that their lives and their futures aren't being squandered in unnecessary battle. That requires a challenging, skeptical approach to anyone who proposes a deployment such as the United States undertook in Iraq.
On Wednesday night CBS aired an updated, searingly painful report, first broadcast last fall, on some of the wounded who have returned from Iraq. One young man, Specialist Jose Martinez, suffered severe burns to his face; it's a mass of scar tissue. He is an incredibly brave man, just 21 years old. He went into the hell of war on behalf of all Americans.
Martinez returned disfigured; more than 850 Americans so far have returned in boxes, to be buried by their families. Like Martinez, more than 5,400 have come home with physical wounds to be healed. Many also suffer wounds to the psyche whose healing will require years of work and struggle.
In the face of this sacrifice, what's a patriotic American to do? Certainly don't sit on your hands and keep your mouth shut; that is the antithesis of patriotism. And don't just wave the big flag and mouth loud, uneducated nostrums about supporting the troops -- or uneducated indictments of the Bush administration.
Democracy is a contact sport. It requires contact with books and newspapers and ideas. It requires work. It requires strenuous exercise of the mind. It requires a deliberate setting aside of that brand of cynicism, especially popular among the young, which holds that all politics, and all politicians, are corrupt lookalikes. The cynics' attitude is: Don't bother us; let us live our self-absorbed lives insulated from the public life of this nation.
That's pathetic. Those who think this way are willing to eat the delicious fruits of American democracy, but they reject the hard, ongoing work of cultivating those fruits.
Demonstrating your patriotism isn't about big flags and snazzy decals, although those do make a statement. Patriotism in a democracy is about being involved in your community and your nation. Patriotism is about being useful to your fellow citizens. Patriotism is about paying attention to the public life of this society, and developing informed, well-reasoned opinions, freely shared, about the direction that life should take. And it is about voting; a real patriot never ignores the ballot.
All that and no less is what Americans owe Jose Martinez -- and every other young man and woman who wears the uniform of the United States military.

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Nice stories and sites...unfortunately you can fine a ton that argue the opposite ways with a search on google.

And i agree on the voting thing, and even if you wholeheartedly despise bush, you've at least got to concede that he has helped to bring more voters into this next election because of all the controversy, allowing our nation to start to revitalize and get out of that apathy that we have had for soo many years.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

I am leaving for the Navy next week. I have nothing against Kerry but I don't have confidence he will do as he says and his leadership skills. I didn't not want Bush to win in the beginning. As a civilian I don't favor him either. Yet I believe he is a better leader and I would feel vulnerable if he left.
I can vote but I'd rather let the other citizens decide the outcome.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 10:37 pm: Edit

I would like to ask a simple question -- how is Bush a good leader? This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know what some of you see that others of us don't.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit

I meant leadership skills. He's not wishy washy about anything. He says something, he goes for it. Doesn't mean I support everything he does.

By Drake (Drake) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:12 pm: Edit

BUSH!!!
my god ...BUSH!!

By Zhalefarin (Zhalefarin) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:15 pm: Edit

I VOTE FOR BUSH/CHENEY UNTIL 2008

By Insanity (Insanity) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Bush

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Hmm, I'd like a more specific explanation.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit

I look at it this way:
Bush and Kerry are basicly the same policy on Iraq and the War on Terror. Difference, Bush is solid and consistent. in his opinions, not changing his views for political reasons so often. For example, kerry opposed the 1st iraqi war which was mandated by the UN, and now opposes this war because it wasnt mandated by the UN. Very hypocritical.

Economywise, they are different. Kerry for higher taxes, Bush for tax cuts. Economy has responded well to Bushes tax cuts in almost every catagory, and the tragectory is upwards now.

By Dadx (Dadx) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Bush

I expect that he will shortly be, in the eyes of some, the worst President elected twice in their lifetime.

The media is so overwhelmingly liberal that the country actually already believes that Kerry will probably win, including those intending to vote Republican. There is a chance that this will work counterintuitively.

John Kerry's "heroic behavior" deserves to be questioned ......if it is characterized that way. Its not his "service" that is being questioned. Its that he must rank in the 99.9th+%tile on the scale of most-purple-hearts-received in the least time,(and for the most questionable wounds) which was the ticket back home.

In any case, here is a link that condemns both parties on Iraq. Perhaps it will be good food for thought for those who haven't seen it.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=110005090

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:53 pm: Edit

And the liberal media pops up again. Still no one has given me a adequate reason for why the media is so liberal. I am baffled.

Why doesn't everyone just leave Vietnam alone?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

Well for starters, the major news papers besides the wsj, have been analyzed for bias. One clear obvious example is the overwheling % of times a liberal editorial is written as opposed to a conservative one. Another obvious one is the larger % of liberal letters they publish. Another is the % of times and legnth a liberal source is quoted or cites. These are all easily understood things. Some less clear thins is what the news paper focuses on. For example, many say that they focus more on the bad in Iraq as opposed to the good.
The most famous original liberal reporter, Walter Cronkite, even admitted this: “I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier sides of our cities---the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated." I dont agree with his reasoning (police are conservative overall and they see more vice than reporters,) but his point is correct.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:29 am: Edit

I think the bad in Iraq has really not been focused on in my opinion. Look at all the coverage the capture of Hussein got -- the reconstruction of the spider hoel, etc., etc. I would like to see the lack of coverage of the deaths again. I do agree this is harder to map, but I think it is more important because it is much subtler and therefore more likely to have an influence.

In response to the other part, I would have to say that the overwhelmingly majority of letters received reflect a liberal attitude. I admit this is conjecture. Off the top of my head though the papers themselves are not dramatically lopsided and I would like to see those percentages (not b/c I distrust you but b/c I would like to know the exact numbers).

You still didn't answer my question -- why is the media liberal? I can give a reason for why they wouldn't be, but no one has really answered why they "are"?

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:55 am: Edit

Craig,

I believe that someone did give you an answer to why they "are" liberal. Jlq gave you a few reasons. I don't know what kind of facts you are looking for, but it's probably not facts that the common man has. My government teacher, who is in fact a liberal, told us that the media is liberal and so have many other people. I believe it is just common perception--whether right or wrong.

I do tend to see the media as liberal also. Even on a small scale, at my school newspaper I was one of the only republicans on the editorial board. That made for some hour long meetings on figuring out editorials we all agreed on, and we even had to resort to taking my name out of the editorial box a few times. My hometown newspaper, the Arizona Republic, has become more and more liberal in the past six years since I have been here. The editorials it writes, and the columns it publishes demonstrate that. Newspapers tend to focus on problems such as poverty, the environment, polution, war, and so on in the negative.

I'm sure you can tell me instances of why the media isnt liberal. But obviously each newspaper, each telivision station, ect. is different. there is a reason Fox 10 is considered "conservative," because everything else more liberal!

I don't think you will be convinced no matter what argument people give you.

Going back to the original question:

I vote Bush! Not because I think he is the best president ever, but because i believe voting for someone just cause they are "not bush" is a terrible reason to vote for that person. We know bush, we know his policies, what he stands for, ect.

I actually researched kerry and edwards for a government project and I frankly dont know what either of them stand for. All i know about edwards after reading tons of articles is that there are "two americas." Frankly in his world i probably live in the "good america" and i'm sorry my mom already loses about 40% of her income to taxes, and I dont want her to lose anymore! I need to go to college here people...
Kerry has changed his ideas so much i dont know what to believe. He also is one of the most liberal senetors out there. Had a more moderate liberal run I might have voted for them, but when kerry won the primaries (which was ridiculous cause he won like eight states and the media already proclaimed him the winner) I knew i would be voting republician. Most people do not know Kerry, or his voting record. He voted for Iraq yet critisizes bush. he voted for it but didnt want to fund it. hmmm.

I think Bush has done a good job in office considering what he has gone through. The downfall in the economy was not his fault. One president does not chance the economy in a few months, it takes years. Its all an economic cycle. And he got us through september 11 (can you imagine kerry comforting us through that?). It's easy to look back now and see faults and things he could have done differently, as Kerry is doing, but who knows what any of us would have done in his place? His presidency has gone through so many trials that i think he deserves another four years.

However, while i was in the gym running and heard the news that Kerry selected Edwards I went "oh crap he's going to win now." That was my first instict so we shall see what happens!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:09 am: Edit

Umm, did you read the same post. He gave me proof as to the media's liberal tendencies and the quote. The quote gave a reason why but he disagreed with it in its specifics. So how does that tell me why. It really does not answer the question from Jlq3d3's perspective.

As to your comment that I am unable to change my mind, I have to state that I don't think you understand what I'm asking: I am asking what is the motive of the media to be liberal. I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but you must surely agree that Jlq3d3's post did not answer it from his perspective although he offered another. Motive wise I have a hard time believing that the media is liberal, but I may be wrong.

Also, I am a pretty flexible person who has "flip-flopped" on a variety of issues over the past year so I think you should know more about me before you state that I will not change my mind.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:12 am: Edit

Also I think it is human nature to focus on the negative -- we all do it including the media. I don't see this as a political affiliation as Clinton's scandal certainly got more attention than any good (or perceived good depending on your opinion) he did as a president.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:13 am: Edit

This is another simple question I have for Bush supporters -- there is nothing mean spirited in these questions by the way as I am just trying to get a better grasp on your perspective.

What did Bush do which led us through 9/11?

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:27 am: Edit

He gave you lots of specifics prior to the quote and then said he disagreed with the reasoning of the quote not the specifics. That he doesnt understand what Cronkite is saying (ironically a walter cronkite column inspired me to write my own column...just thought id throw that in there) as police see the same things as reporters yet are conservative. I think he threw in the quote for more data, but believes in to be correct even if cannot completely understand the reasoning.

I said i didnt think you would change your mind, because frankly most people wont. I believe the media is liberal and you can give me fact after fact about what its not and i can give you fact about why it is and its pointless cause it doesnt change anything. i also said it because after a post that i thought clearly demonstrated how the media is liberal, you still asked for more details.

And I don't know if i can be classified as a Bush supporter. Instead, i am "anti-kerry." hah. sorry just had to throw that in because so many people are "anti-bush" yet not really pro-kerry but hardly anyone seems to say they are just purely anti-kerry and will do anything to keep him out.

I remember watching the speech Bush gave the day after 9-11 (obviously 9-12) and saying outloud "wow that was a good speech" in chemistry class. we all agreed. or at least we agreed that his speech writers gave him a good speech to say. I believe that presence does have a lot to do with being president, and frankly i dont look at john kerry and "see" a president. To me, he just seems weak. As someone who cant take a stand and stick with it. as the quote goes "those who dont stand for something, fall for anything." Plain and simple i think Bush just united the country through his unabashed Christian ideals. That we are one nation under God. that we wont let this seperate us, and that united we stand. Because he was republican he could get away with it.

I hate these types of discussions actually. i believe there are people who know a lot more than me and can articulate it better than me. Perhapes when it's not so late at night they will!

By T2opine (T2opine) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:27 am: Edit

Bush

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:38 am: Edit

You still have not answered the question:
What is the media's motive to be liberal?

I am not asking if the media is liberal. That's not the question. I am once again sorry if you are not getting what I am asking.

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:42 am: Edit

There isn't one.

There doesn't have to be a motive to make it true.

I dont think the media head people all get together and decide to be liberal, I just think in general they are. The stories on how bad the president is doing gets more airplay than a good story on Iraq. You even said people love to focus on the negative. Therefore, they love to watch/read the negative. people would rather complain than praise. So the media reports stories that show how bad we are doing in iraq and how much polution in hurting us, and how the polls show our president is doing porely.

I dont think they neccessarily have a motive to be liberal, i just believe that is happens based off of the reporters who write the stories. Every story has a bias depending on the writer/editor. Maybe most writers/editors are liberal? Who knows.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:51 am: Edit

Ok, thank you for finally answering the question. I do think there is an underlying reason why the media as a whole would swing one way so much (since after all it is a business) but we can disagree.

Also, your point on complaining v. praising shows that it would not necessarily be liberal/conservative b/c the negative side would come out no matter who was making the decisions.

Once again, I'm sorry if you misunderstood my questions.

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 03:35 am: Edit

I guessed i didn't get your question either, tho i tried to clarify. On the point about the complaining and praising, sure it would seem that it would be both liberal and conservative no matter who made the decisions, but when someone of a liberal mindset takes on an issue, they can stretch it to fit what they want.
Liberals tend to emphaisize the human emotional suffering by pulling on our national pride more. For example, in the Iraqi war many a good soldier died fighting to take over. The American papers kept emphasizing the American casualty in Iraq. A piece of irony that was interesting was that in DC in May i believe it was the homicides for the past 2 years reached the number of Iraqi casualties. Also, the media didn't point out the fact of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died at the hands of Saddam's men. An example is that he had some men go through villages to intimidate the people by (for purposes of the cafe rules I'll just say) taking advantage of the women forcibly and killing many men and children. Liberals seemed opposed despite this grusome number.

Mr. Moore is another example of that. I saw his documentary on Flint and much of bowling for columbine, but don't plan to see F 911 because i have a good taste on what he will show. When goes about especially in the Flint one, he shows the very worst of Flint, and emphasizes them by going back to the same places several times throughout the movie. Throughout the movie he was arguing that outsourcing was an evil that we should undo(not arguing either way) but the way he put it was very biased.

From what i have seen, though conservatives do complain as well, it is done in a much quieter tone.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:24 am: Edit

No one is taxed 40%.

Here's one big difference between Kerry and Bush. Kerry would never have gone to war in Iraq on such flimsy intelligence.

And don't confuse not changing your mind with being strong and steadfast. It is also a sign of stubborness and lack of intelligence.

It's great to know advertising works so well- many of you buy into the idea that Kerry is a flipflopper and you know nothing about him. Rush and Faux news are doing a good job.

And Dadx, you're really stretching it when you have to attack a soldier for too many purple hearts in too little time- at least he was there! Find another criticism-you look as weak as Cheney swearing at Lehey.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit

And for those of you who won't bother to read the link about the so-called liberal media. Here are some quotes from very conservative Repubs:

Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in Republican history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that," the aspiring American ayatollah cheerfully confessed during the 1996 campaign. And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Nevertheless, Kristol apparently feels no compunction about exploiting and reinforcing the ignorant prejudices of his own constituency. In a 2001 pitch to conservative potential subscribers to his Rupert Murdoch-funded magazine, Kristol complained, "The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias.... There's too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes." (It's a wonder he left out "Too much hypocrisy.")

By Mattman (Mattman) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:41 am: Edit

Kerry-Edwards, without a doubt!

Bush is arguably the most hated president of all time. If the election were international it'd be along the lines of 96% against.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

I'm a little tired of hearing about the so called coverage on the deaths in Iraq. Don't these brave people need more coverage? They get their names in the paper and maybe a picture -- don't you think we owe them more? Also, there isn't as much coverage on what Hussein did b/c they aren't our casualties. I just don't think the media has actually paid tribute to our dead soldiers.

Also, ignore Moore's film. It is in a class of its own.

How our conservatives "quieter"? Do you remember Clinton's presidency?

To end it, I will have to say that I just don't see the liberal media conspiracy. I think it is as farfetched as what you conservatives argue against in Farenheit 9/11. You cannot take both ways.

By Conker (Conker) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Yes, of course there's a liberal bias in the media. Because everyone knows that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough (on the "liberal" NBC, no less), G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter, and Robert Novak are all diehard liberals.

OK, seriously, let's see who's representing the liberal side: Michael Moore and the mindless faint-hearted Alan Colmes.

By Dadx (Dadx) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Lizschup

I don't "have to attack" anyone. My reponse was to a post above,(Simbas)complaining about questions regarding Kerrys heroic behavior. Kerry's enlistment is commendable or even admirable. As far as I can see from whats been reported, his service falls a step or two short of heroic.

You do have a point in "At least he was there". If his supporters leave it at that, he wins that part of the contest. If one attempts to elevate it to heroism, it will become a negative...simply because it wasn't. I predict people will care as much about that this time as they did when Bill Clinton ran against both Bob Dole and George Bush. They found it interesting, but hardly compelling.

You are incorrect that no one pays 40% in taxes. Both overall and at the margin. It would be correct to say that few people pay those rates, though.

Kerry's prescriptions about what to do in Iraq published in the papers today indicate to me that its going to be an uphill fight for him. He's as clueless as the next guy about what ought to be done. LITERALLY his only concrete suggestion was to make sure some of the European non combatant allies? could get their share of rebuiding expenditures. He will have to come up with a better prescription than just throwing up his hands gesturing to the right and saying "Can you believe these guys?" The last candidate from Massachussets took that tack and was unsuccessful.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit

lol, everyone who you listed conker are opinion givers. Liberal media refers to news sources that are supposed to be objective, like the news and newspapers.

"Kerry would never have gone to war in Iraq on such flimsy intelligence."
He did. He voted to go to war "on such flimsy intellegence"

By Conker (Conker) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit

"lol, everyone who you listed conker are opinion givers. Liberal media refers to news sources that are supposed to be objective, like the news and newspapers."

Who cares? The fact is that these same channels that are supposedly objective are also playing host to conservative commentators and few, if any, liberal ones.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit

They are not presenting themselves as objective when they put on a commentator, whose job is to give his own opinion. The problem is when they are giving the news, and supposed to be objective, but then give a liberal slant.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I understand what you are saying Jlq3d3, but I just don't believe there is a liberal slant to what is supposed to be objective news.

What you just argued also means that your statistics before are moot and do not prove that the media is liberal b/c the editorials, etc. are commentaries thus are not of any concern. You cannot have it both ways.

By Mattman (Mattman) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 05:47 pm: Edit

A liberal media is the great lie of our times perpetrated by conservatives who are angry at their own failings. Do a Nexis Lexus search for negative articles on Bush or Gore from the top news sources and you'll see they picked much more on Gore, the liberal, than right-wing Bush.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Could it be that picking on Gore was entirely justifiable and easy. Take away that he was the inspiration for the original Love Story, that he invented the Internet, and saved us from global warming, there is indeed very little but Ozone left!

Oops, I forgot that he taught acting to Tommy Lee Jones at Harvard.

By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Xiggi:

For the record Gore NEVER claimed to be the inventor of internet. The conservatives latched on to one of the comments he made and twisted it and twisted it till it bacame the 'truth'. That is the staple of 24 hr of conservative opinion makers. They get their marching orders and shout the hell out.

You are very good at in-net searches. Find the original quote and see if resembles the 'truth' according to the media pundits.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:42 pm: Edit

craig, I have a reasoning for why the media is liberal, it even goes back to the muckrakers of 100 years ago who were mostly liberals. It all comes down to ratings.

What would be more likly emphasised on the news? A group of workers who are on strike because they want higher benefits, or a group of consumers who have to pay more for goods because of the high cost of labor?
Another: A family who is forced to live on the streets because of high rent, or the apartment that was renovated and a neigborhood that went down in crime, which were the reasons for the higher rents?

It is pretty well known that the bad is emphasised and that the news strives to make sensationalist stories featuring the poor and down. These stories arnt always a liberal-conservative thing, but the 2 examples I gave are some where the topics are liberal/conservative andw where the media will emphasise the liberal viewpoint. Cronkite, the father of modern liberal journalists, sort of is in line with my reasoning. In general, the liberals like to justly or unjustly label people as victims. Victims, truly or not, are more interesting and garner higher ratings than success stories.

I havnt looked at this site yet, but it analyzes the media for bias, so you can look at it. I dont know if it gives a motive though.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Dadx, Well I attempted to read your link but I could not read any further once he brought up the 9/11 connection to the war in Iraq.

" The year-and-a-half delay between action in Afghanistan and Iraq mobilized the Arabs and the international left, weakened the connection with September 11, and prompted allies who would have been with us to fall away."

Those arguments are just silly and are not worth discussing. It's like arguing the world is flat. There is no connection to 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Kerry may have voted for the war but most of congress was seriously misled. I don't think we would be in this war if Gore had been president. I also believe having a new face in the presidency will go a long way towards building good will and a coalition-something Bush squandered because of his macho arrogant "bring it on" attitude. The mess in Iraq is Bush/Cheney and no one else!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:52 pm: Edit

Interesting, I will look at that.

I do disagree that not all liberals like to label people as victims, but I get your drift.

Another comment is that there are success stories are every side of the political spectrum. So not focusing on these shows a lack of political tilt -- my example would be the focus on Clinton's personal life instead some of the good or perceived good he did as president.

My question from your response is why not more coverage on casualties in the Iraq war. That is as sensational as it gets yet I personally don't see that much.

It could be that the media is slightly liberal (I think it is up for debate and I just don't know enough right now), but I cannot accept the whole conservative conspiracy theory.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 07:02 pm: Edit

I dont think it is a conspiracy theory. I think thats just how it is.

The casualties in Iraq do get a lot of coverage. I mean, it is a war, and there are casualties to be expected, espessially when fighting against terrorists who use guerilla tactics. But still, every day on the news I see reports of casualties and bombings and pictures of soldiers who were killed.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 07:05 pm: Edit

Looking at the site, it appears that it has a bias of its own. I don't think I would necessarily trust its interpretation of the media as a whole. This is not to say that the media is not liberally biased, but I don't think this site is really the best source. It's really too bad how partisan this country has become.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Bob Somersby writes on the So Called Liberal Media on a daily basis.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

As to the Media Research Center, here's a link to their funding. Radical right wing with Scaife money.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?203

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Thanks, there did seem to be an alternative motive behind that site.

By Calvinhobbesmph (Calvinhobbesmph) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 07:40 pm: Edit

bush, kerry is fickle and unpredictable, its a shame a better person couldnt of been found...

sorry if someone else already said this, but didnt want to read through all the pro-kerry anti-bush banter

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 08:01 pm: Edit

Political Outlook of a survery of about 300 journalists from the major newspapers and network stations. The first colum refers to those surveyed, the second is the general population.
--------------------------------------------

Self-described liberal 65% 27%
Self-described moderate 18 41
Self-described conservative 17 32


Craig, that is not motive, but it is the situation.

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Since this is a site for college information, why don't we check out, "A Measure of Media Bias" by Tim Groseclose of UCLA's Department of Political Science and Stanford's Graduate School of Business and Jeff Milyo of University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy to see a report on media bias.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

From reading this report, it does appear that there is indeed a Liberal leaning of most media outlets. Though, as in any reports, the studies can be offput by any number of variables, this one seems to have a good methodology.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 08:30 pm: Edit

I'm not trying to harp on this but I'm curious. Why are there more liberals in the media? What is the motivation behind media corporations to hire/keep a liberal majority?

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 08:53 pm: Edit

This is just conjecture, but maybe liberals in general tend to take english and writing course more seriously, whereas conservatives tend to take business and engineering routes. I could be completely offbase, but based on my high school, that was the general make up.

If this is indeed so, it could give light to your point. Why are there more liberals in the media? Because the majority of the best writers and pundits tend to be liberal. What is the motivation of media corporations? Well they want the best bang for their buck and by picking up the best journalists their papers sell more copies, bringing in more profits.

It makes sense but as i said, i could be wrong.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Xiggi:

For the record Gore NEVER claimed to be the inventor of internet. The conservatives latched on to one of the comments he made and twisted it and twisted it till it bacame the 'truth'. That is the staple of 24 hr of conservative opinion makers. They get their marching orders and shout the hell out.

You are very good at in-net searches. Find the original quote and see if resembles the 'truth' according to the media pundits.

Simba~

Do you need the audio link as well? So you can hear with your own ears.

In the meantime, here is the link to the Transcript of Al Gore's CNN interview of March 9, 1999

The only thing twisted about the story is what came out of Gore's mouth. His other "initiatives" on education and environmental protection are absolutely rididulous. Did Al Gore do anything for the environment during his "reign" when he could and SHOULD have? I guess he could not find a ghost writer to come up with a novel thought.

---

Quote:

BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.

Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

---

By Waffle (Waffle) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit

About media bias, WHO ••••••• CARES? It's all biassed one way or the other, so there.

Kerry

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Craig,

In order to become a powerful reporter in a high paying job you need a college education right?

College graduates tend to be liberal.

So maybe its not the newspaper have a motive in doing so, its just that the percentage of liberal applicants vs. the percentage conservative applicants is more favorable to the liberal.

Also, I dont remember if this is true or not. Aren't people who live in cities more likely to be liberal? So if most big newspapers are in big cities than the reporters who come out of the cities to write are more likely to be liberal.

Finally, lots of reporters when they are first hired are new and young and the young tend to be liberal.

You apparently think you have some idea why the newspaper business doesnt slant liberally but actually slants conservatively. Care to share your opinion with us?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:16 pm: Edit

"What is the motivation behind media corporations to hire/keep a liberal majority?"
It is about ratings as I said before. Sensational stories get higher ratings, and they usually have a liberal emphaisis. You seemed like you ignored my point.

By Dadx (Dadx) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Xiggi

Al did a lot for the environement. He collected about a $20,000 annual royalty from Occidental Petroleum's coal operations on a property he owned flipped from Occi to his father to him. In todays dollars around 160,000 per year.

His reflection on his days in the coal business inspired him to lead the fight on global warming, and later to take the intitiative on the internet.

After rereading Als bumbling about initiating the initiative, I wonder if this might expalin California's decision to select a terminator instead.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Bear with me here.

Jlq3d3, sorry I do remember reading it, but I wanted to see if there were any other answers. In response to what you said though, doesn't that mean that the public wants a more liberal slant? If it sells better then isn't that want the public wants?

My reasoning for not accepting the common thought that the media is liberal comes from the top. The media is controlled by major corporations in this country. That's just the way it is. Major corporations are better off financially under more conservative leadership, which I think we can all agree on. Therefore, the media as a business would logically be better off not having a liberal spin at a minimum. I'm not saying that the media tilts one way or another; I'm just skeptical.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

"In response to what you said though, doesn't that mean that the public wants a more liberal slant? If it sells better then isn't that want the public wants?"

Not really, because congress is republican and there are more self identified conservatives than liberals. I dont think most people make a conscious decision to watch something because it is liberal, it just is more interesting and dramatic. An analogy would be watching an accident on the freeway. Wasnt such a good analogy but people are interested in tragedy and stuff.
Also, your corporation reasoning isnt true. People who make over $200,000 a year are more democratic than the whole population. Also, if it does give them increaced ratings, that would far outweigh some possible taxes and regulations and restrictions that a liberal politician might be able to impose.

By Sdk7x7 (Sdk7x7) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 11:03 am: Edit

Clearly... GEORGE W. BUSH

Liberalism: Undermining American Sovereignty and National Security, One Policy At a Time

By Taru (Taru) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:47 pm: Edit

KERRY & EDWARDS '04!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Going back to the media issue. I understand the sensationalism argument (whether one agrees with it or not), but what about the subtleties. For example, one thing that the site (bogus by the way) complained about was that liberal was mentioned x times in an Edwards article and conservative was mentioned y times in a Cheney article with y being greater than x. There is certainly no increased ratings with that unless it is what the readers want, which you have denounced all ready, so how do you explain it? Once again please don't interpret my questions as an unwillingness to accept that the media is liberal; I just want to think this through more than a simple label.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Craig,

Anyone who keeps harping on the myth of the liberal media is regurgitating one of the most cynical ploys of attack politics.

If you're seriously interested in understanding the media, don't look for enlightenment here. Instead try following Pressthink and the wide-ranging comments. Here's a good example. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/06/17/bias_ward.html#more . More questions than answers, lots of informed opinion.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

The fact that the media is liberal is in fact a fact. There have been poll after poll revealing what journalists' political leanings were. And the most famous journalist who is very liberal, Walter Cronkite, even admitted that the media has a liberal tilt.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 06:36 pm: Edit

We know your stance Jlq3d3 -- you really don't have to repeat it. I'm looking for discussion not debate.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Jlq3d3.

The fact that the media is liberal is in fact a fact

Whoa boy, fact three times in one sentence. Golly, it must be a fact.

Actually, Jlq3d3, repetition doesn't make your opinions any more lucid or informed.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize the press, and even more reasons to criticize corporate broadcast journalism. Local television news and Fox News have even more grounds for concern. Shallowness, vanity, the echo chamber effect of pack journalism, inability to comprehend complex issues, conversion of news to entertainment, increasing use of ever-shorter sound bites, lack of resources, ease with which the press is manipulated - the list can go on and on. Most of these issues are far more serious than any "liberal media bias".

Liberal, moderate, and conservative are terms with highly subjective meanings. I consider myself fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and very liberal on environmental issues. I would describe myself as anti-partisan, equally repulsed by the cronyism, poor leadership, and fiscal irresponsibility of Gray Davis and George W. Bush. So how should I describe myself if someone gives me three one-word choices?

Instead of spewing out this same stuff over and over again, why not do a little reading on these issues at a place like PressThink? Or will you just dismiss that because Jay Rosen works at ultra-liberal New York University and doesn't provide datapoints to add to your already intractable opinions.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Socaldad, Great link.

By Nate8585 (Nate8585) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Bryan Jennings on Larry King Live said he believed there is a left-wing bias in the media.

By Dadx (Dadx) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Well, I'll make one point here about "bias", which I believe exists.

THe WSJ has long been know to have a disconnect between the reporters(liberal) and the editorial staff, which is generally conservative. God knows that if they could find more conservative reporters, they'd probably hire them.

I don't think they're out there. For whatever reason, the self selection process in the business is overwhelmingly of one persuasion. Don't know why....and maybe should care less about it now that there's some balance and some alternatives for those who think differently.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Socaldad~

Why do you describe GWB as fiscally irresponsible if you call yourself a fiscal conservative? What fiscal policies of GWB do you exactly oppose? Tax cuts? Egregious Spending? Deficits versus stagflation?

Secondly, do you believe that ultra liberalism is good for the environment? Do you believe that conservatives policies always have an negative impact on our environment?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

John stossel is one of the few conservative reporters. He is a libertarian, and he has acknowleged the strong liberal bias and cold shoulder he gets very often from the ppl he works with.

By Mrbesch (Mrbesch) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

Kerry

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:12 am: Edit

Jlq3d3, give me a break.

(sorry, I had to say it)

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit

Xiggi,

"ultraliberalism" and "stagflation" ? Are you channeling Spiro Agnew?

Bush's long-term tax cuts on capital gains, dividends, and estates are aimed squarely at further enriching the wealthiest Americans, with contempt for traditional concepts of short-term economic stimulus. Combined with the massive drug benefit, which incredibly prohibits Medicare from negotiating for better drug prices, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which adds $3400 per household to our debt burden, we've maxed out the national credit card with short-term international borrowing. Bush has irresponsibly rewarded his base in the same way that Gray Davis rewarded the prison guards union, the public safety unions with ruinous long-term consequences.

As to conservatism and conservation, there's widespread support by ordinary citizens across the political spectrum for clean air, clean water, habitat preservation, parks, open space, and smart growth. There's a radical wing of the Republican party, the easy street Republicans who have replaced the main street and wall street Republicans, who seem bent on a ruinous form of crony capitalism, where ideology and greed trimph over common sense and the electorate's wishes.

Depending on the scope and the nature of the problem, environmental issues demand different solutions. For issues like air quality, watershed management, regional water supply, and sewage treatment, progress requires coordinated policy on a national, regional, and local level.
I use the term "liberal" in this area to describe the need for government action.

The best solutions come from broad policy that provides a framework for market forces and entrepreneurism to operate. Unfortunately, oversight, common sense, and transparency are frequently in short supply, and it's not unusual to see idiotic consequences from idealistic policies. The devil is always in the details.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 04:01 pm: Edit

I'm really disappointed no one has caught my joke.