Let me tip y'all to something, nice. Courtesy of Byron LeMasters over at the burntorangereport.com

"Ralph Hall the Gentleman?
By Byron LaMasters

Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) held a fundraiser this week to help his 2004 Democratic opponent pay off his campaign debt. Ralph Hall was never much of a Democrat, but it's hard to say that he's not a gentleman. This is certainly unusual. The Texarkana Gazette reports:

U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall, whose district this extreme northeastern corner of Texas has recently fallen into, held a fund-raiser for his Democrat challenger, Charles Nickerson of Pittsburg.

A prominent, longtime Republican helping his also-ran Democrat challenger pay of his campaign debts? [...]

It's raised a few eyebrows throughout the region but there don't appear to be any ulterior motive on Hall's part. He was once a Democrat. [...]

It wasn't anything Hall was obligated to do. He said he was compelled to do it because Nickerson ran a clean race against him.

Area Democrats and Republicans turned out to attend the fund-raiser."

See, we can get along. Try to guys.

peter, that was nice....until you wrote "try to guys."

eriposte, I tried to post yesterday but was having some difficulty.

MOst of my rambling had to do with changing the theme somehow to "accuracy" in media and getting credible peer-reviewed research talking about accuracy in media. However, the right has deftly tried to get the idea out that those that might do credible research in academia are also biased liberally. And then there are those million of rightwing funded thinktanks ready to pounce back with "research" and I use the term very loosely to support their point of view. Never mind the millions of rightwingers that don't believe in credible science and research and don't let facts change their beliefs ....hello Iraq Wmd's ...wonder how many trolls here still believe it despite, study, after study saying there were none?

I had a much longer rambling but work calls and I have to go.

Peter,what does this post have to do with the topic?

But since you brought it up, I do want to point out some delicious irony that is related to this post.

The whole Rove/Delay/Abramoff/Ralph Reed axis of evil funneled illegal corporate donations to fund rethug candidates for the Texas legislature to install a rethug majority to illegally redistrict U.S. House boundries and drive conservative democrats out of office. Well they actually outsmarted themselves.

These were very conservative, cooperative democrats needed for bipartisan support of the rethug agenda. For example the NRA endorsed Sandlin in the last election instead of his rethug challenger.

Just think if the house still had Stenholm, Sandlin, Hall, Lampson, etc. on the Dem's side. Pelosi would have had a more difficult time holding the line and Rove and co would be in a much better position politically than they find themselves today.

What an incrediblty stupid strategic move on Rove/Delay's part.

Just like to point out a couple of immediate instances of media whoredom.

Yesterdays' NBC Network News had two stories of interest to the topic. The first was the statement by an alleged 'expert' that terrorists were going to attack the American chemical industry 'sometime in the next five years'.

Like we haven't been hearing this the last five years!

The other was the dramatic telling of how our valiant Secret Service rushed Owwer Leedur to 'a safe 'place' - with drawn weapons - in response to some nebulous terror alert.

Think that this was intended to distract America from all the hype about Bu$h'$ hand-holding with the Crown Prince? It was certainly making him look bad! Even the good Orange County (CA) Republicans I work with were making jokes, and that had to be pissing Karl off!

What better way to regain control of the public commentary - and incidently rebuild the crushed image of Owwer Ledur as a brave and true warrior -than by having the captive media issue yet another lame terror reminder guaranteed to refrighten the Red State sheep?

Every day we are fed deceptive or false stories about "reality" (much more against the left than against the right)

Following up on my earlier comments, I'll take exception to this remark. Everyone has an opinion (just think of the classic retort, "Opinions are like assholes.") This does not mean that everyone subscribes to an ideology. I've made a point previously that "liberal" is the default position for "liberal professions", which include art, journalism, law (with some specific exceptions that require a conservative approach), medicine and academia. There are a number of other white-collar professions that do not have a liberal default--accounting, engineering--and management, in general, has unnecessarily acquired a conservative tint. What is shared by all these is that, for these professions, no ideology is required to be liberal. Sure there are some ideologues and radicals, but they are not the norm. In contrast, being a conservative, by default, requires you to be an ideologue. This explains the high proportion of radicals among conservatives.

If I was forced to submit a short description of what defines a conservative, I would not look for positions on issues or for appeal to tradition (tradition changes and is not always interpreted in the same way by different social subgroups). I would define conservatism in terms of single basic concept--fundamental dualism. While liberals are busy thinking about Cartesian dualism, trying to figure out how mind works, the job is much easier for conservatives since they see the world in terms of Platonic dualism--everything in the world is divided into two categories. Since they have a fundamental dichotomy of good an evil, and they are not likely to consider themselves evil, it is easy to see why every NON-conservative would automatically be assumed to be an enemy. Not just subscribing to an opposing ideology is evil--not having an ideology is already enough to be evil. Since most non-conservatives (including many Americans who identify themselves in the polls as conservatives) are actually liberal, that means that being liberal is evil. Being anything other than Republican (or, in a few cases, capitalist libertarian) is evil. Rejecting moral absolutism is evil. One cannot be indifferent--he must either love or hate. Either you are with us or you are against us--there is no middle ground.

This kind of philosophy even W can understand.

Sorry, I got so carried away with the simplicity of the argument that I forgot to add the punchline.

Based on what I wrote above, I object to the characterization of the world as "left" and "right", which is why I took exception to the comment that brought on this stream. It is not that the actual stories are about the Left. They are about the evildoers, who are anyone and anything that does not support the ideology of the Right. Think of all the crap that was flying in the Schiavo case--being opposed to state and federal intervention had nothing to do with being on the Right or the Left. DeLay & Co had only one description for opposition that apparently includes over 70% of the population--EVIL. Perhaps in not so many words, but the meaning was clearly and unambiguously the same. The schnauser-like sniping by Cornyn was simply a reflection of the same attitude.

This is also the same reason why these guys think nothing of smearing and lying about anyone who does not share their worldview--be it Joe Wilson, Carl Ford, Voinovich or McCain. Remember, if you are not with us, you are against us. On anything! The control must be absolute--John Bolton is a metaphor for the entire class!

The disinformation is not about the Left. And allowing ourselves to categorize it as such just drives us deeper into their ideological trap. Unfortunately, there is only one outcome from following their path--we've seen it in the 1930s.

……..there is only one outcome from following their path--we've seen it in the 1930s…….. How right you are!!!!!
Today in congress was another show of “with us or against us!” takes over.
Even the “Al Jazeera News” gives us more news than our great Corporate Media!
Schechter analysed the US mainstream media for his film . He is a media veteran of almost 40 years who nicknamed himself the News Dissector, the 70% figure suggests US media failed their public and led them to believe a baseless claim.

Synopsis.

“There were two wars going on in Iraq-one was fought with armies of soldiers, bombs and fearsome military force. The other was fought alongside it with cameras, satellites, armies of journalists and propaganda techniques. One war was rationalized as an effort to find and disarm WMDs - weapons of Mass destruction, the other was carried out by even more powerful, Weapons of Mass Deception. “

…….Our Medias are driven by jingoism, not journalism………
Welcome to WMD, the film, Weapons of Mass Deception.

Who denied you a job as a journalist that has you so bitter? Nobody in their right mind would donate this kind of time to such an idiotic topic!

Try the Pawtucket Press, they have spots available.

Buck,

Your comment: "Based on what I wrote above, I object to the characterization of the world as "left" and "right", which is why I took exception to the comment that brought on this stream. It is not that the actual stories are about the Left. They are about the evildoers, who are anyone and anything that does not support the ideology of the Right." is well taken. However, my post was very general and I wasn't trying to be very precise about who is the target of the media. Moreover, the attacks against the Left dwarf those against Republicans who don't fit the Right's mold.