If Bush is calling Iran a "grave threat," there is a distinct possibility that he intends to eventually invade. Bush knows that his poll numbers are down and that if he doesn't get them higher, 2006 could be a bad year for Republicans. Bush also knows that invasions lead to poll numbers going up (through a completely baffling process that I could never understand).

Please know that I don't think that Bush will invade, only that invasion is a possibility. But he might do something like bomb Iran to improve his poll ratings.

We should have dealt with these guys in late 2001, but that is water under the bridge now.

How and why? If I were an Iranian, I would want to have a nuke or two -- not for offensive purposes, that would be suicidal (something that they may promote for little people to do but not something the leaders or elite engage in themselves), but for defensive purposes. Even people as crazy as GWB aren't going to launch a pre-emptive unilateral attack against a country with nukes.

so how long will it takes assholes like assaroo and crappy fish to start whining about the impeachment poll?

Any predictions on how many military-idolising Congressional Republicans will condemn the swift boating of their decorated fellow Congressman?

And it's great to start seeing such encouraging numbers re impeachment, but of course they would have to get up into the 66-70% area, ultimately.

There are reports that I consider credible that indicate the US and Israel are developing attack plans which just might include nuclear weapons.

This would be a very bad thing, as "Such an attack could become Allah's gift to Ahmadinezhad at a time when the revolution is disintegrating and his own position is uncertain."

In addition, Neither Pakistan nor Poland will support such an attack, threatening to end the operation of George's new torture facilities.

All I see, if George gets even more stupid, is all of Southwest Asia erupting into conflict, and oil prices shooting through the roof as deliveries can no longer be guaranteed. George can explain why gas will cost $5/gal. in his SOTU speech.

"Grave threat", seems I have heard that terminology before. Here's the bottom line. Bush is not mentally or emotionally balanced, and by all accounts, does not care what anyone thinks. Never underestimate what he would or would not do.

George can explain why gas will cost $5/gal. in his SOTU speech.

"Terra-rists. Heh, heh! It was...the war on Terra, you know...Heh, heh!"

"Any predictions on how many military-idolising Congressional Republicans will condemn the swift boating of their decorated fellow Congressman?"

Euzoius, I would hope they would stand-up for Murtha, but I have been disappointed before. I might be wrong, but swiftboating Murtha may be a political mistake for the GOP or this WH.

Of course now, Murtha is aiding the enemy according to Bush. "Be careful what you say" Murtha. Stay out of small planes.

"Grave threat", seems I have heard that terminology before. Here's the bottom line. Bush is not mentally or emotionally balanced, and by all accounts, does not care what anyone thinks. Never underestimate what he would or would not do.

Posted by Judith at January 14, 2006 12:33 PM
*******

I have a friend who is convinced that his problem is insanity caused by untreated syphilis eating away at his brain.

he intends to eventually invade

With what? Where do these resources come from? If you pull them from Iraq and Afghanistan, the insurgents and will out-flank at the borders.

Reasonable estimates say about 150,000 troops left to draw upon. Okay, stage them in Kuwait and Uzbeck-a-whaty-stan. Rummy has already proven he's incompetent past that point. So what then? We can't even supply what we have in Iraq. More mercenaries maybe? There is a limit to what's available with these guys (no sexist comment intended. I've known many mercenary women).

The idiot son of George Bush used the best military in the world to go after oil, over extended them, and left our Democracy in jeopardy from his asinine moves. Maybe he's like Adolf during his last days. Moving imaginary platoons and equipment around maps, yelling at his advisors, getting hyped by doctors to keep functioning.

Murtha gets his national bully pulpit on 60 minutes.

I also believe he has a tactic agreement with the real players that the military will garuntee his personal safety, leaving him free to concentrate on shredding these swiftboat people.

Murtha aint going to lay down, and the thugs have been to the well one too many times.

They are seriously f*cking up, but then what else is new.

Since Bourbon St. is very likely the only part of NO that G.W. Caesar used to visit, it does look like it used to.
On Iran we can still breathe easy: it's not yet grave AND GATHERING; the gathering part will spell trouble when they get that far.

"I have a friend who is convinced that his problem is insanity caused by untreated syphilis eating away at his brain."

Anjha, sound about right. LOL

It is curious to note that none of the Swift Boat allegations were refuted by Senator Kerry. By the way, has -- Kerry --he released all of his service records....like he promised to do months and months ago?

Good grief, the trolls really don't know anything do they? Kerry released his records a long time ago. The allegations were refuted and the people who made them are being sued in court. Stupid trolls will believe anything. Must be nice to be constantly duped.

Stupid trolls will believe anything. Must be nice to be constantly duped.

Posted by Ga6thDem at January 14, 2006 06:50 PM

****

Yes, ignorance is bliss. Opiate of the republicans.

"I have a friend who is convinced that his problem is insanity caused by untreated syphilis eating away at his brain."

Flatworms have 300 or so neurons. With similar behaviors, I wonder how long it took the spirochetes to whittle his brain down this completely?

(My apologies for disparaging flat worms)

Bush is insane...Bush is stupid... Bush is a moron. .. .Bush is a thief, Bush is a liar. . . Bush is on Drugs. . . Bush has an STD. . . .Bush is being indicted, . . . Bush will be impeached. . .

Maybe, just maybe Bush is really a Cylon, preparing the next assault on the last remaining colony. . . then again, if he brings hot blonds like number six or Boomer, then I'd surrender right now.

I thoroughly enjoy your posts. Especially those that slam the main street media as being conservative. . . thats a riot.
I mean just because the media elites vote Democratic on average 80/20% and they all but control Hollywood, . . . thats just irrelevant.

You guys are a riot.....

"I'd bet that if you hooked Dan and Tom and Peter up to a lie detector and asked them if there's a liberal bias on their newscasts, they'd all say ‘no’ and they'd all pass the test....That leaves one other possibility. Messrs. Rather, Brokaw and Jennings don't even know what liberal bias is. I concede this is hard to believe, but I'm convinced it's why we keep getting these ridiculous denials....The problem is that Mr. Rather and the other evening stars think that liberal bias means just one thing: going hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world.... And it is this inability to see liberal views as liberal that is at the heart of the entire problem. This is why Phyllis Schlafly is the conservative woman who heads that conservative organization but Patricia Ireland is merely the head of NOW. No liberal labels necessary. Robert Bork is the conservative judge. Laurence Tribe is the noted Harvard law professor.... Conservatives must be identified because the audience needs to know these are people with axes to grind. But liberals don't need to be identified because their views on all the big social issues -- from abortion and gun control to the death penalty and affirmative action -- aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with at all their reasonable dinner parties in Manhattan and Georgetown...." — Former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Wall Street Journal op-ed, "On Media Bias, Network Stars Are Rather Clueless," May 24, 2001.

When I heard on the radio that Ariel Sharon might not be capable of doing his prime minister duties when he comes out of his drug induced coma, I wondered why our president and other politicians aren't tested for mental competency. Probably they couldn't find enough nonpartisan psychologists. Think of the media coverage (all dems crazy/evil and all repukes are angels/compassionate). We'd see what a librul media would do.

carpe, your efforts have deteriorated in such a short time. Pity, really. And Bagley, you've turned into a hit and run. All of my aquaintances with the other side have flamed. Oh well.

WPE can't seem to get it right in NOLA. It's the thorn in his side. He still has not grasped the images, the voices, the reality of not only NOLA but the entire region. All of us here are still dealing with it in so many ways. In Houston, people who escaped Katrina are losing what little they had to fires or violence. At least this city still has more to give and will continue to give and help.

I'd bet that if you hooked Dan and Tom and Peter up to a lie detector and asked them if there's a liberal bias on their newscasts, they'd all say ‘no’ and they'd all pass the test....That leaves one other possibility. Messrs. Rather, Brokaw and Jennings don't even know what liberal bias is. I concede this is hard to believe, but I'm convinced it's why we keep getting these ridiculous denials....The problem is that Mr. Rather and the other evening stars think that liberal bias means just one thing: going hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world.... And it is this inability to see liberal views as liberal that is at the heart of the entire problem. This is why Phyllis Schlafly is the conservative woman who heads that conservative organization but Patricia Ireland is merely the head of NOW. No liberal labels necessary. Robert Bork is the conservative judge. Laurence Tribe is the noted Harvard law professor.... Conservatives must be identified because the audience needs to know these are people with axes to grind. But liberals don't need to be identified because their views on all the big social issues -- from abortion and gun control to the death penalty and affirmative action -- aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with at all their reasonable dinner parties in Manhattan and Georgetown...." — Former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Wall Street Journal op-ed, "On Media Bias, Network Stars Are Rather Clueless," May 24, 2001.

Posted by carpediem at January 14, 2006 07:55 PM

****

Pure supposition, point of view, nothing empirical here folks, move along....

"It is curious to note that none of the Swift Boat allegations were refuted by Senator Kerry. By the way, has -- Kerry --he released all of his service records....like he promised to do months and months ago?" Posted by Baggy

Oh look, the class clown is back.

Actually Kerry released his records to two or three close personal "journalists" for thier review only. So people of discerning minds can not read his file to see if there is any evidence of what the Swift Boat operators complained. Pretty much, the biggest piece of information is the Kerry, who is the brightest and most dedicated student while at Harvard and Yale, and Bush who was a preppie, cocaine induced suck up. Well they compared the grades and Bush had a better GPA than KERRY.

I thought that was funny. Why didn't you hear about that? Could it be the Conservative Main street Media refuses to show it?

yeah right. Kerry still needs to release his records to REAL journalists, and not just some of his wind surfing friends.

Actually Kerry released his records to two or three close personal "journalists" for thier review only. So people of discerning minds can not read his file to see if there is any evidence of what the Swift Boat operators complained. Pretty much, the biggest piece of information is the Kerry, who is the brightest and most dedicated student while at Harvard and Yale, and Bush who was a preppie, cocaine induced suck up. Well they compared the grades and Bush had a better GPA than KERRY.

I thought that was funny. Why didn't you hear about that? Could it be the Conservative Main street Media refuses to show it?

yeah right. Kerry still needs to release his records to REAL journalists, and not just some of his wind surfing friends.

Posted by carpediem at January 14, 2006 09:15 PM

****

Actually, he released them with full disclosure, signing the 180, etc. on 6/7/2005 to the Boston Globe and other publications. But I suppose to an idiot like you they only qualify as a few, close journalist friends. I'll grant you their not Newsmax, Limbaugh, or the other propaganda you read or listen to. Oh, I'm sorry those "real journalists".

Carpe writes:

"Especially those that slam the main street media as being conservative. . . thats a riot.
I mean just because the media elites vote Democratic on average 80/20% and they all but control Hollywood, . . . thats just irrelevant."

I encourage you to read Eriposte's analysis of the so-called "liberal" bias in the media.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003973.php

More specifically, the thought of journalists voting more Democratic is not near as relevant as their bosses voting record - the executives, owners, and even some editors. Eriposte addresses that here:

"Now, since I am trying to address serious and credible media critics, let me summarize why a so-called "liberal" journalist ideology has not resulted in overall "liberal media" bias:

* Because newspaper publishers and media owners (and often even editors) historically tend to be more conservative and endorse/vote for Republicans rather than Democrats - and they usually have much more control (and censorship) over news coverage than the journalists who are farther down the chain, especially in this era of corporatist media "monopolies". (Not to mention that publisher/editor-driven newspaper endorsements have a higher probability of influencing votes than journalist preferences.)
* Because the repeated and egregious mainstream media malpractice and fraud against leading Democrats is well known, to the point that even conservatives have been forced to admit it (albeit in "softer" terms).
* Because the coverage of Bush (and the GOP) has long been fawning and/or largely uncritical (and not just on 9/11 and Iraq), such that a Democratic president would have been impeached in this country over far, far less (and don't forget this).
* Because even many of the so-called "liberals" in the media have a demonstrated record, especially in recent years, of being afraid to tell the truth, unlike their counterparts on the Right (in the media) who are never afraid to mislead or lie to their readers/viewers
* I could go on and on....but the "on and on" part is reserved for future posts about why the media is actually conservatively biased overall - so you'll have to bear with me (or you can just go browse ICM) :-)"

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004008.php

Furthermore, the Pew Research Center for the People found this about local and national journalists:

"About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans."

The remaining 54% described themselves as MODERATES (not liberal, not conservative). The writers of the Pew study did have this to say about having a liberal characteristic:

""But what does liberal mean to journalists? We would be reluctant to infer too much here. The survey includes only four questions probing journalists' political attitudes, yet the answers to these questions suggest journalists have in mind something other than a classic big government liberalism and something more along the lines of libertarianism. More journalists said they think it is more important for people to be free to pursue their goals without government interference than it is for government to ensure that no one is in need."

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=825

And quoting Goldberg as a source is what is truly a "riot". That little whiny bitch who got his ass fired has quite the little temper tantrums about his former bosses. Too bad his arguments are highly erroneous and extremely misleading. Here's a good criticism:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=6253

Keep 'em comin', carpe. Entertaining as always.

Well once again, Carpe (or crappy, which is more appropriate), is debunked and discredited. Next step for Carpe, or crappy, is to whine about how people shoved and pushed him at the GOP convention, even though he has no empirical evidence of that, no police reports, no nothing. Pure Michelle Malkin. Keep the entertainment up, Carpe, and remind us, once again, you're a trial lawyer.

Crappy did his job. He got us off the topics of the warrentless eavesdropping and the impeachment poll. That is all he cares about. To hell with his country, and the sooner the better.

Thank you misteropus, I read the links created or should I say fabricated by Ezzy.

My analysis of his analysis is this

yeah the media was twice as critical of Bush than Kerry during 2004, but they should have been 4 times more critical because Bush's negatives were factual, and Kerry's were lies.

Yeah right.

Try and compare Mediamatters.org to Mediaresearch.org

The main difference is comparing commentators like Hannity to the actual news reporters like Rather.

The Pew Poll that you site is just one of many, I used another poll as well. I don't believe there is such a thing as a moderate really, its just a way to say, I'm lukewarm and not committed on anything and this shows my "unbiased" attitude. Its just a scam.

As to comments that sure the main street media might be overrun with liberals in the editorial boards, but since the owners are republicans, then this means bias. . .well again, how can I argue with the logic of ignorance.

You guys just don't get it. The Main Street Media is Hardcore Liberal. Occaisionally if it bleeds it leads, the media will report negatively against a Democrat, like Lewinsky, but on average, the "slant" is wholeheartedly and embarrassingly liberal.

There is no question of this at all. No debate.
Fox is construed as conservative because they tend to report the other conservative side, which makes you liberals scream....you are so used to only getting the talking points from the DNC.

Russert/Matthews/George Stephenolpholus (sic) run the Sunday morning talk shows.-all worked for Dems. . . the empirical evidence of democratic connections to the democratic party is overwhelming.

But since you have already screwed up your vision with rose colored glasses, you can only see what you want to see.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046

Anyone with half a brain knows that the aftermath of Katrina is Bush's fault. The F in FEMA means Federal. The choice to not fund the (damn I can't think of the word so I'll go with...dams) dams that needed upgrading was Federal. And yet who kept getting getting the finger pointed at in the media? The Louisian gov (dem), New Orleans mayor (dem). And who kept saying they didn't want to play the blame game as they pointed fingers and got so much media coverage doing it (repubs and their propogandists.) Like Jon Stewart said "those who don't want to play the blame game are to blame." (paraphrased)

carpediem, the second sentence in that article says,

The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left.

so I don't need to go any further to know that the author is biased himself.

er, HERSELF

I scanned a little further down in that article and it says Drudge is counted as left leaning because of all the links that point to (supposedly)left leaning sites. Not based on what he writes. That makes no sense to me. He is like a blogLimbaugh but isn't counted as a righty? That's just nuts.

"I don't believe there is such a thing as a moderate really, its just a way to say, I'm lukewarm and not committed on anything and this shows my "unbiased" attitude."

I say nay to that. A moderate is someone who follows some liberal ideas and some conservative ideas and isn't quite so passionate about either side. A moderate would not name-call politicians or their supporters.

Example of a moderate system of beliefs:
Abortion: No - kills a human being
Death Penalty: No - kills a human being
Gun control: no
Global warming? - exists; protect the environment
public schools: in favor

It's not textbook for either side, you see. The moderates during the American and French Revolutions were distinctly different from the radicals or conservatives.

I am confused as to your lack of belief in moderate political thought. Do you mean in all aspects, or just the media?

"Well they compared the grades and Bush had a better GPA than KERRY.
I thought that was funny. Why didn't you hear about that? Could it be the Conservative Main street Media refuses to show it?"

Hey Carp, your right-wing media did mention it, but no one believed it. You can't tell people that an idiot is smarter than an intellectural, no matter how hard you try. Well, maybe only people like you.

Carpe writes:

"yeah the media was twice as critical of Bush than Kerry during 2004, but they should have been 4 times more critical because Bush's negatives were factual, and Kerry's were lies.

At this time I think it's appropriate to state the following:

I'm game, Carpe. I call complete bullshit on this asinine statement. Put up or shut up now.

"Try and compare Mediamatters.org to Mediaresearch.org"

I'm game, Carpe. I call complete bullshit on this asinine statement. Put up or shut up now. What shall we compare exactly? Give me examples that strengthens the case that Media Matters has falsified any info. in comparison to the Right Wing Media Research.

"The main difference is comparing commentators like Hannity to the actual news reporters like Rather."

Well considering this is where the majority of talking points are gathered and spread like wildfire for you neocon/wingnutters, what do you expect?

And I know it's fun for you guys to always attack Rather as your focal point. His incident involving Bush's AWOL was admittedly a bit of a stretch, but the central thesis involving Bush's AWOL has not been effectively proven otherwise by any Bush supporter.

Care to try?

"The Pew Poll that you site is just one of many, I used another poll as well. I don't believe there is such a thing as a moderate really, its just a way to say, I'm lukewarm and not committed on anything and this shows my "unbiased" attitude. Its just a scam."

Just because you do not understand the mentality of a "moderate" does not entail they do not exist. They are neither one way or another on ALL issues.
Or, they may not necessarily be very political at all. Big whoop. Not everyone is as passionate about politics as you or I.

Why's that so difficult to understand?

"As to comments that sure the main street media might be overrun with liberals in the editorial boards, but since the owners are republicans, then this means bias. . .well again, how can I argue with the logic of ignorance.

Why don't you try to actually refute the point rather than handwave it away as if to deny the existance?

Who calls the shots in the media? Who says what goes? Who has the ultimate final say in anything? Is that the reporter, or the people above him/her?

I can see why you want to deny the existance of that point. It's seemingly not congruent with your unfounded assertions.

"You guys just don't get it. The Main Street Media is Hardcore Liberal."

AND IF I SCREAM LOUDER AND KEEP REPEATING IT, IT WILL BE MORE TRUE!!!

Did I finish that thought for you better, carpe?

"Occaisionally if it bleeds it leads, the media will report negatively against a Democrat, like Lewinsky, but on average, the "slant" is wholeheartedly and embarrassingly liberal.

Yes, I really have to hand it to you Republicans for allowing that one to bleed to death. You only spent, what like $65 million of our taxpayer money to have a political GOP hack of an investigator try to go after our President for one charge, but turned up nothing and spent the entire time going after his rusty zipper.

We all appreciate that distraction to our country as well as that wonderful money spent. Congrats, again.

Meanwhile, we have a president that blatantly and willingly broke the law with illegally wiretapping Americans, and we'll probably not even get to impeachment articles because of the "yes-men" hacks the GOP has installed in the Senate and Congress. Lovely, ain't it?

Oh, I didn't even mention "intelligence being fixed around the policy" on the Iraq war, but my partisan hack Senator Roberts (KS) keeps dragging his feet on that investigation ad nauseum. Gee, I wonder why he's not that eager to investigate that which he promised to investigate in Part 2 of the SSCI Report?

"There is no question of this at all. No debate.
Fox is construed as conservative because they tend to report the other conservative side, which makes you liberals scream....you are so used to only getting the talking points from the DNC."

The "talking points" passed down by the DNC pale in absolute comparison to the Republican Noise Machine you lying twirps have effectively created over the past 30 years. We have no propaganda system that even comes remotely close to the RNC talking points and effectiveness of being passed not to just your blathering mouthpieces and Faux News, but to the mainstream media as well.

The ScAlito hearings were a prime example. Oh sure, the Dems. on the Judiciary Committee need to take much of the blame for their ineptitude, but it was a foregone conclusion passed down by the RNC and gulped up by the so-called leeebral media that Scalito is an automatic shoe-in.

Christ, I heard that on CNN ON THE SECOND DAY OF HIS HEARINGS! It was repeated over and over by the leeebral media.

And one more thing, how "liberal" was the NYTimes for running the false info. set forth by neo-con loving Judy Miller?

"Russert/Matthews/George Stephenolpholus (sic) run the Sunday morning talk shows.-all worked for Dems. . . the empirical evidence of democratic connections to the democratic party is overwhelming."

Matthews has characterized himself as voting more conservative than Democrat, so I would like you to demonstrate such "empirical evidence". Furthermore, Matthews has direct connections to Abramoff, which might be why he's addressing the issue with kid gloves. Besides, all 3 demonstrate that he said/she said mentality that allows both sides give their point of view, the actual truth and reality be damned.

And that darned "media matters" that you love so much has ample evidence of these 3 giving much more leanings to Conservatives than Liberals. I suggest you take a look at the website and search for these 3 on that website.

And please spare me your ad hominems on it until you do so. I would like you to attempt to address the content of their criticisms of these 3, rather than the source.

"But since you have already screwed up your vision with rose colored glasses, you can only see what you want to see."

Like David Brock? I guess everyone has a history of their political point of view. Being in Kansas I was almost automatically a Conservative by proxy. I grew up and became a more Moderate, leaning slightly to the Right on most issues, but it took Bush to come into power, and actually it took the Iraq War for me to dig a little bit deeper into politics and form my current views.

I gave both sides equal time, but the Right was consistently coming up short every time. That's not my fault, sir, that's your fault for having fallacious arguments on practically every issue we are concerned with today. There's plenty of room for improvement on the Left, to be sure, and I have plenty of criticism for them at times.

But today's modern GOP have gutted what I believe is true Conservatism. They have gutted anything that resembles the true Conservatives. You create international policy with wreckless abandonment, you have no fiscal understanding whatsoever and shouldn't ever be given a chance to balance a checkbook, and currently you seemingly have no care in the world what international and Constitutional law means to the rest of us.

Your party effectively Swift Boated with outright lies against every one who disagrees with you, which indicates you are downright chickenshit afraid to have an honest debate on the issues at hand. You wage war not on just the people who disagree with you, but on something that I hold dear to me - science itself. Because evidence given in the scientific world does not run parallel to your wingnut world, you either dismiss it altogether or gut it out completely, replacing members with your own nutbags who think in such medieval terms as you do. You pass down and repeat your silly attacks over and over again until our little leeeebral media begins repeating your fallacious points like the intellectually lazy zombies that they are today.

What could I possibly respect with what I see in the Republican party today? You guys have disrespected yourselves. No one has done it for you. People like Abramoff are only tip of the iceberg for your little corrupt power grab. And what's even worse for you - the public is starting to catch on. Not only do they fear that this idiot of a President put them in a dire situation in Iraq fallaciously, not only do they fear Absolute Power reign by illegally being spied on by their government set forth by this power-hungry President, but they smell the corruption set forth by Abramoff, Delay and Co. in their attempts for Absolute Power themselves.

You have nothing but yourselves to blame for what lies ahead. You idiots are in power, you idiots are in charge, and you idiots have effectively led us off the cliff. Stop blaming the media, stop blaming the Democrats,

Time to stop blaming everyone else and take a good hard look within your own corrupt little hearts.

Carpe cites study:

"Media bias is real"

The red flags should have gone up as soon as someone runs across Drudge supposedly leaning to the Left.

That's so gosh darn silly I really don't know what to say.

Furthermore, the ACLU and NRA are not think tanks, yet they put these advocacy organizations in with think tanks. Geoff Nunberg, an early critic of the study had this to say about that:

Start with the list of groups from which G & M drew their initial sample. They describe this simply as a list of "the most prominent think tanks," but that isn't quite accurate. In fact their list was drawn from the 200 links included on the site wheretodoresearch.com (which actually describes it merely as a list of "major think tanks and policy groups"). The list was compiled by one Saguee Saraf, a free-lance researcher with a masters degree in history who lists among his achievements that he was named Man of the Year by the Cheshire (Connecticut) Republican Town Committee.

Saraf gives no indication of how his list was compiled, or what criteria were used -- nor, more to the point, do Groseclose and Milyo say why they consider the list authoritative. In fact its contents are a jumble of think tanks, lobbying groups, trade associations, and advocacy groups, assembled in a catch-as-catch-can manner....

Then, too, Groseclose and Milyo's survey of the citations of groups in the Congressional Record shows some results that would most kindly be described as puzzling. In their list of the "twenty think tanks most cited by members of Congress," for example, they list in 13th place the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (which they refer to as the "Alexis de Tocqueville Institute"), which comes in ahead of Common Cause (14th), the Family Research Council (16th), and the Economic Policy Institute (19th), not to mention a number of much better-known groups that appear on Saraf's list but not in G & M's top 20, like the NRA and the Hoover Institution."

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html

Their methodology is highly suspect. Perhaps you should actually read their paper, read the criticisms on the paper, and understand the scrutiny of peer review, rather than merely report that which is passed down by FreeRepublic, Hannity, Heritage, Weekly Standard, and the rest of the Noise Machine.

How do you "trackback"? My apologizes, but I have no idea how to keep track of which posts these things are going on and who is actually responding.

Dear Mr Opus,

Good run for your money, I hope you feel better. Unfortunately this medium is not one that encourages such debate. I suspect we need to bring it down to one or two specific issues at a time. You have too many points to address in detail, and I doubt this forum is good for that, so lets take it down a bit.

As to mediamatters vs. MRC. Well, the first and foremost thing is that mediamatters quotes COMMENTATORS who are supposed to have and express OPINIONS. MRC focusus on JOURNALISTS who are supposed to be unbiased. I know Hannity, O'Reilly and even Colmes are biased. If they specifically tell a falsehood then fine, but they are not part of the MAIN STREET MEDIA. Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw were.

Oh, and Drudge is not a journalist, per se. He merely brings links to his sight and lets you read what others are saying. I read alot on his links, some right wing, some left wing and often stuff about the weather. Drudge is nothing more than a big link page, with Links to ALL LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS. Sure he is personally a conservative, but he rocks Republicans too.

And who'd he first link to about Lewinsky?

Carpe,

Sorry, sometimes my panties get all bunched up.

On occasion I'll have some outbursts which speak in generalities only. More often than not I try to avoid this, but on occasion the emotions tend to get the better part.

In regards to Drudge, however, it is true that he links stories.

But pay attention to how he titles his links. Pay close attention and you tell me whether or not he is putting his own personal GOP bias in the matter. This has been cited numerous times, and if you wish I'm willing to dig up and find some occasions where he is clearly in error for his titles. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet a 6 pack of my favorite microbrewery beer that if we look at exactly what he is posting over the course of, say, 1 week, his links and titles clearly put any Left of center stories in a negative light far more often than any Right of center stories. His site right now has the top story as the following:

"Last Independent Counsel Report Set For 'Release'; Focus On Clinton Administration...

Are you seriously going to deny that he is a Right-wing bender, or shall we break out with some specific examples?

Let me know.

Carpe writes:

"As to mediamatters vs. MRC. Well, the first and foremost thing is that mediamatters quotes COMMENTATORS who are supposed to have and express OPINIONS. MRC focusus on JOURNALISTS"

Actually this is quite incorrect. Media Matters focuses on all aspects of the media, including journalists. If you look at their home page right now, you see criticisms of Stephanopolis, journalist Deborah Howell from the Washington Post, Matthews, Chris Wallace from Faux News, journalist Charles Lane of the Wash. Post, the AP Press, CBS NEws, LA Times, WaPost, and so on.

You should take a little gander there yourself before commenting further.