Best thing I’ve read today, from Curt over at Groovy Age of Horror, in a flame post responding to crap he’s been given for posting his political opinions to his own blog:
“Wake the fuck up and understand how literally right-wingers mean it when they use terms like “culture war.” Why did we lose the last election? We showed up for a debate–to an Ultimate Fighter cage match.”
That is easily the best summation of the situation I have read in quite a while.
*sigh* Whatever…
Too bad evidence doesn’t support the claim.
Check out
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp
“The Pew poll also found that 55 percent of national journalists believe that Bush should be treated more critically by the press than he has been. They think he’s gotten off too easy, despite empirical evidence of media Bush bashing. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examined the coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows and found only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks after September 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75 percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates were positive. For Bush, they’ve been 60-plus percent negative.”
Or
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/pg20041022.shtml
“To summarize: Yes, our candidate may falsify now and then, but the other guy’s falsity is at the center of his campaign. This memo might as well be a declaration of political war on ABC’s part. It’s what every true believer thinks in the heat of an election season. But it’s unusual for a supposed unbiased newsman to think so. Or rather say so. In writing.
…
And if you honestly can’t hear the prejudice in ABC’s memo, try switching the names of the candidates around and it’ll come through loud and clear. Unless, of course, you really do believe one presidential candidate is basically a good guy and the other is evil personified.”
Bush won because “right-wingers” finally began to use the same tactics that had been used against them for decades. Only now that the shoe is on the other foot is there any complaint about how uncomfortable it is.
Re: *sigh* Whatever…
Just stop. Stop reading my blog. Stop commenting.
I really, really want to keep respecting you, and you’re making it very difficult.
You’re defending fanatics, you know. Every stem-cell-research-blocking, gay-marriage-banning, bible-thumping, illegal-war-starting asshole, and your vote validates them. I’m desperate to cling to the last shred of respect I have for acquaintances who vote Republican, but it’s getting harder and harder.
Posting “evidence” from right-wing propaganda sites doesn’t make it better, it just makes you look like more of a sheep.
Re: *sigh* Whatever…
I’m afraid the same arguement could be made by me about your views. I could make the same generic assumptions about your side of the political spectrum. Instead I have tried to stick to presenting differing facts instead of presenting political rhetoric. The sites may have been “conservative” in origin, but the Pew poll was scientific and unbassed while the ABC Memo is verified genuine. The facts are the facts regardless of where they come from.
That being said, it is your journal. If you would prefer me not to comment on it then I will obey your wishes.
Re: *sigh* Whatever…
the Pew poll was scientific and unbassed
Sniff, sniff. Yep, not a whiff o’ fish on it.
I still say that it doesn’t matter what the individual reporters political leanings so long as there are editors and corporate executives who can either re-edit or quash the reporter’s stories.