Conservatives, Upset That College Professors Have Agendas, Look For Profs With Agendas
Conservatives, frustrated after 20 years and millions of dollars spent attacking liberal universities and professors, are trying something new.
They are finding like-minded tenured professors and helping them establish academic beachheads for their ideas.
These initiatives, like the Program in Western Civilization and American Institutions at the University of Texas, Austin, or a project at the University of Colorado here in Colorado Springs, to publish a book of classic texts, are mostly financed by conservative organizations and donors, run by conservative professors. But they have a decidedly nonpartisan and nonideological face.
So, they are hiding their true agenda, after spending years attacking liberal professors and universities for having an agenda. James Piereson of the conservative Manhattan Institute says the initiatives are only political in that they “work against the thrust of programs and courses in gender, race and class studies, and postmodernism in general.”
In other words, they’re political, attempting to counter what they see as liberal bias on university campuses. It’s amazing that with so many radical, liberal, left-wing institutions and professors, that they’ve been able to turn out so many right-wing, conservative American citizens.
Those who can, do. Those that can’t, teach.
It’s sad that those that want to do are being taught by those that can’t do.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
If there is a fairness doctrine for radio, (not teev or newspapers), why shouldn’t there be a fairness doctrine for schools?
It’s only fair isn’t it?
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
The trope about universities “liberalizing” our youth has been around for decades. And yet, here we are, living among some of the most maniacally conservative people in our nation’s history.
Guess it was all just BS, eh?
Yes. Of course it was.
(If you want anecdotal evidence of bias, I was once harangued by the professor in an undergraduate business law class for being pro-choice. Does that mean the entire school had a conservative agenda?)
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
There is a Christian school, in North Carolina, (And NO…I don’t think that ALL Southern Christians are like this.) who taught that slavery was mutually beneficial:
“Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using “Southern Slavery, As It Was,” a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren’t treated as badly as people think.
Students at one of the area’s largest Christian schools are reading a controversial booklet that critics say whitewashes Southern slavery with its view that slaves lived “a life of plenty, of simple pleasures.”
Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery.”
To this group, the truth that MOST of us hold would be called liberal bias.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Truth2power asks:
If there is a fairness doctrine for radio…
There is not a fairness doctrine for radio in effect.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Alan, when will you learn? Conservatives don’t believe in hypocrisy…
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
That’s pretty funny, though, that a conservative thinks the Fairness Doctrine should be in effect. What’s even funnier is, I remember one student on the Rush Limbaugh show who thought it was awful that parents were in the dark about the sort of liberal doctrination their “children” were undergoing on university campuses.
I thought, “children?” When one goes to a university, they cease being children under their parents’ control. It’s time to open one’s mind to alternative ideas.
T2P, the Fairness Doctrine was whammied by Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.
We need to reclaim our public airwaves for the public. Why would we put them in the hands of one party or another, or into the hands of corporations?
We need to hear all sides, each time one “side” is presented.
But right, god forbid we should broaden our discussions in this country.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
One of the NEA’s formative leaders, a guy named John Dewey who was an avowed humanist socialist was made honorary president of the NEA back in 1932. In 1933, he was one of the signers of the “Humanist Manifesto.”
Dewey traveled to Russia in the 1930s to help organize and implement the Marxist educational system there, and today is known in America as the “Father of Progressive Education.” In 1935, Dewey became the president of the League of Industrial Democracy, which was originally called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society.
Just a tiny bit of information about the NEA. 90% of what is taught in college and high school leans to the left and some teachers and professors evey try to convince their students to vote for democrats.
Yes, the NEA is a left wing organazation and they don’t try very hard to conceal that fact.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Hello Sarah.
I have a grandson and granddaughter in college and I get an earful from both (one is conservative and one is liberal) about how their professors are partial to the left and in some cases way to the left.
I would think that if a true fairness doctrine were adopted through out the media, it would be the democrats that would suffer, since most all of the media, with the exception of talk radio, is already on the side of the left. From what I have gathered, it is only talk radio that liberals are trying to get the fairness doctrine to address.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Lobo: And so be it! I think it’s important to encourage consensus in this country (what Neocons have been derisively labeling “kum ba yah” and “utopian thinking”), and the best way to do that is to listen to both sides of any argument presented at the time, and meet in the middle.
The politicians and their bosses — political parties, and corporate and organization lobbyists — want to divide us, when there are so many issues on which the majority of us agree.
Lobo, in my opinion, the only truly dependable source of news is still the printed word. Sure, it might be slanted here or there– but it’s PRINTED. If something’s false, or biased, or left out, then people can WRITE IN to correct it, protest, or provide additional information. It’s a record of what’s going on.
With broadcast, there’s less accountability or responsibility. It’s also contributed to a major breakdown in public discourse and civility.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Sarah:
Other than ‘what Neocons have been derisively labeling “kum ba yah” and “utopian thinking’ I can’t disagree with anything you said. I believe both sides of anything reasonable should be heard, debated, and either reach some type of agreement or agree to disagree.
I do, however, maintain as my belief that the media as a whole is extremely left of center and cheering big time for obama. I do not see fair and balanced reporting anywhere but Fox News where mainstream is concerned and I do try to watch, listen, and read other outlets in search of proving myself wrong. So far, I have been unable to do so.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Poor Johnny McCain and the “liberal” media. For a POW he sure whines a lot…
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“Those who can, do. Those that can’t, teach.”
And in fact there are people who love to teach, and they could make a lot more money doing other things, so slamming these people just to slam somebody is pretty damn petty, especially since we have no future without quality educators.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Lobo, I’m not sure what journalistic examples you’d use to point to “liberal” media, but I know, from talking with both liberals and conservatives, many people don’t seem to know the basic differences between fact and opinion (or, for that matter, “opinion presented as fact,” or “facts presented to bolster opinions”).
The other thing I like about the printed media, is that it’s responsible (or USED to be) for labeling what columns were “opinion,” or “views,” or “commentary.”
I’ve noticed the demise of that in broadcast journalism, which is absolutely disgusting. It does precious little but exacerbate hatred and fuel misunderstanding. CNN is guilty of it. Fox is guilty of it. EIB is guilty. MCNBC, the major networks, etc.– they all do it.
If it’s broadcast, I rely more on CSPAN, Jim Lehrer, or BBC.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Those who can’t teach, teach phy. ed.
– Woody Allen
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Yeah, Otto, I watched Annie Hall yesterday, too.
Unfortunately, even if teachers COULD teach phys ed, too many of today’s parents still feed their children garbage and set them down in front of the TV, most of the time.
I remember the Presidential Physical Fitness Awards, where you had to pass a battery of tests. Too bad they don’t still have ‘em.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I love you my underage stepdaughter
~ Woody Allen
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“The other thing I like about the printed media, is that it’s responsible (or USED to be) for labeling what columns were “opinion,” or “views,” or “commentary.”
Exactly. And likewise, it held responsible, or should be, for printing the truth, if it labels what it prints news. The problem with the New York Times, especially, and a few others I see as being left of center, is that when they print a lie on page 1 above the fold and if that lie gets called, they print the retraction on page 49 in the bottom right corner.
And, by the way, the left leaning media does not have a monopoly on that little trick. They all do it.
Knowing how the English feel about Americans, as a whole and I know because I lived there for over a year, I’m not sure I would put much stock in what the BBC reports as truth. I do have a tendency to trust Fox News more because I usually see both opinions given and discussed there.
I consider ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC as ‘liberal’ media because of their constant negative portrayal of republicans, expecially Bush, McCain, Palin, etc. and their constant cheerleading and positive portrayal of democrats, and drastically so in the case of obama. The same goes for most of the printed media. There has been a furious rush for all of these media outlets to find and report as much negative and demeaning information about Sarah Palin in as short a time as possible, whether it be true or not, proven or not.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
FURYUS: Do you enjoy talking to yourself? The drive-by drivel that most of your posts consist of is not going to be taken very seriously by anyone with a brain.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Sarah,
I have not watched TV news since 2004. It then inspired me to quit smoking in 2006. Now I have been free of 1 toxin for 4 years and another for 2….. I’m not sure which was worse.
As for “liberal media”, remember NYT printed Judith Miller’s stories, that she got from Scooter Libby, and Ahmed Chalabi, then Cheney would go on Meet the Press, and quote the NYT, as though they were and independent sources, and no one ever called them on it.
But war sells newspapers and TV ratings.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“The problem with the New York Times, especially, and a few others I see as being left of center, is that when they print a lie on page 1 above the fold and if that lie gets called, they print the retraction on page 49 in the bottom right corner.”
Yes, but it least they print a retraction, something seldom, if ever seen on any broadcast, including Fox. And on the rare occasion that they do, it’s about 10 seconds out of an 86,400-second day. Talk about burying retractions, clarifications and corrections!
Lobo, the fact that Fox often rushes to report negative and demeaning information about Obama should tip you off that it’s not exactly unbiased. The morning show they have is also fraught with demeaning talk against Democrats, something I haven’t seen on the big three networks.
But, to each his own. I just wish they’d give another try with the Fairness Doctrine.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I hear this all the time about Universities. I went to C U where that crazy Professor Churchhill went. The Business School had its fair share of what seemed to be Conservative Professors. The rest of the school leans to the left. It didn’t change my conservative views and considering how many Rebublocans there are it doesn’t affect many others views as well.
Bigger Govt., out of control spending without a plan to pay it back, and allowing and encouraging shaddy home loans is not what being a conservative is about. Bush allowed and encouraged these things to occur on his watch. He has failed us miserably in these respects.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Sarah: As I said earlier, no one media organization has a monoply on slick tricks. And, I agree that Fox is more center right than totally balanced. But, not only in my opinion but in several polls, a majority of people believe that the msm is biased in one way or the other and the majority believe that the bias is to the left.
The morning show on fox (Fox & Friends) is a talk show. Are you going to tell me that the View doesn’t say demeaning things about republicans and kiss up to Obama and democrats? Or Oprah? Or the Emmys? Operah has actually turned her show into a large recruiting division for the Obama campaign.
Sarah, you are a smart lady and I say that sincerely. I find it hard to believe that you can’t see the gross slant of almost every news organization towards Obama and the total ‘gonna get you’ approach towards McCain and Palin. It is so there in your face that it is hard to miss.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Re: liberal bias:
From:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710?currentPage=4
In this case, two women at the most influential newspapers in the country: Seelye from The New York Times and Ceci Connolly from The Washington Post.
The gist is that Gore said, don’t think one person can’t make a difference …when you think of the Love Canal, It all happened because one high-school student got involved.”
These reporters said that he said, “I was the one that started it all,” instead of “that was the one that started it all.”
The teacher where he spoke, sent in the video, the papers printed a retraction, but it was smeared all over TV for a week, (they never retracted.)
Former Cheney communications director, Cathie Martin testified that;
“I suggested we put the vice president on ‘Meet the Press,’ which was a tactic we often used,” Martin testified. “It’s our best format.”
She wrote,
Option 1: “MTP-VP,” then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under “pro,” she wrote: “control message.”
…………………………………………..
Republican pollster Frank Luntz said, “A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.”
Sumner Redstone, CEO of CBS ’s parent company Viacom, made an unusual political statement at a gathering of corporate leaders in Hong Kong (Asian Wall Street Journal, 9/24/04):
I don’t want to denigrate Kerry… but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people…. But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company.
All of these news outlets you mention have ALWAYS been center to right.
It’s just propaganda that they are left leaning.
Conservatives admit it among themselves:
~ Richard Bonn, former RNC chair said,
“There is some strategy to bashing the liberal media…if you watch any great coach,what they do is try to ‘work the refs’. Maybe the ref will cut you some slack the next time”.
~ Bruce Bartlett said in NRO: “the idea that the media tilts towards liberals is absurd.”
This myth of a “liberal media” is just there to manipulate the people
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Gregg: I agree that a conservative with a solid conservative belief is not going to be swayed by the left wing professors. Students without a particular core belief can be swayed and I don’t believe they are being introduced to much of the conservative views.
I agree with you about Bush. I voted for him twice, but were he running now, I would not vote for him. I will vote for McCain/Palin because I know the neither one of them, contrary what democrats say, are like Bush.
The argument that he voted with Bush 90% of the time is an empty argument. All politicians vote with their party at least 90% of the time. Obama voted with the democrats 97% of the time.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Lobo,
What’s scary is I’d vote for him again. How could any consevative vote for Obbamma?
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I take that back. I would write in Donald Duck.
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
OLDLEFTY: You can post a column twice that long and still not convince me, and for that matter a majority of people both democrats and republicans, that the media as a whole does not have a liberal bias. It’s a proven fact (google it) that 85% of the members of the press vote democrat and the majority of them are liberal.
The press has mostly always been left of center, but this election they have dropped all the mask, thrown out all the rules, and pretty well endorsed Obama. And Vanity Fair leans big time to the left.
To me, the liberal bias is a blatantly ‘in my face’ fact that I see every day. Most everything I read, see, or hear from the msn is a hit piece on McCain or Palin or a positive account of Obama. I don’t know how else I am supposed to judge this.
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
What does it matter who says they vote Democratic?
It is the big media corporations who call the shots.
They are more concerned with greater and greater ownership which they get more from Republicans.
I believe it is is blatant that they lean,(not conservative or liberal), but towards Republicans,
That is why they covered very little of the PNAC and few people knew that Bush/Cheney wanted to go to war with Iraq before 2000. They should have known it BEFORE the election!
I think that facts that conservatives don’t like is called liberal bias.
I don’t know how anyone can justify the way Hillary was treated compared to Palin.
If there was a liberal media, we would see as much of her church, and her husband’s secession party, and how much the leader hates America as we saw of Rev Wright….And you know, I don’t even it’s because they favor her over him, just that the right screams bloody murder if a white pastor is treated like Wright was, and the media is accused of being against religion, but an angry black guy won’t bring the same outrage.
We also would have known ALL about the financial ties between the Bushes and the bin Ladins.
The left doesn’t have the think tanks to shout “CONSERVATIVE MEDIA!!! at everything they think is unfair.
Actually the greatest indictment I can make against them, is they are more infotainment than anything, because it is cheap, easy, and carries less risk of the GREATEST sin…boredom.
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
“There is some strategy to bashing the liberal media…”
The strategy is simple: smear the media so when they dig up the dirt on you it’s easier to pass it off as smears and lies.
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Would that their agenda could be education, instead of indoctrination.
But hey, that’s how we got the best media money can buy, no?
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Sarah-
in my opinion, the only truly dependable source of news is still the printed word. Sure, it might be slanted here or there– but it’s PRINTED. If something’s false, or biased, or left out, then people can WRITE IN to correct it, protest, or provide additional information. It’s a record of what’s going on.
Let’s look at a washington post headline-
Linking Obama to Ex-Fannie Mae Chief Is a Stretch
And then read into the article-
The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin D. Raines, the former chief executive of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae.
Bu the best part is-
So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August.
Did you catch that? Mcsame used the words from the washington post and then the washington post belittled the evidence it’s own paper put out.
Liberal bias at it’s best.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903604.html
Once again the liberal bias will get a republican elected. And the funniest part is they don’t even get it.
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Old Lefty,
I guess that explains why Americans have been bombarded with “journalists” asking Palin how in the world she can do the job and still take care of her her kids, all the while Obama has two small daughters of his own and noone has asked him that.
The media has pointed out that she was in a beauty pageant. Good LORD. How many women and young girls have done that? Just another way to indentify with her.
We have heard time and time again that her 17-year-old unwed teenage daughter is having a baby, all the while middle america can actually identify with some of the struggles this family is going through in the public arena.
compare the Gibson interview between obama and Palin and there is no comparison. Gibson asked her tough questions, while Obama got softballs.
We all know her husband got a DUI over 20 years ago, but you don’t hear the media talking about Obama’s frequent over the top drug use during his younger years.
Bringing up Bush/Cheney is really getting old considering they aren’t on the ticket this time. That is like the Republicans bringin up John Edwards or Howard Dean.
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Sarah,
Are you kidding me? Do you watch The VIEW? 4 out of 5 of the hosts are pro-Obama and they bash Bush, McCain, Palin and any other Republican every chance they get.
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Truth,
You get it. Liberals lost the last two elections because of their anti-war = anti-American bias and, this is the part you are correct on, is that they don’t even get it.
They just keep making the same mistake again and again and again. The begining mistake is not finding a centrist, QUALIFIED candidate. Until libs do this, they are due to lose every election from 2000 onward.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I disagree.
Gibson asked her basic questions for one who COULD be president.
Did he ask her if she has rethought abstinence ONLY, V abstinence BASED, education?
Did he ask her why she cut funds for pregnancy shelters for teens?
How about if she believes as her pastor does that the end times are coming in our lifetimes, and should she make foreign policy accordingly?
How about converting gays, and Jews?
Gibson’s interview with Obama was nothing compared to the Democratic primary debate , when he aired a video question from some woman asking Obama if he believes in the American flag, because he never wears an American flag pin, asked about Obama’s supposed friendship with an ex-Weatherman terrorist, prompting Obama to point out that this was exactly the kind of manufactured issue he was just talking about. It was a great “There you go again” moment.
There was a video clip of John McCain declaring that Democrats would Raise Your Taxes, followed by the spectacle of Charlie Gibson arguing tenaciously against increases in the capital gains tax.
Many Obama supporters thought they were behaving this way because George Stephanopoulos had worked for the Clintons.
Was Obama’s drug use as a young man more or less important than Bush’s alcoholism and DUI in his 40s? That was forgiven because he said he found Jesus.
I think that bringing up Bush/Cheney is really important because there was ample reason to know what they were up to BEFORE they got into office, and you know…” Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Crazy Conservative,
Democrats won in 2006
Al Gore DEFINATELY won in 2000
Kerry maybe won maybe lost in 2004 as long as privately owned voting machines with ceos who promise to deliver Ohio to Bush:
” Diebold’s current CEO Walden “Wally” O’Dell, reside in Columbus’ northwest suburb Upper Arlington. O’Dell is on record stating that he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President” this year. On September 26, 2003, he hosted an Ohio Republican Party fundraiser for Bush’s re-election at his Cotswold Manor mansion. Tickets to the fundraiser cost $1000 per couple, but O’Dell’s fundraising letter urged those attending to “Donate or raise $10,000 for the Ohio Republican Party.”
“In heavily Democratic areas around Youngstown, where nearly 100 voters reported entering ”Kerry” on the touch screen and watching ”Bush” light up, at least twenty machines had to be recalibrated in the middle of the voting process for chronically flipping Kerry votes to Bush.(165) (Similar ”vote hopping” from Kerry to Bush was reported by voters and election officials in other states.)(166) Elsewhere, voters complained in sworn affidavits that they touched Kerry’s name on the screen and it lit up, but that the light had gone out by the time they finished their ballot; the Kerry vote faded away.”
8-10 hour lines in Democratic precincts.
We really just don’t know.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Last thing for me:
If anti war=anti American,(what a good German to believe that) Then what about:
Here’s what Republicans said about Clinton and Kosovo
Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and
demand that we cut and run?
“President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a
foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He
has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he
has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling
case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are
going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the
administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign
policy.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they
have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W.
Bush
Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t
think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.”
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re
going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“I’m on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and
believe me when I say we’re running out of cruise missles. I can’t tell you
exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we’re almost
out of cruise missles.”
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it
is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just
learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very
vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these
questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of
engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of
victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear
funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military.
There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at
stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started
this thing, and there still is no plan today”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“I don’t know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag”
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may
come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their
life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face,
that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
“The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are
Russia and China. Here we go in. We’re taking on not just Milosevic. We
can’t just say, ‘that little guy, we can whip him.’ We have these two
other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero
defense thanks to this president.”
“You can support the troops but not the president”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have
input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after
they’re made … not to march in lock step with everything the president
decides to do.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the
United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in
Operation Allied Force is a farce”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Why did they blame America first?
Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague
objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international
respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the
bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his
forces, and then that’s when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic
cleansing really started”
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
”
Clinton’s bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo’s
capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own
soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country”
-Pat Buchanan (R)
“These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark …who
clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton.”
-Michael Savage
“This has been an unmitigated disaster … Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask
all the people in Belgrade that we’ve killed. Ask the refugees that
we’ve killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in
hospitals.”
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and
NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring “wars of
national liberation.”
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
2000-Al Gore lost (this isn’t breaking news.
2004-John Kerry lost (again not breaking news)
2006- not a presidential race
2008-Barack Obama will lose + probably the house and some senate seats will go as well.
Just want you to be prepared for the inevitable.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
The liberal agenda means anti American agenda, it means the likes of the terrorists Bill Ayers and others who say 9/11 was an inside job, who do their part to help enemies of the USA during wartime, these are the ones who squawk loudly about their phones being tapped? obviously because they are guilty.
This kind of home grown terrorist is what Alan and pals are defending.
NO mention of such people, NO mention of the anti Americanism being… bad? or anything
you just mock if the same thing is done by the political right because the right wing tries to instill patriotism and values
where the leftwing seeks anarchy, and they dont even hide it anymore
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 am
Bradley,
I believe that it is the CONSERVATIVE agenda that is anti-American. It promotes the likes of the Carlyle Group, the bin Ladin Group, and Saudi royal family, who take our money with one hand, and raises money for suicide bombers with the other. Then they are free to hold hands with Bush and go off laughing ALL the way to the bank.
To justify the wiretapping of private citizens, by assuming that ONLY terrorists are being spied upon, is just following Goering’s formula to being a ‘good German’. It is cowardly and shameful.
You say, “NO mention of such people, NO mention of the anti Americanism being… bad? or anything”
Where is the mention of YOUR anti Americanism being bad?
To refer to your fellow citizens who have serious doubts about those to whom they entrust with such great power, as ‘traitors, treasonous, and seeking anarchy’, belongs more in a right wing fascist dictatorship, than with our constitution.
“you just mock if the same thing is done by the political right because the right wing tries to instill patriotism and values”
The right wing tries to instill fear and blind obedience, while calling it patriotism.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
The right wing doesn’t have to instill fear. Turn on your TV and listen to the crazy guy from IRAN who thinks he has an integral part in ushering in the next messiah, that God is punishing the U.S. by destroying our economy, and that Israel and the U.S. are the great Satans.
And Obama doesn’t think Iran is a problem?
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Dear Alan
I am a conservative person neverthless, I can say conservatives get upset over everything is not conservative. They do not even like Sen. McCane. They “tolarate him.” That is why when Sen Obama supporters compaired him with Rush Limbough, I laughed. Rush do not like Sen. McCane. Rush is weired but Sen. McCane is not. May be his age gave him wisdom.
Every one knows that college professors are elite, libaral and opinionated. They are not rich so being obnoxios compenset that problem. PhD’s are worst. They could be PhD in Biochemistry but they will know that American FP and Presidend Bush is bad.
Sen.Obama is obnoxias because of his and his father’s Ivy Legue education. Sen. Obama even talks like a college Profesor. That is why he is good with young people.
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Lobo: “The morning show on fox (Fox & Friends) is a talk show.”
**Well, yes it is. It’s on during “Today,” “Good Morning America,” and that other one I never watch.
But I rarely see those interviewers asking slanted questions, unless it’s to question an extremist.
“Are you going to tell me that the View doesn’t say demeaning things about republicans and kiss up to Obama and democrats?”
**You noticed the disparity in numbers in a later post, I see. 1 Republican, 4 Democrats (well, actually, one of them changes from time to time). So you notice the disparity in most of Fox’s shows, right? Ever see how frequently Alan’s the single Democrat faced with 3 conservatives? Again, the need for the Fairness Doctrine to create a more level, more civil playing field.
“Or Oprah? Or the Emmys? Operah has actually turned her show into a large recruiting division for the Obama campaign.”
**And I don’t agree with her on it. I’m not a real Oprah fan anyway, Phil Donahue opened a better dialogue on his shows. But then, the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect back then, too.
“Sarah, you are a smart lady and I say that sincerely.”
Thanks, and I mean that sincerely… but I sense another shoe dropping shortly…. :)
“I find it hard to believe that you can’t see the gross slant of almost every news organization towards Obama and the total ‘gonna get you’ approach towards McCain and Palin. It is so there in your face that it is hard to miss.”
I guess it’s so in your face, because you might naturally, subconsciously, be more keenly aware of slights projected against your candidates. I know I am! It’s only natural.
The best newspapers are the ones that have ALL sides complaining about bias, and I can assure you, many of your “MSMs” get plenty of it.
Having worked in the media, I can tell you, it’s true. There is a percentage of liberals working in the media, because they’re supposed to be the watchdog of America– you know, looking out for the common good of man, making sure that gov’t is operating effectively and above board, covering injustices and crimes against humanity and whatnot.
But there’s a difference between being liberal, and being compassionate.
When you’re covering a tenement that’s on fire, for example, because the landlord ignored the complaints of faulty wiring, and had a couple of friends in the housing authority who let him slide. And you see the building’s flames flickering on the smoke-streaked, tear-stained faces of the families who lost all of their meager posessions, including the one pet that the kids just had to have, despite their single parent’s reluctance to feed one more mouth….
–Do you ask the family why they didn’t get an education so they could get more lucrative work?
–Do you ask the mom why she let her kids have a dog, when they were on welfare to begin with?
–Do you tell them, hey, stop leaching off the fire department, you don’t pay taxes, why don’t you put out your own fire?
–Do you tell them they should thank god they even had a roof over their heads to begin with?
No. You ferret out the friend in the housing authority who let his friend take a pass on bringing the building codes up to date. You talk about how the landlord lives in a mansion, while these people are out on the streets. You talk about how he bilked the gov’t out of millions of Section 8 funds.
As I’ve said before, I was once extremely conservative in my thinking, very Darwinian “only the strong should survive.” When I began accumulating personal experience in covering stories that evoked human compassion that I’d heretofore denied while I was an armchair conservative, I stopped reflexively taking the poor and downtrodden to task.
I don’t think I’ll ever be a liberal. But I no longer close my eyes to problems that exist in this country, or place entire blame on the poor, needy, disabled, elderly, or struggling, for all of their problems. It’s hard to protect ourselves from foreign wolves, when the domestic wolves are having their way with the flock. It makes for a lot of wolves preying on sheep, and it’s my duty as a Christian and an American to do my bit to protect (and strengthen) the sheep, not prey upon them.
At least, from what I’ve read of the gospels, that’s What Jesus Would Do.
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Wow, Sarah. I’m sure it won’t move the deliberately obtuse, but that certainly rang true with this old boy. Thank you.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Thanks. My post was too long, should’ve broken it up, but that’s pretty much my “testimony” as a former, no-holds-barred, conservative.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Obama has less experience then Sarah Palin. The real reason the elite left wing and media dislikes her, because she is a real self-made woman who did not go to the east coast Ivy League schools. Real America loves. The elite left dislikes and condemns
Any one who does not share their bigoted view of this world. That is why the mainstream media is losing money, laying off staff and dieing daily. Sarah Palin does not need to speak to the elite media. She can speak directly to main stream
October 1st, 2008 at 9:34 pm