Curiously, while the corporate media have been obsessively salivating and chewing over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's every word, Republican mentors and supporters have been emitting their own brand of toxic swill in a near vacuum.
Not so much media attention was given to McCain's evangelist pal John Hagee, who has said that "Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans," and something about the Catholic Church being a great whore.
Then there's pastor Rod Parsley, who wrote that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [of Islam] destroyed."
And why should wholesome TV viewing Americans be aware of Rush Limbaugh's provocative and threatening "dreams" of riots in Denver during the Democratic convention?
Could it possibly be there are different standards for the radical righties? Or is it simply just a given that hateful bigoted speech is expected from them, so it's not really newsworthy?
There's not much we can do about spiritually poisoned preachers, but Limbaugh's mouth has sponsors. Have a look at some his hate drenched comments here, and then feel free to boycott and send a message to his advertisers.
Here are his words.
Screw the World! Riot in Denver!
We don't bring people together. That's not how this country works. We defeat our political adversaries so that they're in the minority.
We need as many ignorant Americans to wake up and find out exactly who the modern-day Democrat Party is as dominated by the far left in this country. We need that to be seen. Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming. (singing to the tune of White Christmas) "I'm dreaming of riots in Denver." Remember 1968? And which party did that? It was the radicals in that party, the anti-war radicals, the same bunch of clowns that are running around defining the Democrat Party today.
Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats -- and that's the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think: Don't elect Democrats!
Here are his advertisers:
Bose Wave Radio 508-766-7781
Lending Tree (704) 541-5351
Life Quotes 1-800-670-5433
Select Comfort 763-551-7460
Overstock.com 1-800-989-0135 (customer comments and service email) otherinfo@overstock.com
eharmony 300 N. Lake Ave., Suite 1111 Pasadena, CA 91101 media@eharmony.com 626.795.4814 FAX 626.585.4040
Inverness Medical (maker of stresstabs) 51 Sawyer Road Waltham, MA 02021 1-800-899-7353 weekdays, 8 am. - 6 p.m. (Eastern Time.)
Onstar 1-800-947-AUTO
Hotwire Corporate Headquarters 333 Market Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94105 advertising@hotwire.com 1-877-HOTWIRE (468-9473) 415-343-8400 Sleep Number Bed 1-800-438-2233
The Neptune Society of Northern California Stewart Enterprises 12070 Telegraph Road ..107 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Oreck Upright Vacuum Cleaners Oreck Corporation 100 Plantation Road New Orleans, Louisiana 70123 Online contact form 1-800-289-5888
Smart & Final Customer Relations PO Box 512377 Los Angeles, CA 91001-0377 (Heard on KFI 640 in Los Angeles)
Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee 9151 Grapevine Hwy. North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Phone (800) 733-1110 (web banner ads on rushlimbaugh.com)
AutoZone Inc. P.O. Box 2198 Memphis, TN 38101 Phone (901) 495-7185 Fax (901) 495-8374 investor.relations@autozone.com
Citracal - Mission Pharmacal Bennett Kennedy - Citracal Product Manager Mission Pharmacal P.O. Box 786099 San Antonio, TX 78278-6099 Phone:(800) 531-3333
Blue-Emu 1-800-432-9334
Lumber Liquidators Toll Free: 877-645-5347 Contact list: Link Avacor (hair loss treatment) (customer comments email) comments@avacorusa.com
Lazerguide® (golf instruction tool) PO Box 807 New Hudson Michigan 48165 1-877-266-6430 (toll free)
Mission Pharmacal Company 10999 IH-10 West Suite 1000 San Antonio, TX 78230 Telephone: (800) 531-3333
General Steel Metal Buildings 1075 South Yukon, Ste. 250 Lakewood, Colorado 80226 Toll Free: 1-888-98-STEEL Phone: 303-904-4837 Fax: 303-979-0084
Life Quotes, Inc. 32045 Castle Court Evergreen, CO 80439 1-800-670-5433 info@lifequotes.com.au
Select Comfort Corporation 6105 Trenton Lane N Minneapolis, MN 55442 Phone: 763-551-7000 Fax: 763-551-7826 investorrelations@selectcomfor t.com RegionalHelpWanted.com, Inc. 1 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 506 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 800-365-8630 845-471-5200 Feedback@RegionalHelpWanted.co m
The Swap Shop 3291 East Sunrise Ft. Lauderdale, FL swpshop@aol.com Phone - 954.791.$WAP
Pfizer Inc 235 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 212-733-2323
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The McCain/McMedia Complex
Can anyone still wonder why the Democrats declined the generous invitation from Fox News to debate on their network? If that so called “debate” last Wednesday on ABC was not enough to prove the corporate media may as well be working for McCain, I don’t know what else could do it. For about an entire hour the nation had to endure pointless, propagandistic drivel such as who loves America most, flag worship, flag pins, the patriotism of a Marine Corps veteran pastor, and the activities of a former radical from over forty years ago.
The time that remained for real issues was taken up with such “objectivity” as Charles Gibson’s arguing against capital gains taxes and his reverential reference to Bush’s pet General Petraeus:
“But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, ‘I know better than the military commanders here’?”
Everyone but corporate media hacks and Radical Right mouthpieces has been talking about the tabloid nature and general irrelevance of many of the questions. If you missed the commercial TV event interspersed with an odd little inquisition of idiocy, consider yourself fortunate. Trust me; you’d have been more enlightened watching American Idol or Survivor, or anything else other than TV “news”.
Besides the questions posed by former Clinton crony George Stephanopoulos and Gibson, let me point to this example of the McCain/McMedia Complex.
There was a luncheon for the nation’s newspaper editors hosted by the Associated Press on the Monday before the debate. Both McCain and Obama appeared. Only one of them received a standing ovation. As everyone indoctrinated by the right wing corporate media would presume, the ovation would have to have been for Obama. Nope. McCain was the recipient of the editors’ adulation.
How’s that for “liberal media bias”? But wait, there’s more.
After McCain was greeted with a box of donuts and some coffee and a hearty standing ovation, it was Obama’s turn. However, the Democratic candidate was given no donuts, no coffee, and no standing ovation.
Instead of donuts “with sprinkles” for McCain, he was offered an interesting question from AP Chairman Dean Singleton. He quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"
"I think that was Osama bin Laden," Barack replied.
"If I did that, I'm so sorry!" Singleton said, after his little Freudian, or rather, Rovian slip.
The public was barraged with clucking and squawking over a comment about bitter Americans, but not more than a peep about this media muck up. Neither were they informed very much about Johnny Bomb Bomb’s frighteningly inaccurate assertion about who we were fighting in Iraq:
“Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate. So I believe that we are succeeding in Iraq. The situation is dramatically improved. But I also want to emphasize time and again al-Qaeda is on the run, but they are not defeated.”
This dangerous falsehood was repeated by McCain as much as Hillary told her Bosnian sniper story. Which one did the media play the most?
See what I mean?
Here's another example from the April 10th edition of Hardball on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: He's [Sen. Barack Obama] not that good at that -- handshaking in a diner.
SHUSTER: No --
MATTHEWS: Barack doesn't seem to know how to do that right.
SHUSTER: -- he doesn't do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that's why, Chris, we've seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean --
MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection?
SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."
MATTHEWS: No.
SHUSTER: He did. And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] --
MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.
SHUSTER: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.
And let's not forget this gem from September 10, 2006 by Chris Matthews: "The press loves McCain. We're his base. "
I could go on and on.
Let’s go back to the debate. TV critic, Tom Shales of The Washington Post, said Gibson and Stephanopoulos "turned in shoddy, despicable performances."
After some of this outraged reaction to the ABC moderators poured in, Stephanopoulos said: "Sure, there's a risk." But he added: "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument. They all go back to that same theme."
Well, wasn’t it convenient that ABC transmitted “clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents” into the debate, much to Hillary’s and McCain’s advantage?
"The questions were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant," Stephanopoulos told The Associated Press. "We wanted to focus at first on the issues that were not focused on during the last debates."
He may as well have said “fair and balanced”. The question about former Weather Underground member William Ayers was fed to Stephanopoulos directly from Fox’s own Sean Hannity.
And this was indeed much to Hannity’s delight. He later crowed, “Now of course, the liberal blogs are losing their minds in part because I suggested the question to George Stephanopoulos Tuesday afternoon on my radio show.”
Stephanopoulos explained to ABC News political correspondent Jake Tapper, “We have been researching this for a while,” he said. “Part of what we discovered is that Sen. Obama had never been asked directly about it, even though it’s being written about and talked about and Republicans are signaling that this is gonna be an issue in the general election.”
There he goes again, transmitting and boosting what those “Republicans are signaling”.
Hannity was not the only delighted member of the Radical Right to laud the debate.
Radio propagandist Laura Ingraham noted that Gibson and Stephanopoulos also asked the candidates about Iraq, Israel, gas prices, capital gains taxes, affirmative action and a Supreme Court case on the D.C. handgun ban.
"That's pretty substantive," she said. "It was one of the best debates of the entire political season, because it addressed substance and character at the same time . . . “
Right wing blogger Ed Morrissey at hotair.com was also impressed:
"Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock . . .Kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly."
Such lavish praise for the liberal media! Why, it’s almost like ABC News has merged with Fox News. The McCain/McMedia Complex is now blooming in all its glory.
Does anybody still wonder who’s going to win the election?
The time that remained for real issues was taken up with such “objectivity” as Charles Gibson’s arguing against capital gains taxes and his reverential reference to Bush’s pet General Petraeus:
“But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, ‘I know better than the military commanders here’?”
Everyone but corporate media hacks and Radical Right mouthpieces has been talking about the tabloid nature and general irrelevance of many of the questions. If you missed the commercial TV event interspersed with an odd little inquisition of idiocy, consider yourself fortunate. Trust me; you’d have been more enlightened watching American Idol or Survivor, or anything else other than TV “news”.
Besides the questions posed by former Clinton crony George Stephanopoulos and Gibson, let me point to this example of the McCain/McMedia Complex.
There was a luncheon for the nation’s newspaper editors hosted by the Associated Press on the Monday before the debate. Both McCain and Obama appeared. Only one of them received a standing ovation. As everyone indoctrinated by the right wing corporate media would presume, the ovation would have to have been for Obama. Nope. McCain was the recipient of the editors’ adulation.
How’s that for “liberal media bias”? But wait, there’s more.
After McCain was greeted with a box of donuts and some coffee and a hearty standing ovation, it was Obama’s turn. However, the Democratic candidate was given no donuts, no coffee, and no standing ovation.
Instead of donuts “with sprinkles” for McCain, he was offered an interesting question from AP Chairman Dean Singleton. He quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"
"I think that was Osama bin Laden," Barack replied.
"If I did that, I'm so sorry!" Singleton said, after his little Freudian, or rather, Rovian slip.
The public was barraged with clucking and squawking over a comment about bitter Americans, but not more than a peep about this media muck up. Neither were they informed very much about Johnny Bomb Bomb’s frighteningly inaccurate assertion about who we were fighting in Iraq:
“Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate. So I believe that we are succeeding in Iraq. The situation is dramatically improved. But I also want to emphasize time and again al-Qaeda is on the run, but they are not defeated.”
This dangerous falsehood was repeated by McCain as much as Hillary told her Bosnian sniper story. Which one did the media play the most?
See what I mean?
Here's another example from the April 10th edition of Hardball on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: He's [Sen. Barack Obama] not that good at that -- handshaking in a diner.
SHUSTER: No --
MATTHEWS: Barack doesn't seem to know how to do that right.
SHUSTER: -- he doesn't do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that's why, Chris, we've seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean --
MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection?
SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."
MATTHEWS: No.
SHUSTER: He did. And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] --
MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.
SHUSTER: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.
And let's not forget this gem from September 10, 2006 by Chris Matthews: "The press loves McCain. We're his base. "
I could go on and on.
Let’s go back to the debate. TV critic, Tom Shales of The Washington Post, said Gibson and Stephanopoulos "turned in shoddy, despicable performances."
After some of this outraged reaction to the ABC moderators poured in, Stephanopoulos said: "Sure, there's a risk." But he added: "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument. They all go back to that same theme."
Well, wasn’t it convenient that ABC transmitted “clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents” into the debate, much to Hillary’s and McCain’s advantage?
"The questions were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant," Stephanopoulos told The Associated Press. "We wanted to focus at first on the issues that were not focused on during the last debates."
He may as well have said “fair and balanced”. The question about former Weather Underground member William Ayers was fed to Stephanopoulos directly from Fox’s own Sean Hannity.
And this was indeed much to Hannity’s delight. He later crowed, “Now of course, the liberal blogs are losing their minds in part because I suggested the question to George Stephanopoulos Tuesday afternoon on my radio show.”
Stephanopoulos explained to ABC News political correspondent Jake Tapper, “We have been researching this for a while,” he said. “Part of what we discovered is that Sen. Obama had never been asked directly about it, even though it’s being written about and talked about and Republicans are signaling that this is gonna be an issue in the general election.”
There he goes again, transmitting and boosting what those “Republicans are signaling”.
Hannity was not the only delighted member of the Radical Right to laud the debate.
Radio propagandist Laura Ingraham noted that Gibson and Stephanopoulos also asked the candidates about Iraq, Israel, gas prices, capital gains taxes, affirmative action and a Supreme Court case on the D.C. handgun ban.
"That's pretty substantive," she said. "It was one of the best debates of the entire political season, because it addressed substance and character at the same time . . . “
Right wing blogger Ed Morrissey at hotair.com was also impressed:
"Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock . . .Kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly."
Such lavish praise for the liberal media! Why, it’s almost like ABC News has merged with Fox News. The McCain/McMedia Complex is now blooming in all its glory.
Does anybody still wonder who’s going to win the election?
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Warmongers
Maybe you’ve seen the fuss over a comment made by liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz last Friday, April fourth. He was speaking at an Obama fund-raiser in North Dakota and happened to call John McCain a warmonger.
Zounds! How dare those far-left (read liberal) agents of smear and character assassination attempt to slime the good name of Johnny (Bomb Bomb Iran) McCain! Remember that catchy little tune the senator sang for us?
The right wing bloggers quickly puffed up into their favorite posture of self-righteous indignation.
North Dakota's Democrats selected far-left radio talk show host Ed Schultz to warm up the crowd before Barack Obama's speech; he did so by calling John McCain "a warmonger." Obama did nothing to distance himself from Schultz's smear. - poligazette
What’s most interesting about this entire affair, though, is that it shows us how the Democrats will campaign against the GOP. Republicans are “warmongers” and “hatemongers.” The far-left will, undoubtedly, start attacking McCain incredibly aggressively ASAP. – powerlineblog
Robert M. Duncan, the chairman of the Republican National Committee chimed in with his outrage, “Enough is enough. Senator Obama has an obligation to speak out and publicly reject and denounce — not applaud — the shameful and contemptible remarks made by his surrogates.”
There go those liberals for you, shameful and contemptible. Contrast that remark with the diplomatic and respectful comment Johnny Bomb Bomb made about Hillary at a GOP Presidential debate.
He said, “If Senator Clinton has her way, al-Qaeda will trumpet to the world that they have beaten the United States.”
See? Now there’s the way to talk about a senator and peer. Never mind that “liberal” senator refuses to admit that her support for the invasion of Iraq was a lapse in judgment. Why, she was so liberal that she co-sponsored the failed Flag Protection Act of 2005 with Republican Senator Robert Bennett. No wonder al-Qaeda loves her. They don’t like our Constitution either.
They probably love McCain even more for fervently supporting the Iraq War. After all, that war was, and is, al-Qaeda’s biggest propaganda victory.
McCain told reporters, “Mr. Schultz is entitled to his views. I would hope that in keeping with his commitment that Senator Obama would condemn such language, since it was part of his campaign.'’
Ever the politically correct liberals they are, the Obama people quickly stepped in to cringe from the Right’s howling rage. Traveling press secretary Jen Psaki said in a written statement: “John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”
Uh, huh.
It’s a good thing Ed Schultz has the spine to stand behind his words.
"He voted for this war," Schultz told the Associated Press on Saturday. "He's a perpetrator of the war. He's an advocate of the war. In my personal definition, that's a warmonger."
Ed is correct, of course. My American Heritage Dictionary defines warmonger as, “One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.”
As we remember, it was not just Bush, Cheney, and the neocons doing all the saber rattling back in 2002.
That would include Hillary Clinton, as well as many Democrats, and nearly every Republican politician. A country does not start an unprovoked war without a warmongering dominant party in its government.
The definition also fits the entire American corporate media, not that they would ever admit to their near total failure of investigative reporting. They were much too busy being “fair and balanced”. You know, like having at least twice as many pro-war as pro-peace opinions in print and on air.
Real men and women admit their mistakes and accept the facts. So don’t look for any acknowledgment of reality from our budding fascist politicians. They would love for us to forget the past and just move on, nothing to see here.
In the meantime, I’m still waiting for a Democrat to find the sense to respond to those truth-sensitive Republicans and offer them the truce Adlai E. Stevenson once suggested.
“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”
Zounds! How dare those far-left (read liberal) agents of smear and character assassination attempt to slime the good name of Johnny (Bomb Bomb Iran) McCain! Remember that catchy little tune the senator sang for us?
The right wing bloggers quickly puffed up into their favorite posture of self-righteous indignation.
North Dakota's Democrats selected far-left radio talk show host Ed Schultz to warm up the crowd before Barack Obama's speech; he did so by calling John McCain "a warmonger." Obama did nothing to distance himself from Schultz's smear. - poligazette
What’s most interesting about this entire affair, though, is that it shows us how the Democrats will campaign against the GOP. Republicans are “warmongers” and “hatemongers.” The far-left will, undoubtedly, start attacking McCain incredibly aggressively ASAP. – powerlineblog
Robert M. Duncan, the chairman of the Republican National Committee chimed in with his outrage, “Enough is enough. Senator Obama has an obligation to speak out and publicly reject and denounce — not applaud — the shameful and contemptible remarks made by his surrogates.”
There go those liberals for you, shameful and contemptible. Contrast that remark with the diplomatic and respectful comment Johnny Bomb Bomb made about Hillary at a GOP Presidential debate.
He said, “If Senator Clinton has her way, al-Qaeda will trumpet to the world that they have beaten the United States.”
See? Now there’s the way to talk about a senator and peer. Never mind that “liberal” senator refuses to admit that her support for the invasion of Iraq was a lapse in judgment. Why, she was so liberal that she co-sponsored the failed Flag Protection Act of 2005 with Republican Senator Robert Bennett. No wonder al-Qaeda loves her. They don’t like our Constitution either.
They probably love McCain even more for fervently supporting the Iraq War. After all, that war was, and is, al-Qaeda’s biggest propaganda victory.
McCain told reporters, “Mr. Schultz is entitled to his views. I would hope that in keeping with his commitment that Senator Obama would condemn such language, since it was part of his campaign.'’
Ever the politically correct liberals they are, the Obama people quickly stepped in to cringe from the Right’s howling rage. Traveling press secretary Jen Psaki said in a written statement: “John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”
Uh, huh.
It’s a good thing Ed Schultz has the spine to stand behind his words.
"He voted for this war," Schultz told the Associated Press on Saturday. "He's a perpetrator of the war. He's an advocate of the war. In my personal definition, that's a warmonger."
Ed is correct, of course. My American Heritage Dictionary defines warmonger as, “One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.”
As we remember, it was not just Bush, Cheney, and the neocons doing all the saber rattling back in 2002.
That would include Hillary Clinton, as well as many Democrats, and nearly every Republican politician. A country does not start an unprovoked war without a warmongering dominant party in its government.
The definition also fits the entire American corporate media, not that they would ever admit to their near total failure of investigative reporting. They were much too busy being “fair and balanced”. You know, like having at least twice as many pro-war as pro-peace opinions in print and on air.
Real men and women admit their mistakes and accept the facts. So don’t look for any acknowledgment of reality from our budding fascist politicians. They would love for us to forget the past and just move on, nothing to see here.
In the meantime, I’m still waiting for a Democrat to find the sense to respond to those truth-sensitive Republicans and offer them the truce Adlai E. Stevenson once suggested.
“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Liberals
I had to pass on a couple quotes from the book, Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America, from Media Matters' own Eric Alterman. It's time for progressives to re-define what the Right has mutilated. Here's a good start.
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal."
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." - John Kennedy, September 1960
--------
Now here's another view, this one from Michael Savage, né "Weiner":
"Liberalism is a mental disorder, and it is also a cover," he says. "All this do-gooderness is a cover for very, very, very evil deeds."
He continues: "You say, 'Are you generalizing?' The answer is no. I have long tried to comprehend the madness of the American left. I have long tried to figure out what motivates them to hate the family, the church, the police, the military. In fact, why they hate the male, the patriarch. The answer is because they know they're no good, they're know they're dirty and are afraid of being found out. They're afraid Daddy will punish them for what they're doing."
Liberals and progressives, he says, are "degenerates" who are "on an express train to Hell."
"I am warning you that many of your progressive friends -- the permissive ones, the ones who laugh at conservatives, the ACLU types, the antiwar types? If they have children, I am warning you to watch your children when they go over to their houses."
Whoa, Michael. You're demonstrating the classic psychological defense mechanism called projection. All that hate you're screaming about is originating from what you see in the mirror.
Who ya gonna listen to, America? You had enough childish name calling and misdirected rage, yet? It wasn't those liberals that screwed things up so royally for the last (thirty) seven years. Now, go pay attention. As George Clinton says, "Think! It ain't illegal yet."
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal."
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." - John Kennedy, September 1960
--------
Now here's another view, this one from Michael Savage, né "Weiner":
"Liberalism is a mental disorder, and it is also a cover," he says. "All this do-gooderness is a cover for very, very, very evil deeds."
He continues: "You say, 'Are you generalizing?' The answer is no. I have long tried to comprehend the madness of the American left. I have long tried to figure out what motivates them to hate the family, the church, the police, the military. In fact, why they hate the male, the patriarch. The answer is because they know they're no good, they're know they're dirty and are afraid of being found out. They're afraid Daddy will punish them for what they're doing."
Liberals and progressives, he says, are "degenerates" who are "on an express train to Hell."
"I am warning you that many of your progressive friends -- the permissive ones, the ones who laugh at conservatives, the ACLU types, the antiwar types? If they have children, I am warning you to watch your children when they go over to their houses."
Whoa, Michael. You're demonstrating the classic psychological defense mechanism called projection. All that hate you're screaming about is originating from what you see in the mirror.
Who ya gonna listen to, America? You had enough childish name calling and misdirected rage, yet? It wasn't those liberals that screwed things up so royally for the last (thirty) seven years. Now, go pay attention. As George Clinton says, "Think! It ain't illegal yet."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
