Woo hoo!!!!

42% say they're conservative and really are conservative. 27% say they're liberal and really are liberal.

Contrast this with the liberal controlled media.

Link

"89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot."
"Asked "How would you characterize your political orientation?" 61 percent said "liberal" or "liberal to moderate." Only nine percent labeled themselves "conservative" or "moderate to conservative.""

When will leftists like Kevin Drum and Michael Moore finally admit the media and reporters are controlled by liberals and biased against conservatives?

Why are the numbers on that figure different from the ones we usually see (40-40-20 or thereabouts)? Different question wording?

Pure campaign marketing, right? Isn't this the kind of demographic psychoanalysis you only get during an election year?

What other purpose is served by identifying what people say vs. how they appear to act?

Didn't see my category: bleeding heart liberal and proud of it.

Well, there also is a matter of people who haven't changed, but the playing field has shifted under them.

And frankly, there are two camps of "real" conservatives these days -- the Libertarian Conservatives, and the Authoritarian Conservatives.

The Authoritarians see nothing wrong in the elimination of individual liberties in the name of security, as long as business is allowed to function without regulation, and apparently see nothing wrong in spending vast amounts of money we don't have for "security" and to maintain its authority. Their method of controls are fear, fundamentalist religion, and spin, with payoffs to control the insiders.

The Libertarians are the ones who are walking out, and joining up with their fellows on the "liberal" side.

And on that "liberal" side, where I find myself today although I haven't changed my beliefs since I was a moderate Republican, has a very few of the old "your daddy's liberals," but not many. Most of the people I find myself in agreement with aren't the knee-jerk liberals that I remember from forty years ago, but believers in practicality, pragmatism, fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and the government NOT intruding in individual citizens' lives.

Let me repeat -- practicality, pragmatism, fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and the government NOT intruding in individual citizens' lives.

Now, you tell me: is that a "liberal" or a "conservative" position?

It's a mystery why liberals keep losing elections.

Define "liberal" and "conservative."

Where does a word like "populist," oft-misused as it is, fit in?

And, Al, "curmudgeon" was a political philosophy too small for statistical calculations. Go back to your cave and don't come out to look at your shadow.

When will leftists like Kevin Drum and Michael Moore finally admit the media and reporters are controlled by liberals ...

Reporters? Gee, someone doesn't have a fucking clue how the media works!

"Controlled" despite the fact that every broadcast network, cable news network, and most radio and print media are owned by major GOP donors? You're either too stupid or too dishonest to deal with that, which is why we'll see your ancient non-sequitur again and again.
.

Grand Moff Texan:

Like Ted Turner?

Grand Moff Texan: Al cited a source, where's yours?

Anyway, any way you slice it, conservatives outnumber liberals. That's why a republican can embrace the conservative label, and democrats have to run from the word liberal. What's interesting is that people are ashamed to admit that they're liberal, which is the first step towards healing and becoming a conservative.

Cable TV donations

Books, magazines and newspapers

"He who casts the ballot decides nothing, he who counts the ballots decides everything" - Joseph Stalin.

"I'm the decider" - George Bush

Talk about percentages is just mental masturbation in the current environment.

I've been saying for ten years or so that it's only a matter of time until the word conservatism is as stigmatized as liberal...and that the conservatives are over-reaching in exactly the same way as blighted liberalism in the '70's.
When the tipping point is reached, a /lot/ of people are going to find themselves revulsed by conservatism...like overnight. I'd like to think the tipping point is near.
The hard part is re-forming liberalism to present a clear, pragmatic and down-to-earth alternative to the all hell out for lunch daily disaster that conservatism has morphed into........

"I've been saying for ten years or so that it's only a matter of time until the word conservatism is as stigmatized as liberal...and that the conservatives are over-reaching in exactly the same way as blighted liberalism in the '70's."

Hardly, Stewart Dean.

Liberalism is the philosophy of places that people move out of.

Conservatism is the philosophy of places that people move to.

"Liberalism is the philosophy of places that people move out of."

Like California, and New York City.

"Conservatism is the philosophy of places that people move to."

Like North Dakota and Nebraska.

Who wants to self identify with George Bush/Dick Cheney conservatism? Not many where I live. Mostly I hear people talking about how Republcans have betrayed real "conservatism."

Frankly not many people want to identify the party of Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson or Grover Norquist--incompetent, corrupt, self-centered, self-serving movement conservatism either. How would you like to be one of Ralph Reed's good Christian supporters. Not very Christ like is he?

Things have gotten so bad around here that the Republicans are holding hotly contested primaries between the old fashioned conservatives who are saying "had enough" and the new fangled Bush/Cheney/movement Conservatives.

Why are the numbers on that figure different from the ones we usually see (40-40-20 or thereabouts)? Different question wording? Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot

More like -

20% truly conservative all the time
20% truly liberal all the time
20% centerist all the time
40% politically couldn't find their own asses without a map and a flashlight most of time

regardless of what they tell you.

Remember, supposedly most Americans are Christians when asked, though less than 30% attend any kind of religious gathering on a regular basis, with more people reliably attending Sunday sporting events week in week out.

Kinda like Lamont vs. Lieberman, Ron? BTW: I still support George Bush/Dick Cheney/Ralph Reed -- I will be voting for Ralph here in Georgia.

Uh, since when did "liberal" and "conservative" come to mean "Democrat" and "Republican"? I hold many views that would be considered conservative to a degree, but wouldn't vote Republican even if there was a gun pressed to my head.

Darth: Cable TV donations

Books, magazines and newspapers

So, it turns out that cable news is split 50/50 between democrat and republican, and newspapers tilt democrat in contributons. GrandMoffTexan, do you ever get anything right?

Doug,

I will be voting for Ralph here in Georgia.

Why?

I would never vote for a crook like Ralph, even if he was a liberal. Party before everything, huh.

-- I will be voting for Ralph here in Georgia.

What turned you on to him - Was it the corruption or the fake Christianity?

Kinda like Lamont vs. Lieberman, Ron? BTW: I still support George Bush/Dick Cheney/Ralph Reed -- I will be voting for Ralph here in Georgia.
Posted by: Doug M.

Stupid is as stupid does, huh Forrest?

I wouldn't punch that ballot or touch that screen too soon, as Reed's likely to be indicted.

I don't know that the term "conservative" means much today. Have to break it down. There are borrow-and-spend ultra-lib big spending religious fanatics like Bush who call themselves conservatives but are more liberal on other issues than Democrats. One forum thread distilled it down to conservatives are people who oppose abortion. I'd call them Papists and hillbilly holy rollers myself instead of conservatives.

How many people admit to being a fly in the ointment?

And some people say they are white/black, it doesn't matter because under the skin their all just people. Conservatives have been know to vote for the person rather than the party, just like some liberals do too.

I don't understand why Kevin writes this crap? What difference does it make if most Americans don't trust Bush, and don't way the GOP is leading congress. How come everytime Bush takes another cut in the polls, Kevin is quick to point out that there are very few liberals in the US. It really makes a person wonder about Washington Monthy, and if the publican isn't actually owned by Republicans just like that rag the TNR is actually owned by members so the GOP.

funny thing. if the majority of this country is conservative, why is it that liberal policies have won the day on every major issue for nearly 75 years? on civil rights, women's rights, the environment, social security and medicare, minimum wage etc. etc the liberal position still wins. the conservatives have come up empty, with the lone exception of tax cuts that have raised the national debt through the ceiling. anyone out there think w will win on his "ownership" agenda over the next two years?

I have a 23 year old niece who calls herself a conservative, yet nothing about her lifestyle is conservative. I truly believe some people just love calling themselves "conservative" - though in thought and in practice they aren't.

I think that a lot of people who call themselves "conservative" really just want to hate Liberals, and because Rush tells them to.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that 87% of the population says it's liberal or conservative. In my experience (and no, I do not know all 300 million Americans), a fair percentage if not a plurality of people eschew these labels, however they vote. Maybe that's my experience growing up in a purplish state, Wisconsin; it certainly does seem like there's more polarization both ways in California now that I live there.

Centrist does not necessarily mean, furthermore, that one must be in the middle on every issue, in which case 13% would probably be high; and it's pretty condescending to assume they're confused, at least at any greater rate than the other categories. It means that a person's views tend to be liberal or conservative (or other) on various issues, and that in practice the person is roughly equally likely to vote for a liberal or a conservative (or a Democrat or a Republican). At various times I've thought of myself as liberal or conservative, and would probably now call myself centrist, even though my views on individual issues is rarely moderate. Anyway, 13% sounds at least a factor of two low, I'll have to look at the methodology but if you just ask a question like "Identify yourself as a. Liberal, b. Conservative, or c. Other", of course more people are going to choose a or b than would otherwise identify themselves as such. Who wants to be an Other or a None of the Above?

"The Authoritarians see nothing wrong in the elimination of individual liberties in the name of security, as long as business is allowed to function without regulation, and apparently see nothing wrong in spending vast amounts of money we don't have for "security" and to maintain its authority. Their method of controls are fear, fundamentalist religion, and spin, with payoffs to control the insiders."

You may call them "Authoritarians" and they are authoritarian, I'll give you that. But they are also known as Reagan Republicans.

hey al, could you cite for us the breakdown in voting among journalists during the 1860 presidential election. i mean its about as relevant as an election that took place 14 years ago. and if you really want to put a label on clinton, try moderate rather than liberal. it fits much better.

Like Ted Turner?

Ted Turner doesn't own any major media outlets. He used to own CNN, but sold out to Time-Warner in the 1990s.

if the majority of this country is conservative, why is it that liberal policies have won the day on every major issue for nearly 75 years? .....
Posted by: mudwall jackson on July 10, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

My "conservative" freind tells me it's because paying welfare is like bribing poor people to vote democratic, and giving civil servants high wages, and making it impossible to fire them, bribes the civil service bureacracy into voting democratic also.

Doug M.: Not only are you planning on voting for an unrepentant shyster like Ralph Reed, you're actually admitting this in public?!?!?! I'm hereby asking you to change your Christian name forthwith and cease and desist going by the moniker "Doug." You're really dragging the rest of us down.

This piece is worthless; the fundamental basis for the analysis is taking presidential vote in 2004 as the fundamental determinant of liberal/conservativeness (because the weights on whether each stance is "liberal" or "conservative" is based on how well it predicted the Presidential vote.) Apparently "conservative" to Winship is defined as "a person who, based on their responses on the issues, would have been expected, if they were voting in the 2004 election, to be more likely to vote for Bush than Kerry."

Additionally, Winship conflates the "conservative" approach to national security policy with national security itself, and the "conservative" value positions with "values".

And, further, the division into categories (particularly, separating "values and value-laden policy areas" as a separate category from all the pure policy areas, especially "economic/social policy"; all policy is value-laden, of course, and the issues commonly identified as "values" issues are almost invariably economic/social policy issues) suggest is a bit odd, as well.

osama, does your "conservative" friend consider cleaner air, cleaner water, voting rights, civil rights, safer air and highway travel et al to be bribes? social security a bribe? that dynamic doesn't work, considering the payroll tax. conservatives like to rail against government but don't do anything to reduce it, the energy department, education department being the most prominent examples over the past 25 years. if the public truly was conservative, then both departments would have hit the dust bin decades ago.

al: finally admit the media and reporters are controlled by liberals and biased against conservatives

"We have the media now" - Ann Coulter 7/25/05

"Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact." Bill O'Reilly 7/27/05

Even Christians get indicted (some got eaten by lions). If if that happens before next Tuesday, I will still vote for Reed. I don't doubt Reed's Christianity for a second, and I'm not changing my name, either.

osama, does your "conservative" friend consider cleaner air, cleaner water, voting rights, civil rights, safer air and highway travel et al to be bribes? social security a bribe?

I think he tends to think of environmental issues as "Bribing academics" and tenured science professors, and ivory tower liberal elite intellectualism; (he bitches and moans that he has to take his boat out of the water when he runs out of gas to fill it back up, and was shocked when I asked him if he realized that this lake supplies the drinking water his kids drink - later he said "I'm unincorporated, so we drink well-water.")

Voting/civil rights - yes; bribery. Social security? Definately, a bribery to keep old people voting Democrat. Safe air and highway travel - (wait for it. . . ) "let the market handle those - if there are unsafe airlines, people won't fly them, they'll fly the ones with good records, and the bad ones will go out of business"

"let the market handle those - if there are unsafe airlines, people won't fly them, they'll fly the ones with good records, and the bad ones will go out of business"

Funny, I expect something slightly different would happen. A few airlines would run low fare, low maintenace flights, and cater to us poor folk. I'd have to think long and hard about buying a cross-country ticket for $100 round trip even if the accident rate was an order of magnitude higher.

BTW: I still support George Bush/Dick Cheney/Ralph Reed -- I will be voting for Ralph here in Georgia.
This just proves that Christianity is STUPID!

Charles Warren wrote: Liberalism is the philosophy of places that people move out of. Conservatism is the philosophy of places that people move to.

Liberalism is the philosophy of states whose citizens pay more in Federal taxes than they receive back in payments from the Federal government.

Conservatism is the philosophy of states whose citizens receive more in payments from the Federal government than they pay in Federal taxes.

Which is to say, conservatism is the philosophy of people who whine about "big government" while they suck up the tax money paid by liberals.

Liberalism = self-reliance and generosity.

Conservatism = dependency and stinginess.

"Conservative", by the way, means embracing the traditional virtues associated most often with the Victorian era; virtues that produced George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theordore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan, i.e., the faces that should be on Mount Rushmore.

"Liberal", by the way, means freedom-loving, politically, socially, AND ECONOMICALLY. Now who in the survey is "really liberal"?

. . . Ironically, more often than not, the same ones who are self-described conservatives.

"Libertine", "Ignorant" (of '65-'80 US history), "Regressive", and "Reckless" - that's you self-described "liberals" and "progressives".

TOH

. . . and "Fascist" . . . self-described "liberals" are definitely fascist.

TOH

Secular Animist . . .

If they are getting "shown the money", it sounds like Conservative = "Smart" by your calculations.

TOH

I'd have to think long and hard about buying a cross-country ticket for $100 round trip even if the accident rate was an order of magnitude higher.
Posted by: ChiSox Fan in LA on July 10, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

That's all fine and dandy, until a plane from a cost-cutting airline like AMR or UAL crashes into your building because they were too cheap to pay for REAL security, and got their planes hijacked by fundamentalist wackjobs.

Then the government bails them out to the tune of a couple hundred million $$$. Yeah. That's conservative alright.

Nice to meet you too, deodalus. Rather than "stupid", you don't think it could be actually agreeing with every stand Reed has taken on the issues important to me as a voter (except the State Lottery, but I can let that slide for now)?

SecularAnimist:

Liberals don't form any dependency via government welfare programs?

Ted Turner doesn't own any major media outlets. He used to own CNN, but sold out to Time-Warner in the 1990s.

And it was Ted Turner who launched CNN after his aborted attempt to buy CBS in the '80's with junk bonds because CBS was too liberal!

Yeah, Ted Turner, sounds like a real lib.

"Conservative", by the way, means embracing the traditional virtues associated most often with the Victorian era; virtues that produced George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theordore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan,

. . . and "Fascist" . . . self-described "liberals" are definitely fascist....

Thank you TOH for once again succinctly explaining to us how you have no fucking clue what "conservative" means.

And by the way. You are not fit to carry George Washington or Abraham Lincoln's jock straps. Let alone talk about their values or what they stood for.

"Conservative", by the way, means embracing the traditional virtues associated most often with the Victorian era; virtues that produced George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theordore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan, i.e., the faces that should be on Mount Rushmore.

Maybe the "Objective Historian" should learn a little more about, umm, history. George Washington championed the bill of rights, genuinely referred to as civil liberties. In Lincoln's time, the Republicans were the progressive party, the democrats were conservative and pro-slavery. Teddy Roosevelt??? You mean the guy who formed and then ran for President as a candidate of the ??? That was the party of labor unions, environmental advocacy, women's suffrage, social welfare, workers' comp. Sounds real conservative, TOH.

You see, TOH, you conflate Republican with conservative, proving that your allegiance is to the GOP, not ideology.

Objective? Not likely. Historian?? No fucking way. You're just an unobjective tool.

You are not fit to carry George Washington or Abraham Lincoln's jock straps.

Though he does carry George Bush's water.

That's all fine and dandy, until a plane from a cost-cutting airline like AMR or UAL crashes into your building because they were too cheap to pay for REAL security, and got their planes hijacked by fundamentalist wackjobs.

I agree, I mean, there's a million different areas in which unregulated companies could prey on the poor, even were they to be upfront about the risks. But it would be tempting, which is the problem. It wouldn't be long before cheap or even free experimental drugs would be on the market as well. Corporate regulation is one of those areas, like the budget, which it's easy to want less of in the abstract, until you actually look at why many of them exist. One of the reasons I don't really think of myself as libertarian anymore, though I still kinda lean that way.

So does this survey show that liberalism is an ideology and conservatism is a way of life? I think it does.

Doug M.

A good working definition of "stupid" is someone who knows doing something is wrong and not in anyone's best interest, but does it anyway. You have demonstrated to all of us beyond a reasonable doubt that you are stupid.

Mr. Reed is a crook. Don't take my word for it. Take Jack Abramof's word for it. Ralph's particular corruption involves playing anti-gambling Christians for suckers. In the process of sounding pious and noble opposing one bunch of casino owners, he made a lot of money from another bunch of casino owners. In addition he is said to have used his non-profit organization to launder money. He is such a noble man. He deserves all the support you can give him.

You Doug M. are either invincibly ignorant or truly stupid. You are without doubt one of those suckers "born every minute."

The Objective Historian wrote: self-described "liberals" are definitely fascist.

You are definitely a clown.

If it pleases you to continue making a fool of yourself for the amusement of others, please carry on.

Well, I don't think I am "invincibly ignorant" since I agree with every stand Reed has taken on the issues important to me as a voter, so I guess that just leaves "truly stupid". BTW: let's hope everyone else trying to convince voters leaning in Reed's direction have as much clarity and tact as you.

Like Ted Turner?

Were you thinking of the Cartoon Network? Or do you think he still runs CNN?
.

SecularAnimist:

Do you think liberal government welfare programs form any dependency?

Grand Moff Texan: Al cited a source, where's yours?

Al cited a source on reporters only. That was one of the points you missed.

Media ownership and political contributions are a matter of public record. Just so you know.
.

So, it turns out that cable news is split 50/50 between democrat and republican, and newspapers tilt democrat in contributons. GrandMoffTexan, do you ever get anything right?

Did you even read what I wrote? Ownership. Who owns what? You glanced at a chart of all media companies. Hello? McFly? Are you still worried about reporters who don't choose their stories, their angles, their titles, their captions, their photographs? Hello?

You truly are dumb enough to be a Republican.
.

Doug M

I believe I have been clear. There is no point in expending tact when conversing with you. You are willing vote for a dedicated crook. Now, since he has demonstrated that he is willing to lie about position on gambling to anti-gambling Christians while taking money from gamblers, how in the world do you know his positions on any of the issues are his honest positions?

The truth is you don't and you can't.

In the face of his clear lack of integrity you have decided that since he has mouthed what you want to hear you are going to vote for him.

OK, just be warned that you have no reason to believe he won't change any position when it suits his purpose.

I wrote:
every broadcast network, cable news network, and most radio and print media are owned by major GOP donors

This was not addressed.

Darth cited:
METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs, soft money donors, and individuals giving $200 or more. (Only those groups giving $5,000 or more are listed here. Soft money applies only to cycles 1992-2002.) In many cases, the organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. All donations took place during the 2005-2006 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, May 29, 2006. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.
.

Ron Byers and deodalus:

There are 4,260,269 registered voters here in Georgia -- every one of them who votes for Ralph Reed next Tuesday is a "stupid" Christian, right?

Grand Moff Texan:

Like Ted Turner?

Posted by: darth

From Darth's own citation:

16 Turner Broadcasting System $16,750 27%-Dem. 73%-Rep.

Next time, read it before you cite it.
.

Doug, how can Georgia's Christians vote for an atheist like Ralph Reed?
.

Maybe because Reed is not an atheist? I've met the man, and I don't doubt his Christianity for a second -- now, if it were our host Kevin Drum (an avowed atheist) running for Lt. Governor . . .

There are 4,260,269 registered voters here in Georgia -- every one of them who votes for Ralph Reed next Tuesday is a "stupid" Christian, right?

Its at least conceivable that some of those who vote for Reed won't be Christians, so no.

That's not what "deodalus" said above.

For God's sake, people, ignore Charlie.

For the record, I was not the one to bring up Ralph Reed, but I think this debate inadvertently highlights the wide divide between liberals and conservatives. Based on the issues, I do believe Reed will win a huge portion of all the "conservative" vote next week, so "liberals" like Ron Byers above still have to resort to personal attacks:

"Who wants to self identify with George Bush/Dick Cheney conservatism?"

And (what set me off):

"Frankly not many people want to identify the party of Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson or Grover Norquist -- incompetent, corrupt, self-centered, self-serving movement conservatism either. How would you like to be one of Ralph Reed's good Christian supporters. Not very Christ like is he?"

I also can't wait for Kevin to bring up the stem-cell debate again -- which clearly delineates between "conservative" and "liberal" as well:

White House aide Karl Rove said today that President Bush likely will cast the first veto of his presidency if the Senate, as expected, passes legislation to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. "The president is emphatic about this . . . It is something we would, frankly, like to avoid."

There are 4,260,269 registered voters here in Georgia -- every one of them who votes for Ralph Reed next Tuesday is a "stupid" Christian, right? Doug M

Most of them just don't read the paper. They are what we call ignorant. Some like you are "stupid" Republicans. A few are "stupid" Christians.

The difference between stupidity and ignorance is that ignorance can be cured with a dose of knowledge.

This was not addressed.

Perhaps because they're major Democratic Party donors also.

For example, NBC Universal is owned by General Electric. Between 1998 and 2004, GE donated $1,058,480 to National Republican Party committees and only very slightly less, $919,070, to National Democratic Party Committees. Ditto for the Walt Disney Company, which owns Capital Cities/ABC.

Note to the "Objective Historian":

Fascism is the consolidation of corporate and government power - hardly a "liberal" rallying point....

From Darth's own citation

Maybe you missed everything else in that citation, in particular, its finding that contributions to federal candidates and parties from the cable TV industry were split almost exactly evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

GOP: NBC? You're talking about NBC? What did Jack Welsh do to NBC?

I suggest you look it up. You might also consider my original claim. You would be the first conservative to do so.

Yes, I read his citation. It did not address my claim and it refuted one of Darth's own claims. Are you all caught up now?

It's amazing that there's still anyone stupid enough to maintain the myth of the "liberal media".
.

"Stupid" must be today's talking point from the Left.

"Stupid" must be today's talking point from the Left.

Posted by: Doug M.

If you could read, you could find out for sure.
.

I get the fax from the VRWC, not the Left, each and every morning.

Still happy with that strawman, GOP, or are you still convinced it was me?
.

Texan,

GOP: NBC?

Yes, NBC.

You're talking about NBC?

Yes, I'm talking about NBC.

What did Jack Welsh do to NBC?

I dunno, what did Jack Welsh do to NBC? What about what Jack Welsh did to ABC? Do you have a hint of a notion of a point?

Yes, I read his citation. It did not address my claim

Your claim is irrelevant. Yes, "every broadcast network, cable news network, and most radio and print media are owned by major GOP donors." But those owners are ALSO MAJOR DEMOCRATIC PARTY DONORS. And in fact, they may donate more in total to Democrats than they do to Republicans. So this absurd loony-left myth you're trying to promote that the electronic media (or the media in general) are somehow beholden to the GOP is just complete and utter nonsense.

But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology. You never have before.

Maybe because Reed is not an atheist? I've met the man, and I don't doubt his Christianity for a second

Yes but did you still have your wallet afterwards?

GOP: If my claim is "irrelevant" then I guess you've left the debate. Are you going to recycle that old canard of "well, they give to both sides"?

Pathetic. Run away, little man.

I was talking about ownership of the news and you've weaseled out of if with three completely fact-free posts, in one case invoking the entire cable industry when you KNOW the issue was ownership of the news.

So, for you it's not that your dumb enough to be a conservative (like, say, Darth, who posts self-refuting links), it's that you're too dishonest to abandon a lie. You have presented no facts, so saying "on't let facts get in the way of your ideology. You never have before" is simple projection. I suggest you seek professional help.
.

>Maybe because Reed is not an atheist?

Reed merely plays Christians over issues where he takes the other side (if there's enough $$$). Like most Republicans, his faith is merely a ploy.
.

Texan,

Are you going to recycle that old canard of "well, they give to both sides"?

"Canard." Ha ha ha ha ha!

Pathetic. Run away, little man.

Please climb back under the rock from whence you came.

I was talking about ownership of the news

No, you were talking about ownership of "broadcast network, cable news network, and most radio and print media." And my response addressed that same ownership. The fact is, the owners of the electronic media are major contributors to both Republicans and Democrats. The absurd idea you're trying to promote that the media are somehow aligned with the GOP is just total garbage.

I was not the one to bring up Ralph Reed, but I think this debate inadvertently highlights the wide divide between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals have a problem supporting/voting for criminals and corruption and conservatives don't?

I thought Bill Clinton was elected twice?

"Canard." Ha ha ha ha ha!

Um, that's your answer? I guess that makes four fact-free posts, now. You're still hiding behind the "they give to both sides" dodge. Yeah, like "Abramoff's clients gave to both parties." Nice way to lie with a piece of the truth.

You did not address that issue, you responded first with an irrelevancy and then with a generalization. The GOP is owned by the same people who own your news. It's the only way they can keep selling failed policies to Americans: they own the conversation.
.

Grand Moff:

So, the VRWC "wanted" Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and a running KIA count in the media?

Texan,

16 Turner Broadcasting System

Turner Broadcasting System is owned by Time Warner. Time Warner also owns AOL, Time Inc., Time Warner Cable, Home Box Office, New Line Cinema, and Warner Bros. Entertainment.

FEC records show that between 1998 and 2004, 63% of Time Warner's political contributions were to Democratic Party candidates and committees, and only 36% were to GOP candidates and committees.

Grand Moff Texan wrote to Don P (posting as "GOP"): you're too dishonest to abandon a lie.

You should know that this is standard operating procedure for Don P. When caught in a lie, he never abandons it; he repeats it over and over again. The more egregious the lie, the more vigorously he hammers away at it. The more plainly it has been shown to be a lie, the more insistently he repeats it. It is all a part of his strategy to impress himself with his ability to waste your time with bullshit.

SecularAnimist:

For the last time, do liberal government welfare programs form any dependency or not?

Texan,

Um, that's your answer?

You want more punishment? This should be fun. Do please explain how you think the observation that the owners of the electronic media are major contributers to both the Republicans and the Democrat is a "canard."

我向大家推荐:要想寻找名录信息请访问 名录 网，各种名录应有尽有。北京 山西企业名录 厂向广大客户提供山西企业名录产品及山西企业名录服务。北京 安徽企业名录 厂向广大客户提供安徽企业名录产品及安徽企业名录服务。江西企业名录 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的江西企业名录,丰富江西企业名录行业资讯助您成交。中国 广西企业名录 网，打造广西企业名录领域专业搜索平台，提供全球广西企业名录品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找湖南企业名录信息请访问 湖南企业名录 网，各种湖南企业名录应有尽有。上海 福建企业名录 公司专业生产福建企业名录产品，欢迎选择福建企业名录。您想要了解 辽宁企业名录 吗？请到中国辽宁企业名录网来寻找辽宁企业名录。四川企业名录 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的四川企业名录,丰富四川企业名录行业资讯助您成交。北京 河南企业名录 厂向广大客户提供河南企业名录产品及河南企业名录服务。河北企业名录 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的河北企业名录,丰富河北企业名录行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 山东企业名录 吗？请到中国山东企业名录网来寻找山东企业名录。中国 浙江企业名录 网，打造浙江企业名录领域专业搜索平台，提供全球浙江企业名录品牌公司及产品展示。北京 江苏企业名录 厂向广大客户提供江苏企业名录产品及江苏企业名录服务。北京 北京企业名录 厂向广大客户提供北京企业名录产品及北京企业名录服务。您想要了解 企业名录 吗？请到中国企业名录网来寻找企业名录。

P.S. to GOP -- for the most recent election year, 2004, Time Warner gave $703,689 to Republicans but $2,201,163 to Democrats -- in other words, Time Warner gave more than three times as much to Democrats.

Does that sound like the actions of

(a) an impartial observer of elections,
(b) someone who is trying to get Democrats elected, or
(c) someone who is trying to get Republicans elected?

CBS (which includes CBS News) is owned by Viacom. Viacom also owns many other television networks and stations, including UPN, Showtime, Nickelodeon, MTV and BET. FEC records show that between 1998 and 2004, 68% of Viacom's political contributions were to Democratic Party candidates and committees, and only 31% were to GOP candidates and committees.

Viacom also owns many other television networks and stations, including UPN, Showtime, Nickelodeon, MTV and BET ...

Playing the same game, I see. Keep diluting your sample, it keeps you deluded.
.

Time Warner gave more than three times as much to Democrats.

Time Warner owns ... ?

Like I said, diluting your sample. This is the same as that other fuckwit's "whole cable industry" dodge. Is that why CNN is chasing FOX's shrinking audience? Keep Glenn Beck even though he's killing his time-slot?

"Liberal media." Blow it out your ass.
.

Does that sound like the actions of

(a) an impartial observer of elections,
(b) someone who is trying to get Democrats elected, or
(c) someone who is trying to get Republicans elected?

Posted by: Doug M.

(d) none of the above?

what you really need to ask is whether the contributions of a business are indicative of who they want to win or who they think will win in a given race. As far as campaign contributions, businesses tend to give to both parties, but that's a baseline and the reasons for deviating from it could be myriad. Were the contributions given at the national level to each party? Were some given to specific politicians? In races that were closely contested, how did the businesses divide the wealth? Were they giving to incumbents or challengers?

It may be possible to discern a coporation's political leanings from their donations, but there are a lot of mitigating factors that you have to drill down to if you really want to get some answers.

You want more punishment?

In order for there to be "more" there had to be some before. You ain't got dick.

This should be fun. Do please explain how you think the observation that the owners of the electronic media are major contributers to both the Republicans and the Democrat is a "canard."

Because it's used by dishonest fuckrags like you to obscure who gives how much to whome.

Which I already said.

As I already reference with the Abramoff quote, or are you so sunk in your pathetic little talking points that you don't know how that one was a lie, too?

Impotent and clueless. This is all that's left of the right.
.

ABC (including ABC News) is owned by the Walt Disney Company. FEC records show that between 1998 and 2004, 52% of Disney's political contributions were to Democratic Party candidates and committees, and only 48% were to GOP candidates and committees.

Disney's largest single political contribution was to National Democratic Party committees. Also, of Disney's 10 largest contributions, 8 were to Democratic Party committees or candidates, and only 2 were to GOP committees or candidates. Disney also contributed over twice as much to John Kerry as it did to George Bush.

Fine, cyntax, let's start out a bit easier then -- can you "discern" the political leanings from these donations:

American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees (total 1990 - current) $37,215,052 but
$36,619,359 to Democrats and $554,095 to Republicans.

Assn of Trial Lawyers of America (total) $26,091,556 but
$23,380,335 to Democrats and $2,726,171 to Republicans.

National Education Assn (total) $25,597,241 but
$23,958,060 to Democrats and $1,653,881 to Republicans.

Were the contributions given at the national level to each party?

Some of the contributions were, yes.

Were some given to specific politicians?

Yes. For example, Disney's 3rd thru 9th largest political contributions were to specific politicans. In decreasing order of size, these contributions were to DEMOCRAT Senator John Kerry, DEMOCRAT Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, DEMOCRAT Senator Tom Daschle, DEMOCRAT Representative Howard Berman, DEMOCRAT Representative John Dingell, DEMOCRAT Senator Bill Nelson, and Republican George Bush.

Disney's largest single political contribution was to National Democratic Party committees. Also, of Disney's 10 largest contributions, 8 were to Democratic Party committees or candidates, and only 2 were to GOP committees or candidates. Disney also contributed over twice as much to John Kerry as it did to George Bush.

But does that mean Disney wants Democrats or does it want politicians who are receptive to the kinds of legislation Disney wants passed, and those happen to be Democrats? You could easily be confusing causes with correlations.

What about the fact, for example, that Senator Hollings (D) sponsored legislation Disney wanted passed back in 2001:

If there's a certain level of paranoia in Hollings' office regarding the SSSCA, perhaps it's understandable. From all perspectives, this is nothing more than a blatant attempt to offer a return on investment to campaign donors. As the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, one of the most important committee chairs on Capitol Hill, Hollings has attracted quite a stable of high-profile donors over the years.

Corporations are often very interested in specific legislation that affects their industry, but that can't necessarily be construed as support for a gievn politician's broad political agenda.

How about these law firms then, for the current 2006 election cycle:

Baron & Budd $679,793 (96% to Democrats, 1% to GOP).

Simmons Cooper LLC $580,350 (99% to Democrats, 1% to GOP).

Waters & Kraus $413,309 (98% to Democrats, 1% to GOP).

Boies, Schiller & Flexner $314,060 (99% to Democrats, 1% to GOP).

As a total for lawyers / law firms donations, here are the top 20 recipients (only 4, towards the bottom, are GOP):

1
Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D-NY)
Senate
$2,420,833

2
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Senate
$1,974,682

3
Casey, Bob (D-PA)
Senate
$1,964,069

4
Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE)
Senate
$1,279,892

5
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Senate
$948,774

6
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Senate
$906,253

7
Kennedy, Edward M (D-MA)
Senate
$899,773

8
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Senate
$780,116

9
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Senate
$686,399

10
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)
Senate
$669,851

11
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)
Senate
$518,404

12
Lieberman, Joe (D-CT)
Senate
$512,006

13
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
Senate
$495,331

14
Lampson, Nick (D-TX)
House
$490,860

15
Radnofsky, Barbara Ann (D-TX)
Senate
$474,451

16
Allen, George (R-VA)
Senate
$473,705

17
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Senate
$468,776

18
Cardin, Ben (D-MD)
Senate
$461,930

19
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Senate
$454,856

20
Ford, Harold E Jr (D-TN)
Senate
$447,984

This is an interesting search result -- almost $400,000 from Costco employees, mostly all to Democrats:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?Order=A&txtName=&txtState=&txtZip=&txtEmploy=costco&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N

Doug M., listen if you think campaign contributions represent a direct relationship all the time to whom a business entity wants to win an election. Fine. Believe it.

Me, if I'm going to try and figure it out, I'd go look at a politician's given voting record on industry related legislation, and build a model off that.

But why should I think you're interested in methodological rigor, when you've hit on half-assed system that agrees with your foregone conclusions?

And I've noticed in your voluminous, yet tangental, posts that you've abandoned the original subset of the entertainment industry for examples that center on law firms? Not sure why.

But does that mean Disney wants Democrats or does it want politicians who are receptive to the kinds of legislation Disney wants passed, and those happen to be Democrats?

I'm not making any assumptions about motive. I'm simply rebutting Texan's nonsensical myth that there's some kind of partisan financial relationship between the media and the GOP. The claim is just utter nonsense. If its political contributions are an indication of the party preferences of an industry, then the electronic media, and the media more broadly, seem to be more sympathetic to Democrats than to Republicans.

cyntax,

By the way, I love your new-found skepticism about the idea that there's a causal link between the party sympathies of an industry and its political donations.

I wonder if you'll apply it consistently.....Nah.

Why, cyntax? Because I was more interested in ALL corporations / individuals who disproportionately contribute to Democrats. I'm not saying it's a 100%-effective correlation, especially as the contributions approach a 50-50 even split. As for the mainstream media, I'll let GOP attack that.

Forget about cyntax, GOP -- he wouldn't even admit there's a causal link when 100% of donations are given to Democrats (above).

If Chewbacca is a Wookiee, then, how can this be Endor!? That does not make sense! If Chewbacca is a Wookiee, you must acquit! Look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey...

I'm not making any assumptions about motive. I'm simply rebutting Texan's nonsensical myth that there's some kind of partisan financial relationship between the media and the GOP. The claim is just utter nonsense. If its political contributions are an indication of the party preferences of an industry, then the electronic media, and the media more broadly, seem to be more sympathetic to Democrats than to Republicans.

I missed the part where GMT said there was a partisan financial relationship; I thought he was arguing for a partisan relationship. I think the media's allegiance is very hard to suss out due to the nature of their industry.

One thing is that though many reporters are "liberal," much of the management can't be assumed to be. It'd be like looking at the UAW Union and inferring from that that GM leans Democrat. Not sound reasoning, though by happenstance it could end up being correct.

Another issue to consider is the "product" that the media produces. Are the articles written by the media mostly favorable of one party or another? This would need to be part of the calculus too since this has value that can certainly be worth its weight in gold.

As to my "new found skepticism," not sure what's new there, but I don't think in all cases you can assume that a corporation donates to the politician in wants to win as opposed to the politician it thinks will win. Certainly if you see a union donating to a Democrat, it's cause that organization wants that candidate to win. Similarly if the NRA is donating to Republican, it's cause they want that candidate to win. Law firms (which Doug M. became enamored of for a moment above) do not seem at all like corporations so aren't part of the media-centric argument. Law firms can be 100% political, or not, depending. Corporations are slightly different kind of actor on the political stage because they pursue profit before, often in lieu of, other political motivations.

but see, the real problem really is increasing polarization...I thought the link below (to a really good piece on TDS by Winship highlighting some research by some researchers (Abramowitz and Saunders) on polarization) really made the points well about ideological realignment, polarization, and how it's changed over the last ten years or so. Very readable piece.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2006/06/polarized_partisans_probably.php

cyntax:

Last I checked, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP was publically-traded (Tiker Abbr. COST).

cyntax:

Last I checked, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP was publically-traded (Tiker Abbr. COST).

Yes, that one is, out of how many you posted?

And if you look at where Costco's stores are, guess what? There almost all in predominantly blue states. So I imagine it's more a question of Costco backing a winning horse since incumbency counts for 98% reelection rate. So let's here it for gerrymandering; at least big business knows who to give the back-sheesh to.

I'm not saying campaing contributions don't tell you something, but they aren't the magic key to knowing what a corporation's political leanings are. If a corporation even has a coherent political stance (many don't).

John Kerry was not the incumbent President, cyntax. Tons of corporations gave their 2004 campaign contributions to him alone (I already admitted it's not a 100%-effective correlation as said contributions approach a 50-50 even split between 2 candidates). Not sure why you are fighting this self-evident fact.

cyntax,

I missed the part where GMT said there was a partisan financial relationship;

Obviously you did, yes.

One thing is that though many reporters are "liberal," much of the management can't be assumed to be.

I'm not "assuming" that it is. I'm pointing out that if the media's political donations favor either party, that party appears to be the Democrat Party, not the GOP.

As to my "new found skepticism," not sure what's new there,

Yes, I'm sure that if Texan's nonsensical factual claim were true you'd be all over him insisting that he cannot draw any conclusions about the media's general political sympathies from which political party it gives the most money to......NOT!

Here are the top contributors to that Kerry campaign: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00000245&cycle=2004

Or, perhaps, you can make some argument that these donors were really apolitical:

http://www.capitaleye.org/KerryFRchart.1.14.04.asp