Liberal Media my ass.

The report fails to factor in that the hosts of these shows are almost invariably democrat, along with the news agencies attached to the networks. Sunday is about the only time conservatives get on the air, and even then there's barely much of an edge.

Bullshit. The megacorporations that won the networks are all invested in defense contractors. Liberalism gets short shrift, purposefully.

Blue Girl-- Then why does the media do nothing except bash republicans? While I've brought it up here before, it remains uncontested fact that CBS used forged documents to smear the service record of a Vietnam-era veteran... a totally inexplicable fact, until you remember that the veteran in question was a republican.

What the fuck are you talking about? Bash Republicans? Reporting the truth isn't bashing, and they have to be beat over the head by bloggers before they can be bothered.

Lets get something perfectly clear - George mother-fucking AWOL Bush is NOT a veteran and applying that appellation to him is an insult to all who served honorably.

I generally agree with Media Matters, including in this instance, but I am curious about further breakdowns: how much of this is because of a tendency to have balance among congressmembers, and no-one balancing administration officials?

(and, did they typically have people balancing Clinton administration officials?)

Sure would like to see who was coded as "neutral". Neither the report nor the appendices identify the individuals.

Veteran, from dictionary.com:

A person who has served in the armed forces: “Privilege, a token income . . . were allowed for veterans of both world wars� (Mavis Gallant).

Are you saying the national guard isn't part of the armed forces?

Veteran is reserved for those who saw combat. At least those are the standards in my household. My husband deployed to Kosovo, but never saw combat and thus refers to himself not as a veteran, but a retiree. He has the moral authority to make that determination.

You do not.

A perfect example of liberalism at work-- words mean what ever you want them to mean! If you can point me to an authoritative source defining veteran as 'saw combat', I'd love to see it. Until then, you're just using a non-standard definition of the word and expecting everybody else to understand it. If somebody serves for six years in the national guard and doesn't see combat (entirely possible in, say, the 80's), should he not receive veterans benefits? Would you resent him if he referred to himself as a veteran?

And most real veterans do reject the notion that Bush deserves the title. Hell, most resent it.

It is a colloquial understanding among those who serve or have served.

Not that I expect you to understand that.

Would you resent him if he referred to himself as a veteran?

Yes.

The Republican thought process at Merriam-Websters,

captious

Pronunciation: 'kap-sh&s
Function: adjective

1 : marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and raise objections
2 : calculated to confuse, entrap, or entangle in argument

- cap·tious·ly adverb
- cap·tious·ness noun

Heh. That retiree I live with just read your comments and called you a waste of the First Amendment.

It is a colloquial understanding among those who serve or have served.

Then you should have no problem citing a reference.

I just did. The anecdotal evidence of my spouse of 24 years. His father who was a Marine Captain in Korea. my brother who is a retired Lt. Colonel who served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.

They, to a man, bristle at the reference of aWol as a veteran, and mock those who lay claim to the honorific without truly earning it. Hell, the rest of them give my husband and his nephew grief for wearing the Blue - "The Air Force...It's not an adventure. It's a job."

IIRC, the partisan hacks at mmfa listed Jonathan Alter as 'neutral' in the past, which could by why they do their best to keep the actual methodolgy in hiding (instead simply calling the generic collection 'methodology', which it is not...it's a summary). As is illustrated by the redefinition of what 'veteran' is, people will often decide what something is depending on the necessity of what it NEEDS to be. Thus, Linc Chaffee is a conservative & Chris Matthews is neutral (or, in nutroots/mooonbat land, conservative). I've even seen idiots claim that ABC is conservative (no, really, there are people that stupid out there).

You're wasting your time, AH.

I just did. The anecdotal evidence of my spouse of 24 years. His father who was a Marine Captain in Korea. my brother who is a retired Lt. Colonel who served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.

Sorry, the dictionary trumps your anecdotal 'evidence'. I'm glad you're not a lawyer.

While I don`t agree w/BG,RS(aka Global Citizen) on the definition of the term "veteran", I understand why she feels the way she does. Pseudo-american flying object worshiper is just full of crap as always.

Geo Bush is clearly, by any sane definition, an AWOL & could, under some interpretations of the law, be considered a deserter (a popular canard is that he was involved in some super duper secret stuff so therefore not AWOL - unmitigated bull shit).

Veteran yes, honorable no.

I am a veteran myself though I never experienced hostile fire (1965-1969). So on and so on, blah, blah, blah.

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner

Hawk -

"Vietnam-era veteran"? Doesn't that have about the same meaning as "butter flavoring" or "imitation cheesefood"?

look, it's simple. AH has no particular respect for those who risk their lives for their country. he sees bush's "service" as requiring roughly the same bravery, sacrifice and devotion to duty as, say, jim webb's "service". probably more, such is a cult.

Please don't feed the trolls.

Kevin - great post. And shame on Russert (I know, there's no such thing).

Veteran yes, honorable no.

You may not be aware of this, but George Bush received an honorable discharge, which certifies he completed his service obligations. Link is here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/2-Discharge.pdf [Warning, PDF]

AH has no particular respect for those who risk their lives for their country.

On the contrary. I want to respect all of them, even if they happen to also be president.

MaxGowan: Please don't feed the trolls.

I am sorry about that. But when Blue Girl says things that are patently untrue, I feel compelled to respond. Do you think I should just let her rant instead? It is kind of funny.

From the outset I stated "that is the definition in my house and then clarified who makes that assertion and why.

What is untrue about that, Henery?

I always considered Bush to be a Vietnam-era veteran cokehead.

Is this because conservatives and their ilk are more willing to conduct political theater? (*see American Hawk above) Or in other words, are conservatives more entertaining in espousing their political ideology.

Watching American Hawk on Sunday TV might give the ratings just the bump that advertisers pine for.

Blue Girl-- Lets get something perfectly clear - George mother-fucking AWOL Bush is NOT a veteran and applying that appellation to him is an insult to all who served honorably.

For every definition except the one you introduced in a later post, he is a veteran who received an honorable discharge. After he finishes his career as a public servant in '08, he could, for instance, go to a VA Hospital or receive a favorable mortgage via the VA. Saying he isn't a veteran is simply false.

---
he could, for instance, go to a VA Hospital
---

Let's say someone's Vietnam-era coke habit ate a hole through their frontal cortex; would Walter Reed cover that?

I hold Geo Bush to the same standards as I hold my friends on The Wall & myself. If any of them (or I) had pulled what Mr. Bush pulled they all (and I) would have ended up in the brig for a very long time. Mr. Bush has a discharge of the type he does due to administrative political games & not for reasons the rest of us do (completion of service under honorable conditions).

He is an AWOL not matter what some manipulated bureaucratic process spat out on paper.

So when are you Bush defenders gonna step up & join the military service you glorify from your basement bunkers ?

Talk is real cheap.

"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave." - Bishop Fulton John Sheen

Including him diminished the service of all others.

But again, I don't expect you, who has never faced any sacrifice for this country, to understand just how that technicality grates on real veterans.

People who watch the Sunday morning shows serve a useful purpose as monitors. I'm just glad I dont have to do it. I gave them up in the mid-90s; all that spin makes me nauseous.

---
he could, for instance, go to a VA Hospital
---

Or let's say you had an injury to your arm due a beating you took from some dead hooker's pimp when he found you snorting Vietnam-era coke off her ass.

Is that covered by the VA?

Damn liberal media!

The Fool >"Damn liberal media!"

Yea, if they get any more liberal they will lose their place in the fascist cabal. They better be very careful about that.

"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." - M. King Hubbert

This imbalance is only right and fair. Ever since the election, the Right can't simply rule by fiat and they're now reduced to trying to convince the 12 people on earth who actually watch these programs that they're on the side of the angels. If the Democrats hadn't cruelly wrested control away from the rightful owners, this wouldn't be happening.

Well, it would be happening, but there would be a different reason why it was right and fair.

---
there would be a different reason why it was right and fair.
---

Well, at least we can all agree that it had something to do with Vietnam-era hookers'n'coke.

BGRS: Reporting the truth isn't bashing,

It is when, to quote Colbert, the facts have a liberal bias.

If you don't like what's on TV, the solution is simple- shut it off.
Posted by: mhr on March 12, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Ah.. If only Conservatives would apply that same reasoning whenever Janet Jackson's tit pops out.

The Media Matters report suffers from the same problem last year's did. They don't provide the reader with their assessment of who was conservative, progressive, or neutral. Not only does this matter with some political guests (I bet a lot of you here would love to know how Lieberman for example was scored) but also for journalists, most of whom Media Matters scored as neutral. In short, without the source data, it is difficult to assess the validity of their findings.

AH; Your cokehead "president's" military "service" was a joke, as is his current "service" as president. And so are you. And you know it.

Well, we all do, anyway.

The secret MMFA methodology can be revealed at last!

"neutrals"
WalterCronkite
JonathanAlter (h/t: RW)
AlFranken

"liberals"
CindySheehan
MichaelMoore
GusHall
BobAvakian

Sure would like to see who was coded as "neutral". Neither the report nor the appendices identify the individuals.

That would be educational, wouldn't it? I suspect a lot is often hidden in studies and polls under the term "moderate." Other Media Matters studies have given us a pretty good idea of where they put the bar for "conservative" or "liberal" press. I assume they have the same criteria for individuals.

Is anybody even watching the weekly news shows?

Ah.. If only Conservatives would apply that same reasoning whenever Janet Jackson's tit pops out.

No, that's different. That's about BODY PARTS!!!! If our children see women's breasts, civilization as we know it will end!!! No, wait...

Can I charge my mother with child abuse from when I was a year old?

---
Is anybody even watching the weekly news shows?
---

You mean the stuff put out by the political/industrial/media partnership (PIMP)?

As much as I enjoy the work done by MMFA in proving there is a conservative bias in some aspects of the media (not saying some outlets/reporters don't have a liberal bias, but that right-leaning bias exists), this study means squat unless they list how the defined each guest and, more importantly, the topic.

For example, if they were discussing Iraq, not sure if Hagel (R-NE) would qualify as "conservative" since he's taken a position that's shared by many liberals. If it were gay marriage, I would think Ford (D-TN) would be more conservative.

A bit more info on methodology is needed.

Oh, and you can talk dictionary definitions all you want, but those in the know, know better than to call Bush a "veteran."

Did he serve? Kinda.

Is he a veteran in the connotative sense? Not even close.

From MMFA:

Readers should be clear on what we did not do: These classifications do not represent an analysis of what guests actually said when they appeared on a show on a given date. Coding each guest's comments for their ideological slant would have introduced enormous difficulties and opportunities for subjectivity. Instead, we simply classified guests based on their general partisan or ideological orientation.

I realize they don't have the time to get that detailed, but it's kind of important, isn't it?

Again, I like MMFA, and don't disagree that it's very, very rare to see truly liberal guests on most of these shows. I just think the study is a bit flawed.

On the contrary. I want to respect all of them… American Gawk at 3:24 PM

…he is a veteran who received an honorable discharge… American Jawk on March 12, 2007 at 3:35 P

TLB at 4:18 PM

Non Combat Veteran That's what GW is. Now they hold that open for (section 8) and (Gays).So yea in terms AH was right.But he like s to rub Blue girl the wrong way, That happens when people like Clinton goes into the History books as the Best President in the history of the United States.And AH well he has GWB Non Combat Veteran.Or as Coulter would say a Crazy Faggot.

American Hawk: "The report fails to factor in that the hosts of these shows are almost invariably democrat, along with the news agencies attached to the networks."

Alas, poor A.H., but given your propensity to rely upon long-since-discredited GOP talking points ad nauseum to justify your wholly delusional neocon fantasies, your argument has once again rendered itself simultaneously superficial and foolish.

Call us when the Space Shuttle picks you up, so somebody can meet you upon your return to the real world.

Mark D: "Oh, and you can talk dictionary definitions all you want, but those in the know, know better than to call Bush a 'veteran.' Did he serve? Kinda."

For a little while, anyway.

Good grief, Kevin. Why do you take this kind of bogus study seriously? When will you start citing the MRC's ranting?

I see AH has yet again been demonstrating how particularly small and undeveloped his brain is. I can't imagine he's really as young as he makes himself sound.

What is "pro-war"?

Pro-profits and prophets that espouse biblical leanings.

What is "anti-war"?

Humans that are sick and tired of warfare and the obscene profits that go to select entities such as Haliburton (who by the way has moved closer to the "war" ridden Mid-East).

Talk shows suck. People blab away about such and such and never really delve deep into the things that matter.

If they did, viewership would drop and ratings would plummet.

Most folks that waste their time watching Sundane talk shows are probably somewhat brain dead any way!

Donald;
Near as I can tell, when you consider:
1. The Government money spent on Dubya's flight training.
2. The Government money spent on the Texas Rangers' stadium.
3. The Government money spent on securing latin American and Middle Eastern oil resources for private oil companies Dubya has worked for.

George W Bush has been a net-loss, as far as return-on-investment goes.

Talk shows hahahahah ha hah hahh ahahahah ha ha hh h hahh hah hah They have experts on there shows.Like expert Dick Morris on politics,Expert Ann Coulter on World affairs,And of Course the Expert Hosts who know all about evrything.Get a grip As every one knows News does not make money,Which is why Fox has to stick money into the Biz.Where do they get the money,Why Fox entertanment,Which gives you that all American Crap the righies are always wanting to censor.

Blue girl: Veteran is reserved for those who saw combat. At least those are the standards in my household.

Your household uses a narrower than usual definition. Veteran is usually someone who served in the armed forces and was discharged for honorable reasons. The department of veterans affairs uses several different definitions for specific purposes but generally uses the broader definition, as do dictionaries. There are plenty of reasons to disparage Bush's non-service, and there's no reason to quibble with a troll over definitions. As daCascadian said, veteran yes, honorable no.

We could have CIC give a order for all troops to serve as Bush did.Now where would that get us.

Yes my household does use a narrow definition. An almost 'Starship Troopers' definition (except we get the social commentary and don't consider that book an ops manual) and I flew off in anger when I saw that disgusting bush-honorable-veteran meme once more.

However, that is the standard applied in my household, and these military men dismiss as poseurs those like Bush who claim the mantle without putting their skin in the game.

anandine;
I think you also need to look at the historical differences.

Today, a National Guardsman may very well get sent into combat.

During aWol's time, you joined the National Guard (especially the
Champagne Squadron, in Texas) specifically to AVOID combat. Especially when you check the little box on your sign-up form saying "No, I don't want to serve overseas because having a bunch of yellow-skinned commies shooting at me might make me wet my pants."

I think that the difference is distinct enough, that it's a fucking insult to anyone who ever got shot at to call someone like Dubya a "veteran".

Ah, Kevin.

I happen to be versed in statistics, so it wouldn't surpirse me if Media Matters (liberal) was playing fast and loose with the figures. Remember the old saying: "Lies, damn lies and statistics?

How were the panelists labelled? Were outliers considered? What were the null and alternative hypotheses, and what were the R2s? There are so many different variables that when you pan it all out you may not be left with much.

Media Matters is a liberal outfit, and therefore has every incentive to use this study to bias their agenda and further their multicultural, secularist worldview.

The media is to conservative? My side are still hurting after that one.

This just in! Egbert admits bias! He only has one side!

Yes my household does use a narrow definition.

But not, perhaps, an unusually narrow one; most dictionaries note that "veteran" applies principally or especially to those who have served in the military in combat. Certainly, in legal contexts often having served at all and been discharged other than dishonorably is all that is required, but the common usage focusses on the context of service, not merely the fact of being in the military, and also is less likely to focus on the kind of discharge.

The Media Matters report suffers from the same problem last year's did. They don't provide the reader with their assessment of who was conservative, progressive, or neutral.

You can't read. They listed the names of who appeared. Here's one such data point:

The top five recipients of solo interviews in 2005 and 2006 were:
1. Condoleezza Rice (R, 30 solo interviews)
2. John McCain (R, 29 solo interviews)
3. Joseph Biden (D, 16 solo interviews)
4. Howard Dean (D, 13 solo interviews)
5. Michael Chertoff (R, 12 solo interview) | Stephen Hadley (R, 12 solo interviews)

McCain's finish near the top of both the overall list and the solo-interview list should be no surprise: He was the leading guest on the Sunday shows in our previous study as well -- McCain made 124 appearances on Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation between 1997 and 2005. Furthermore, the Arizona senator's appearances are frequent and nearly always alone. During these 2005 and 2006, he was interviewed on the Sunday shows 30 times, 29 of which were solo. This sends the message to the viewing public that McCain is so important that he need not be paired with a Democratic colleague who might challenge or disagree with him.

Apparently, you are one of these:

We are well aware that our results are likely to be attacked by those displeased with what the facts demonstrate, and some may try to undercut the credibility of our findings by charging that we have stacked the deck by classifying too many guests as conservative. Partly for that reason, where a guest's identification was in question, Media Matters chose to err on the side of listing that guest to the left. For example, while actor Michael J. Fox has campaigned for both Democrats and Republicans who support increased federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, he was labeled "progressive" because support for that issue is primarily identified with Democrats and progressives.

But, go to the MM site because you can go through their vast archive, and see who was on every Sunday show to conduct your own audit.

Now run along. You have hours and hours of work to do to dispute their report with facts.

ER: George W Bush has been a net-loss, as far as return-on-investment goes.

Well, that adds a new meaning to welfare whore, doesn't it?

American Hawk,

interestingly, Dictionary.com tends to suport Global Citizen's position on the definition of "veteran":

2. a person who has served in a military force, esp. one who has fought in a war: a Vietnam veteran.
–adjective 3. (of soldiers) having had service or experience in warfare: veteran troops.

I think this is because the media is liberal. Theyre already slanted to the liberal point of view so they have conservatives on more to balance it out.

...The media is to conservative?...eggbutt on March 12, 2007 at 6:01 PM

I think this is because the media is liberal.

Rich Bond, chair of the GOP during the 1992 campaign said:

There is some strategy to it [bashing the liberal media] . . . . If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you some slack on the next one. [WaPo, Aug. 20, 1992, p.C1]

There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about.

I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven's sake, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that." [LATimes, Mar. 14, 1996]

I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures. [New Yorker, May 22, 1995]

Kevin, can you do something about that Blue Girl, Red State troll? She's monopolizing this thread.

I know many of your readers don't appreciate my point of view, but I try to restrict myself to well thought out nuggets, unlike BGRS's verbal diarrhea.

yeah, what does she know, just about her entire family is military--unlike the cowardly pussies who try to make Bush out to be some sort of war hero.

cowardly pussies who worship a cowardly pussy. Not surprising.

but I try to restrict myself to well thought out nuggets,

those are called turds.

Yee haw! Senryu showtime!

...well thought out nuggets...

A few brown marbles
Al grunts out while reading from
The Weekly Standard.

oh, and not surprising, American Chickenhawk didn't include this definition from dictionary.com, from the first entry(he got his from the second entry)--

a person who has served in a military force, esp. one who has fought in a war: a Vietnam veteran.

emphasis mine. So blue girl was right and American Chickenhawk is schooled yet again. Notice they didn't use the phrase "Vietnam-era veteran".

Hey, this is fun. Here is another definition for the Chickenhawk. An old soldier who has seen long service.

LOL

Y.

Media Matters comparison is between Democrat and Republican while ignoring the fact that on the run-up to the war there was literally only one anti-war voice being seen and heard on the corporate airwaves. Why have the Sunday Talk Shows not invited Anthony Arnove, who wrote Iraq- The Logic of Withdrawal? Or Peter Laufer, who wrote Mission Rejected, subtitled U.S. soldiers Who Say NO to Iraq? Perhaps they can have on their programs Professor Kenneth J. Campbell, who has written one of the most germane books on Iraq, entitled A Tale of Two Quagmires- Iraq, Vietnam, and the Hard Lessons of War. What makes Professor Campbell's perspective unique is that, unlike the neoconservatives, he spent thirteen months in Vietnam while in the Marine Corps but returned to this country disillusioned at the lies that he and his countrymen had been told by his government.

How about Norman Soloman or Amy Goodman? Or Howard Zinn or historian Staughton Lynd? Why are these people not being invited on the network and cable news shows? Sadly, it appears that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Sorry, if I am repeating someone else who already pointed this out, but AH is a liar. I just went to dictionary.com to doublecheck his definition of a veteran. And lo behold it differs from what he said:

"Veteran, from dictionary.com:

A person who has served in the armed forces: “Privilege, a token income . . . were allowed for veterans of both world wars� (Mavis Gallant).

Are you saying the national guard isn't part of the armed forces?"

From Dictionary.com:

"vet·er·an /ˈvɛtərən, ˈvɛtrən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vet-er-uhn, ve-truhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who has had long service or experience in an occupation, office, or the like: a veteran of the police force; a veteran of many sports competitions.
2. a person who has served in a military force, esp. one who has fought in a war: a Vietnam veteran.
–adjective 3. (of soldiers) having had service or experience in warfare: veteran troops.
4. experienced through long service or practice; having served for a long period: a veteran member of Congress.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of veterans."

First let me get this out of the way - Al, you moron - you accused me of monopolizing the thread two hours after I stopped posting. What a tool.

Now - thanks to all who slapped the taste out of Henery Hawk's mouth while I was gone.

Apollo, thank you specifically. The haiku was sublime - in contrast to Al's ridiculous.

BGRS, no need to go ad homonym.

No, there is no need, but I really don't fucking like you and besides, its fun.

Kevin, can you do something about that Blue Girl, Red State troll? She's monopolizing this thread.

I know many of your readers don't appreciate my point of view, but I try to restrict myself to well thought out nuggets, unlike BGRS's verbal diarrhea.

Posted by: Al on March 12, 2007 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Al,

Aren't you the one who is always bitching about being censored on this blog?

My pleasure, Globe.

Al at 9:54 PM must be a spoof. Ad homonym?

Dictionary.com definition...a word the same as another in sound and spelling but different in meaning, as chase “to pursue� and chase “to ornament metal.�

Someone break out the bwahaha's.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Al,

Learn to spell a word before you use it.

Thanks again fellas. The beer is on me.

from American Hawk:

"Blue Girl-- Then why does the media do nothing except bash republicans? While I've brought it up here before, it remains uncontested fact that CBS used forged documents to smear the service record of a Vietnam-era veteran"

UNCONTESTED!? Didn't you hear Dan Bartlett say that as far as he knew the docs were genuine? That the Bush adminstration never had DOJ or DOD investigate the docs even though he politcally controls both?

The documents from the CBS TANG story have never been proven false, and since Bush hasn't investigated even though he has tried to get reporters who disagree with him jailed, we can conclude they are either real or were forged by someone trying to discredit the entire story, even though ample other evidence reported on by other sources, including the Air Force Times no less, proved that nearly all the information in those documents was true, and used evidence that was thoroughly verified.

But of course the "liberal media" didn't focus on that when reporting the story, they just kept implying without actually saying that the documents had been proven fake when in fact they never were. The low-info observers who absorbed the story were led to believe all information pertaining to Bush failing to live up to his Guard duties was not credible.

Contrary to popular mythology, the mainstream media is overwhelmingly controlled by wealthy conservatives - Hearst, Murdoch, Mellon-Scaife, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon - all hard-right ideologues who sneer at the First Amendment.

Freedom of the press is only free if you own the press.

BGRS is right on. There was a reason it was referred to as FANG - aka F**king Air National Guard - during Vietnam.

The National Guard was where the children of the priviledged and assorted draft-age VIPs (Bush's unit included members of the Dallas Cowboys) could hide out and claim "service" without having to leave the comfy confines of North America. It was not a coincidence that Dan Quayle, George Bush, and Lloyd Bentsen's son were all in the National Guard.

According to Myra MacPherson's classic "Long Time Passing" of over a million guardsman and reservists, only *15,000* went to Vietnam. The remainder were never mobilized.

More: "They were better educated, more affluent, and whiter than their active forces peers. The National Guard and Reserves became such a dodge for professional football players that if there had been a call-up there scarcely would have been a football season."

So while Chuck Hagel was slapping bandages on his brother's chest to stem the blood from a sucking chest wound, George Bush was bravely protecting the Texas Panhandle from Oklahoma.

These are not morally equivalent sacrifices, and to even attempt to do so is repulsive.

And it's worth noting that today's National Guard *is* substantially different and service oriented - someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the combat zone service percentage is around 40%. I talked to a guy the other day whose son was in our state National Guard and had just been redeployed for a second tour in Iraq.

So rock on BGRS and tell your family thank you.

You are very welcome Bobster, and thanks for the props. I left my Dad off the list, because he is not currently offended, having passed on, but he retired from the Navy a CPO.

The Chief was a Truman Democrat and woulda popped an artery at these fools.

Some are privileged to serve. Others are too privileged to serve.

Good Lord! What a waste of time going through the responses on this blog. The same people overwhelm it with their same old insults back & forth. Finding some actual, real comments on here is damn hard work.

I don't care what political beliefs the survey's sponsors have. Without going through a lot of statistical gobbledygook, it is impossible to judge whether or not the survey was "fair". And what difference does it make, since everyone has their own definition of who fits the catagories of con, lib, prog, com, soc, fascist, ad nauseum? Frankly, I prefer not to take someone else's opinion & check out what & who I want to watch - or not watch. And I would rather see it in print-not only what is on the front page, but the whole publication.

I don't expect you, who has never faced any sacrifice for this country, to understand just how that technicality grates on real veterans.

There's no reason for you to expect him to understand, since "American" Hawk isn't even from this country.

For Conservatives critics who haven't bothered to read the study:

Media Matters has conveniently broken their study up into categories. In each category, Conservative voices were well over-represented. The categories were:

Journalists
Panels
Solo Interviews
Elected Officials

Now, it is indeed true that one person may view a particular Journalist/Panel Member as Conservative, while another views the same individual as Liberal, but for elected officials, there exists an objective standard that gives a pretty darn good indicator. It's the little "R" or "D" next to their name. Read carefully:

Meet The Press REP:62% DEM:37%
This Week REP:59% DEM:41%
Face the Nation REP:61% DEM 38%
Fox News Sunday REP:66% DEM:34%

My dad played baseball for the Army during Korea. No combat. No deployment. Is he a veteren? He says no.

EXTRADITE RUMSFELD: I think you also need to look at the historical differences.

number of national guardsmen who died during the viet nam war: 97

number of national guardsmen who died in iraq 2003-2006: 384

Think of how bad it wuld be if Tomlinson was still in charge of the CPB.