RNC Chairman Steele calls Rush Comments Incendiary & Ugly...sigh...

[sbark]

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/03/gop-chairman-michael-steele-calls.html

Here is video of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele talking with CNN's D.L. Hughley last night, and calling comments made by Rush Limbaugh (http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/02/rush-limbaugh-speech-to-cpac-says-take.html) during his speech to CPAC "incendiary and ugly." Steele said Limbaugh is not the de facto leader of the Republican Party, and that he is an "entertainter."

Following is the full speech in Segments..............for those that were not able to catch it al.....
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/28/video-limbaugh-brings-down-the-house-at-cpac/

can someone show me "incendiary and Ugly?............

forget the personal attacks......

make it Rush'ism (conservatism) vrs. Obama'ism (Liberalism)

[burmafrd]

If he makes the conservatives mad then he is gone. Steele better watch his step.

[DIAF]

[URL] Steele said Limbaugh is not the de facto leader of the Republican Party, and that he is an "entertainter."



Jeez, FINALLY someone stepped up and said it. I like Steele more and more.

[ZeroClub]

This is off topic, but I was looking out my window and I saw a pig fly. Seriously. I never thought I'd see that happen.

[tyke1doe]

If he makes the conservatives mad then he is gone. Steele better watch his step.

Right, so the RNC jettisons its first black leader to appease dittoheads. Yeah, that will make Republicans look like the party of inclusion. :rolleyes:

[tyke1doe]

Jeez, FINALLY someone stepped up and said it. I like Steele more and more.

:laugh1:

I agree.

[sbark]

After watching the clip a couple of more times.....I think Steele was still referring to Rush's "I want Obama's Policies to fail" statement.......not this CPAC speech specifically.....

but again........see the Left knee jerk reaction response is just to attack on a personal basis.........to something in all likelihood they have never listened to for more than 10 second Liberal attention span clips....

.......but they will gladly listen to Olberman for every bit of "journalism"

[Bob Sacamano]

lol Steele is from MD, I remember his campaign commercials a few years back

[the fake norm hitzges]

After watching the clip a couple of more times.....I think Steele was still referring to Rush's "I want Obama's Policies to fail" statement.......not this CPAC speech specifically.....

but again........see the Left knee jerk reaction response is just to attack on a personal basis.........to something in all likelihood they have never listened to for more than 10 second Liberal attention span clips....

.......but they will gladly listen to Olberman for every bit of "journalism"



ding ding ding....
we have a winner

[MetalHead]

This is off topic, but I was looking out my window and I saw a pig fly. Seriously. I never thought I'd see that happen.

stop dropping acid.
It makes see things that aren't real and think that liberals have a clue.

[Cajuncowboy]

Did he say which comments he was referring to???

I watched the speech and didn't see that.

Unless someone has specifics, this is pretty much nothing.

[masomenos]

You don't think that calling the other party "deranged" is ugly and incendiary?

[ChldsPlay]

You don't think that calling the other party "deranged" is ugly and incendiary?

ugly? No, it is truthful. Incendiary? Sure, but that doesn't make it bad.

[ThaBigP]

Did he say which comments he was referring to???

I watched the speech and didn't see that.

Unless someone has specifics, this is pretty much nothing.

All I heard in Rush's speech were the outrageous and inflamatory comments that conservatives look out into America and see individuals, not groups and victoms.

With "outrage" and "inflamation" like that, who needs hope and optimism?

[masomenos]

ugly? No, it is truthful. Incendiary? Sure, but that doesn't make it bad.

You don't think that the truth can be ugly?

Besides, it's not even the "truth", it's just opinion and opinions can definitely be ugly.

[the fake norm hitzges]

a man who tells the truth is usually a hated man.
truth exposes the dark recesses of lies and lays us naked before truths bright light.

"Know ye the truth,and the truth will set you free."

[burmafrd]

Well outside of the usual garbage from our resident libs most here seem to get it. Steele needs to think long and hard about sounding appeasing to any liberal media or in any way. The libs can get away with calling us conservatives all sorts of names but we cannot respond? BS.
Where has soft words and concessions and being nice gotten us?
Need to face the libs down attack for attack. On every IMPORTANT point (that needs to be emphasized-don't just attack them to attack them, no matter how tempted you are) face them down head on.

[ChldsPlay]

You don't think that the truth can be ugly?

Besides, it's not even the "truth", it's just opinion and opinions can definitely be ugly.

The truth can be ugly, but saying the truth in most cases, including this one, is not. And while it is an opinion, doesn't mean it's not aslo fact.

[masomenos]

The truth can be ugly, but saying the truth in most cases, including this one, is not. And while it is an opinion, doesn't mean it's not aslo fact.

Well, when you're dealing with ideologies you can't just claim that one is "deranged" and have it be fact. It's a statement that can only come from your own opinionated position.

[Doomsday101]

I listened to the Rush speech he gave at CPAC and for the most part agreed with much of what he was saying. I think at times he goes overboard but some of the basic principals I do agree with.

[burmafrd]

Sure you can call a belief system deranged. Communist, etc frankly were deranged by general agreement now. It was a system that ignored the human mind and soul and heart and it deserved the fate it got.

[JBond]

Right, so the RNC jettisons its first black leader to appease dittoheads. Yeah, that will make Republicans look like the party of inclusion. :rolleyes:

Why are you so hung up on the color of a persons skin? Are you a racist? Why does skin color matter to you?

[JBond]

If he makes the conservatives mad then he is gone. Steele better watch his step.

I wasn't big on Steele when he won the position. We really need a strong Conservative to lead the party back.

[DIAF]

Keep thinking that the party needs a strong ultra-conservative to "lead it back" because the only place its going with pandering to the far right-wing of the base is even further into irrelevance, I'm afraid. Thankfully, the party is smarter than that and Steele is a step in the right direction.

[Doomsday101]

Keep thinking that the party needs a strong ultra-conservative to "lead it back" because the only place its going with pandering to the far right-wing of the base is even further into irrelevance, I'm afraid. Thankfully, the party is smarter than that and Steele is a step in the right direction.

The party means nothing though if we do not stick to our principals. I have nothing aginst Steele but I would rather hold true to my conviction than to sell them down the road for a win.

[JBond]

Keep thinking that the party needs a strong ultra-conservative to "lead it back" because the only place its going with pandering to the far right-wing of the base is even further into irrelevance, I'm afraid. Thankfully, the party is smarter than that and Steele is a step in the right direction.

So how did your idiotic theory work out the last 8 years? How about in the last election? You are what is wrong with the Republican party. You nominate moderate liberals like Bush and McCain and then act surprised when it does not work out so well. Get a clue. Trying to out Democrat a Democrat is not leadership. Go ahead and continue to sit on the fence while your country is being sold down the drain by liberals.

[Cajuncowboy]

So how did your idiotic theory work out the last 8 years? How about in the last election? You are what is wrong with the Republican party. You nominate moderate liberals like Bush and McCain and then act surprised when it does not work out so well. Get a clue. Trying to out Democrat a Democrat is not leadership. Go ahead and continue to sit on the fence while your country is being sold down the drain by liberals.

Forget it. This guy is a liberal. He says different but look at his posts.

[WoodysGirl]

Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele
Jonathan Martin – 35 mins ago


On the same night he was offering the keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rush Limbaugh drew criticism from an unlikely source: Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

In a little-noticed interview Saturday night, Steele dismissed Limbaugh as an “entertainer” whose show is “incendiary” and “ugly.”

Steele’s criticism makes him the highest-ranking Republican to pick a fight with the popular and polarizing conservative talk show host.

But the new RNC chairman’s extraordinary comments won’t sit well with the millions of conservative listeners Limbaugh draws each week, and Steele aides scrambled to limit the damage Monday morning by trying to change the subject.

“Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats know they lose an argument with the Republican Party on substance so they are building straw men to attack and distract,” said RNC spokesman Alex Conant.

“The feud between radio host Rush Limbaugh and Rahm Emanuel makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington. RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats’ problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi.”

Limbaugh, asked to respond, said he’d save his counter-attack for his listeners.

“I’ll handle it on the radio,” he wrote in an e-mail.

In an interview on CNN with D.L. Hughley, Steele assured that he, not Limbaugh, was in charge of the party before saying that he wanted to put the right-wing talker “into context.”

“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” Steele said. “Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes it’s incendiary, yes it’s ugly.”

Steele’s comments, first noticed by NBC producer Chris Donovan, are sure to rankle Limbaugh in part because they validate the liberal critique of the conservative force: that he’s merely an “entertainer.”

That’s one of the phrases often used by Democrats who seek to diminish Limbaugh. MSNBC’s liberal talk-show host Keith Olbermann, for example, frequently mocks his broadcast adversary as “comedian Rush Limbaugh.”

Steele’s broadside comes as top-level Democrats are working to portray Limbaugh as the face of the GOP and daring anybody in the party to separate themselves from him.

A liberal coalition has aired two ads tying congressional Republicans to Limbaugh and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday that the radio talker is the “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.”

Emanuel also noted that Republicans face repercussions for criticizing Limbaugh.

“When a Republican did attack him, he was — clearly had to turn around and come back and basically said that he's apologizing and was wrong,” Emanuel noted.

He was referring to Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) who last month took a shot at Limbaugh to POLITICO only to appear on his program the next day and plead momentary “foot-in-mouth disease.”

Conant, the RNC spokesman, didn’t say whether Steele would go on the show.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090302/pl_politico/19498

[tyke1doe]

Why are you so hung up on the color of a persons skin? Are you a racist? Why does skin color matter to you?

Not a racist, just not stupid. ;)

If you think the Republicans chose Steele just because of his qualifications and not based on the timing presented by Obama's election, you're naive.

It's called politics.

[tyke1doe]

a man who tells the truth is usually a hated man.
truth exposes the dark recesses of lies and lays us naked before truths bright light.

"Know ye the truth,and the truth will set you free."



So now we're quoting to validate the "truth" of Limbaugh. :laugh1:

[Cajuncowboy]

Not a racist, just not stupid. ;)

If you think the Republicans chose Steele just because of his qualifications and not based on the timing presented by Obama's election, you're naive.

It's called politics.

Wow! That's just an idiotic statement.

[tyke1doe]

Wow! That's just an idiotic statement.

According to your reasoning skills, maybe.

But it fits deductive reasoning.

It goes as follows:

The "supposed" party of Lincoln that has done more for minorities than the Democrats (or so Republicans keep telling us) finally selects its first black chairman the same year the nation's first black president.

My, oh, my. What ... a ... coincidence. :rolleyes:

The Republicans aren't dumb. They understand the significance of Steele's selection.

It's called politics.

[JBond]

Not a racist, just not stupid. ;)

If you think the Republicans chose Steele just because of his qualifications and not based on the timing presented by Obama's election, you're naive.

It's called politics.

Yet it is you and other liberals that continually make a big deal about the color of a persons skin. So you are not racist, just everyone else is? Everyone is so easily fooled because of skin color? I think not. Your elitist ways are showing clearly.

You don't care about color but everyone else does? Why do you feel that way?

[Cajuncowboy]

Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele
Jonathan Martin – 35 mins ago


In a little-noticed interview Saturday night, Steele dismissed Limbaugh as an “entertainer” whose show is “incendiary” and “ugly.”



So, it WASN'T Rush's comments that Steele ripped, it was his show.

That's different.

He can have the problem he wants with his show, but the content of the speech was dead on. I didn't think he would have a problem with the speech.

Again, making a mountain out of a mole hill. Typical leftists.

[Cajuncowboy]

According to your reasoning skills, maybe.

But it fits deductive reasoning.

It goes as follows:

The "supposed" party of Lincoln that has done more for minorities than the Democrats (or so Republicans keep telling us) finally selects its first black chairman the same year the nation's first black president.

My, oh, my. What ... a ... coincidence. :rolleyes:

The Republicans aren't dumb. They understand the significance of Steele's selection.

It's called politics.

He had been considered a top candidate before Obama was even nomivated.

Get your crap straight.

[tyke1doe]

He had been considered a top candidate before Obama was even nomivated.

Get your crap straight.

So was Hillary Clinton. ;)

But we all know that being considered a top candidate and being selected the candidate are equivalent.

P.S. crap is NEVER straight. :D

[tyke1doe]

Yet it is you and other liberals that continually make a big deal about the color of a persons skin. So you are not racist, just everyone else is? Everyone is so easily fooled because of skin color? I think not. Your elitist ways are showing clearly.

Can you exercise an independent thought? Is everything "you liberals"? I'm probably more socially conservative than you are. But don't let that get in the way of your "you liberals" or "liberals like you" rant.

Second, where did I call you a racist? :confused: You love straw men don't you.

Third, yeah, pointing out the fact that the RNC selected a black chair the same time the nation selected a black president is being elitist. :rolleyes:

You really need to get out more, I mean beyond the Internet.



You don't care about color but everyone else does? Why do you feel that way?

I really have no idea what this means. :huh:

[JBond]

Can you exercise an independent thought? Is everything "you liberals"? I'm probably more socially conservative than you are. But don't let that get in the way of your "you liberals" or "liberals like you" rant.

Second, where did I call you a racist? :confused: You love straw men don't you.

Third, yeah, pointing out the fact that the RNC selected a black chair the same time the nation selected a black president is being elitist. :rolleyes:
:huh:

little tyke, you are the one consumed with the color of a persons skin. Just because there happens to be a half white half black President does not influence who I would want as the head of the RNC. You seem to think the color an individuals skin is a big deal or you would not have brought it up in multiple threads. I guess we will have to disagree on this.

[tyke1doe]

little tyke, you are the one consumed with the color of a persons skin. Just because there happens to be a half white half black President does not influence who I would want as the head of the RNC. You seem to think the color an individuals skin is a big deal or you would not have brought it up in multiple threads. I guess we will have to disagree on this.

What you think is your business. You're not a politician.

What the RNC thinks as it attempts to reach out to minority groups and Americans in general is important.

If the RNC is going to grow beyond itself, it must expand to include everyone, including blacks.

You simply can't ignore the situation or argue you're not going to focus on color because by doing so you're being racist. That's idealism not reality.

Now, unless you don't want the black vote and are willing to concede the minority vote (which is going to grow expontentially over the next few decades with more immigrants coming to this country), then ignore race and culture issues and how they intertwine. But if you're a political organization, you're going to have to adapt, or you're going to be irrelevant.

[Doomsday101]

What you think is your business. You're not a politician.

What the RNC thinks as it attempts to reach out to minority groups and Americans in general is important.

If the RNC is going to grow beyond itself, it must expand to include everyone, including blacks.

You simply can't ignore the situation or argue you're not going to focus on color because by doing so you're being racist. That's idealism not reality.

Now, unless you don't want the black vote and are willing to concede the minority vote (which is going to grow expontentially over the next few decades with more immigrants coming to this country), then ignore race and culture issues and how they intertwine. But if you're a political organization, you're going to have to adapt, or you're going to be irrelevant.

Nothing wrong with reaching out as long as you don't sacrifice your principals in doing so. Republican are not looking to be liberal lite. We may have lost this election and it is not the 1st time the party lost an election but you don't abandon conservative principals. As for minorities in the party last time I look Powell was part of the administration as was Doc. Rice not because of the color of their skin but because of impressive resumes they brought with them.

[JBond]

If the RNC is going to grow beyond itself, it must expand to include everyone, including blacks.

You simply can't ignore the situation or argue you're not going to focus on color because by doing so you're being racist. That's idealism not reality.


It is the message not the messenger that matters. How about reaching out to all people based on common conservative ideas instead of reaching out to a certain people based on the color of their skin? This is 2009, not 1959. People who happen to be black can choose to follow the Conservative movement or not, but it should be based on ideas rather than the color of the skin of the leader of the RNC.

[tyke1doe]

Nothing wrong with reaching out as long as you don't sacrifice your principals in doing so. Republican are not looking to be liberal lite. We may have lost this election and it is not the 1st time the party lost an election but you don't abandon conservative principals.

I don't disagree with you.

As for minorities in the party last time I look Powell was part of the administration as was Doc. Rice not because of the color of their skin but because of impressive resumes they brought with them.

Yes, they were chose because of their impressive resumes. But let's not be naive to think that their race wasn't a plum for the Republicans. Many took note of their selections because of their race. Whether that matters to you or not, it matters to observers. And don't think Bush and the Republicans aren't concerned about party perceptions.

[Cajuncowboy]

If the RNC is going to grow beyond itself, it must expand to include everyone, including blacks.



http://plainview.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/powell-colin.jpg

http://www.apakistannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/condoleezza_rice.jpg

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/files/images/080904steel_0.jpg

http://www.fitness.gov/news/fitnesstips/Swann-lg.jpg

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/oldschoolblues/blog/clarence_thomas_photo.jpg

http://www.c-span.org/questions/images/watts.jpg

OK. Will you let us know when we include people who are black enough for you?

[tyke1doe]

It is the message not the messenger that matters. How about reaching out to all people based on common conservative ideas instead of reaching out to a certain people based on the color of their skin? This is 2009, not 1959. People who happen to be black can choose to follow the Conservative movement or not, but it should be based on ideas rather than the color of the skin of the leader of the RNC.

But you have to convince people that they fit into your ideas or your vision of the world. It's all well and good to talk about equality. But if you've limited that concept to only certain people, you have excluded others. And if you have traditionally done so (at least that's the perception many blacks have of the Republican Party), you have to convince them otherwise. That is, if you're interested in their votes.

[tyke1doe]

http://plainview.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/powell-colin.jpg

http://www.apakistannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/condoleezza_rice.jpg

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/files/images/080904steel_0.jpg

http://www.fitness.gov/news/fitnesstips/Swann-lg.jpg

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/oldschoolblues/blog/clarence_thomas_photo.jpg

http://www.c-span.org/questions/images/watts.jpg

OK. Will you let us know when we include people who are black enough for you?

Thanks for the pictures. But, we're talking about voters. Rice, Clarence Thomas and J.C. Watts aren't delivering votes to the Republican Party, especially not in national elections.

[Cajuncowboy]

Thanks for the pictures. But, we're talking about voters. Rice, Clarence Thomas and J.C. Watts aren't delivering votes to the Republican Party, especially not in national elections.

So you are saying that these people do not inspire black voters to vote for the republican party?

Well, what exactly would you like the Republican party to do, to "Include" Black people?

[Doomsday101]

I don't disagree with you.



Yes, they were chose because of their impressive resumes. But let's not be naive to think that their race wasn't a plum for the Republicans. Many took note of their selections because of their race. Whether that matters to you or not, it matters to observers. And don't think Bush and the Republicans aren't concerned about party perceptions.

I don't think Regan had Rice as part of his team or Bush because of the color of her skin she is a highly educated person in the field of foreign relations. Her being black I guess can be considered a so called feather in the cap for some I judge people on their ability I think the administration judged her on her ability.

[tyke1doe]

So you are saying that these people do not inspire black voters to vote for the republican party?

Collectively, no. Blacks vote for the same reason whites vote, by and large, or any group for that matter, based on policy and ideology.



Well, what exactly would you like the Republican party to do, to "Include" Black people?

I'm more a social observer, not a politician. I'm merely reflecting what is vs. what I think should be.

But since you asked the question, I would ...

1. Focus on education
2. Focus more on business development, particularly small business development.
3. Focus (continue) on faith-based initiatives with an emphasis on equipping black churches to tap into federal funding to run community-based services and educating the populus on how to establish non-profit organizations (501C3s) so they won't run afoul of the law.
4. Aggressively pursue civil rights violations.

Those would be a start.

[Cajuncowboy]

Collectively, no. Blacks vote for the same reason whites vote, by and large, or any group for that matter, based on policy and ideology.





I'm more a social observer, not a politician. I'm merely reflecting what is vs. what I think should be.

But since you asked the question, I would ...

1. Focus on education
2. Focus more on business development, particularly small business development.
3. Focus (continue) on faith-based initiatives with an emphasis on equipping black churches to tap into federal funding to run community-based services and educating the populus on how to establish non-profit organizations (501C3s) so they won't run afoul of the law.
4. Aggressively pursue civil rights violations.

Those would be a start.

And Republicans, specifically conservatives don't do this????

That's practically the conservative platform.

[burmafrd]

tyke is just looking for an excuse. He knows full well that the liberal shills in the media and his own party for years try and label the Republican party as racist so they can keep the black vote on the Democratic Plantation.

[tyke1doe]

tyke is just looking for an excuse. He knows full well that the liberal shills in the media and his own party for years try and label the Republican party as racist so they can keep the black vote on the Democratic Plantation.

Better that than the slave ships of the U.S.S. Republican. ;) :D

[tyke1doe]

And Republicans, specifically conservatives don't do this????

That's practically the conservative platform.

Well, I don't know about the aggressive enforcement of civil rights violations. But it's both parties' platform. The key is emphasis, approach and where money should be diverted to achieve those goals.

I've found that the great divide in this country is really not about ideals as it is approach.

Everyone wants smaller government. Republicans want it in certain areas, Democrats in another.

Everyone wants better education. Republicans want it a certain way, Democrats another.

The key is convincing people that your way is the better, the more ideal way.

I personally think Republicans haven't done such a good job at this. I did give Bush W. credit in his first run. He spoke at the NAACP convention when other Republican candidates shunned the group because they basically conceded the black vote to Democrats.

It's going to take more of that, selling your ideas even when you think the audience might not receive them. If you are certain your ideas are the better ideas, sell them regardless of climate of the moment.

[JBond]

And Republicans, specifically conservatives don't do this????

That's practically the conservative platform.

I was thinking the same thing. Keep taxes low. Get rid of the NEA and offer school vouchers (which have gone over big time in poor black areas), strong moral leadership from the churches, and eliminate any discrimination or special preferential treatment based on race.

Those are some of the building blocks of Conservatism.

[sbark]

Better that than the slave ships of the U.S.S. Republican. ;) :D

........take a minute to study up on the History of the Democrat party and slavery.......its very much like what you've been told about Democrats and Facism..........180* opposite

The American Spectator : Democrats: The Missing Years (http://spectator.org/archives/2008/08/12/democrats-the-missing-years)Aug 12, 2008 ... Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and ...
spectator.org/archives/2008/08/12/democrats-the-missing-years

[JBond]

........take a minute to study up on the History of the Democrat party and slavery.......its very much like what you've been told about Democrats and Facism..........180* opposite

The American Spectator : Democrats: The Missing Years (http://spectator.org/archives/2008/08/12/democrats-the-missing-years)Aug 12, 2008 ... Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and ...
spectator.org/archives/2008/08/12/democrats-the-missing-years

You are just going to confuse the little tyke with all of those facts. Bumper sticker slogans work better with his type.

[sbark]

You are just going to confuse the little tyke with all of those facts. Bumper sticker slogans work better with his type.

ya I Know......its the Drive by media induced 10 second attention span......

[masomenos]

ya I Know......its the Drive by media induced 10 second attention span......

It's hilarious that you are critical of mainstream media while using a term created/popularized by one of the most syndicated talk radio hosts.

[burmafrd]

Well the term fits: drive by. Hit and run. No depth or real analysis.

[tyke1doe]

........take a minute to study up on the History of the Democrat party and slavery.......its very much like what you've been told about Democrats and Facism..........180* opposite

The American Spectator : Democrats: The Missing Years (http://spectator.org/archives/2008/08/12/democrats-the-missing-years)Aug 12, 2008 ... Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and ...
spectator.org/archives/2008/08/12/democrats-the-missing-years

You're pretty much late to the party. I've already addressed that in previous threads.

Besides, my comments were tongue-in-cheek, a response to burmafrd's "Democratic Plantation."

Try ... to ... keep ... up. ;)

[tyke1doe]

You are just going to confuse the little tyke with all of those facts. Bumper sticker slogans work better with his type.

And taking arguments out of historical context yours. Yep, the current Republicans sure do resemble the Party of Lincoln. ;)

[tyke1doe]

It's hilarious that you are critical of mainstream media while using a term created/popularized by one of the most syndicated talk radio hosts.

I think we call that a dittohead. ;)

[Cajuncowboy]

Steele to Rush: I'm sorry
By MIKE ALLEN | 3/2/09 5:58 PM EST


Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

The dust-up comes at a time when top Democrats are trying to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party, in part by using ads funded by labor. Americans United for Change sent a fund-raising e-mail Monday that begins: “The Republican Party has turned into the Rush Limbaugh Party.”

Steele told CNN host D.L. Hughley in an interview aired Saturday night: “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.”

Steele, who won a hard-fought chairman's race on Jan. 30, told Politico he telephoned Limbaugh after his show on Monday afternoon and hoped that they would connect soon.

“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."

“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”

On Monday’s show, Limbaugh reacted both to the comment and to the assertion on CBS’s “Face the Nation” by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the radio host is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.”



Limbaugh said: “I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years.”

On the RushLimbaugh.com home page, the transcript is labeled: “A Few Words for Michael Steele.”

On Monday night, DNC Chairman Tim Kaine called on Republicans to "stop following divisive figures" like Limbaugh.

"I was briefly encouraged by the courageous comments made my counterpart in the Republican Party over the weekend challenging Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party and referring to his show as ‘incendiary’ and ‘ugly,’" Kaine said in a statement. "However, Chairman Steele’s reversal this evening and his apology to Limbaugh proves the unfortunate point that Limbaugh is the leading force behind the Republican Party, its politics and its obstruction of President Obama’s agenda in Washington."

In the interview with Politico, Steele called Limbaugh “a very valuable conservative voice for our party.”

“He brings a very important message to the American people to wake up and pay attention to what the administration is doing," Steele said. "Number two, there are those out there who want to look at what he’s saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That’s what I was trying to say. It didn’t come out that way. … He does what he does best, which is provoke: He provokes thought, he provokes the left. And they’re clearly the ones who are most excited about him.”

Asked if he planned to apologize, Steele said: “I wasn’t trying to offend anybody. So, yeah, if he’s offended, I’d say: Look, I’m not in the business of hurting people’s feelings here. … My job is to try to bring us all together.”

[BrAinPaiNt]

I have seen that Steele has basically said he was talking out of his mind and he thought one thing and said another ....oh heck call it what it is, he wimped out at the alter of Rush.

I mean the guy basically described Rush the way rush would describe himself if he was honest...an entertainer that basically can be abrasive. Yet he throws out mock outrage when someone else says it.
Ladies and gentlemen. The head of (whether in title or not) is Rush Limbaugh. A man that is smart enough not to run for office because he would probably have a graveyard in his closet and smart enough not to run for president as he turns off too many people with his abrasive style...is now leading the republican party.

I like steele. I think he has a good head on his shoulders. But this is what happens when you put a guy who many conservatives complained about not being conservative enough in charge of the RNC.

I also do not think it was a mistake that he won the RNC. Three things to think about.

1. Obama was elected. To think that the first black president being elected had nothing to do with the first black head of the RNC is being naive.

2. One of the guys that was in the running, was the same guy that got blasted for sending out CDs with the infamous Obama the magic negro song on it.

3. Another guy that was running basically resigned his long term membership to a white's only country club.

Now call me crazy all you want but the idea of those three things had a good deal of reason why the guy most conservatives complained was not conservative enough...wound up winning the nod to be the head of the RNC.

Add into that that the two most prominent and well known black people the Republicans have had over the last many years...One, Powell, endorsed Obama over McCain and the other, Rice, no longer has a role in the party or position in government.

Just saying.



I think Rham emanuel and Obama are playing the republicans like a fiddle.

I think they are helping to split up the party by pitting some against Rush and then making the republicans that have said anything remotely negative against rush look idiotic and spineless when they have to talk about how they were misunderstood or said the wrong things or even more shamelessly going on the Rush's own radio show to gravel at his feet and apologize.

IF you are a republican...you can not like how Rush and these politicians are being played right now.

You may like the idea of rooting out the conservatives from the republicans or the republicans from the RINOS or whatever title you want between those that are republicans. But what that is doing is hurting the overall base and independents who vote for Republicans.

What is going to happen the next election when someone is running for a position that does not fit the hardcore social conservatives list as a good guy so they do not support him? What happens when you do have a hardcore social conservative so the moderate base or independents will not support him?

That break down between the party is something to watch in the future and I do think the likes of Limbaugh are being played here. Now Limbaugh has played others at times, I also think he loves and relishes the idea of Obama being in office because he can get more people behind him with his anti-democrat speeches. But I think he is being played right now and more importantly the republican party has found themselves in a trap.

Don't believe me...Rham (sp?) basically said what would happen with steele/rush before rush replied about steele and what steele would do.

Anyways...just some things to consider. You don't have to believe them, you don't have to agree with them...but it might be in your best interest to consider them.

Well...just a rambling as I have not posted in here for a few days and it might be some time before I do again.:cool:

[tyke1doe]

I have seen that Steele has basically said he was talking out of his mind and he thought one thing and said another ....oh heck call it what it is, he wimped out at the alter of Rush.


I could think of another figure of speech, but then I'd be called racist. :D ;)

It's called not alienating your party's base. Many Republicans (those actually engaged in the political system) want to distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh.

But Rush holds the ear of the Republican base. As such, Steele doesn't want to upset it (the base) by upsetting its leader.

Hence, his apology.

[Cajuncowboy]

I could think of another figure of speech, but then I'd be called racist. :D ;)

It's called not alienating your party's base. Many Republicans (those actually engaged in the political system) want to distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh.

But Rush holds the ear of the Republican base. As such, Steele doesn't want to upset it (the base) by upsetting its leader.

Hence, his apology.

So those actually engaged wants to distance themselves from Rush.

They are not the base?

Yet Steele doesn't want to alienate the base...

So he apologizes.


Ummm, Okay.

:lmao:

You don't make a whole lot of sense.

THe very reason he apologized IS because that those engaged, in other words, those who vote, are conservatives and Rush actually speaks for them.

Obviously this flies in the face of your, "The party needs to move to the center" fallacy.

[JBond]

So those actually engaged wants to distance themselves from Rush.

They are not the base?

Yet Steele doesn't want to alienate the base...

So he apologizes.


Ummm, Okay.

:lmao:

You don't make a whole lot of sense.

THe very reason he apologized IS because that those engaged, in other words, those who vote, are conservatives and Rush actually speaks for them.

Obviously this flies in the face of your, "The party needs to move to the center" fallacy.

Of course libs like little tyke want the Republican party to move left. As Bush and McCain proved without a doubt, acting like a moderate liberal is not going to help the party. You can not out lib the libs. We need to get rid of all the RINO's. Choosing between a leftist socialist and moderate liberal is really not much of a choice.

[Cajuncowboy]

Of course libs like little tyke want the Republican party to move left. As Bush and McCain proved without a doubt, acting like a moderate liberal is not going to help the party. You can not out lib the libs. We need to get rid of all the RINO's. Choosing between a leftist socialist and moderate liberal is really not much of a choice.

I hate to say it but Bush disappointed me with his moves to the center/left. He had conservative values and he ran on those but there were times where he abandoned them totally.

To Paraphrase what Reagan once said about the Democrat party...

"I'm not leaving the Republican party, they are leaving me."

[burmafrd]

Yep. Of course a libby like Tyke wants the Republican party to move to the left since that is when it loses.

[tyke1doe]

So those actually engaged wants to distance themselves from Rush.

They are not the base?

Yet Steele doesn't want to alienate the base...

So he apologizes.


Ummm, Okay.

:lmao:

You don't make a whole lot of sense.

THe very reason he apologized IS because that those engaged, in other words, those who vote, are conservatives and Rush actually speaks for them.

Obviously this flies in the face of your, "The party needs to move to the center" fallacy.

More straw men, I see. :laugh1:

Somebody must be building a huge barn somewhere. :D

First, who said anything about moving the party to the center? As a social conservative, that's hardly the direction I want the party to go in.

Second, I can see where it makes little sense to you. I think any reasonable person would interpret those engaged in the process as, oh, Republican politicians, leaders of the RNC, not people just listening to the radio. :rolleyes:

Third, it was the same with McCain, who was definitely not a social conservative and in previous years had strongly criticized social conservatives and members of the Religious Right. Yet, he tried to appeal to them by toning down his rhetoric, courting a few of their leaders and even tabbing Palin as his running mate. That is an example of appealing to a base even though one actively engaged in the party doesn't embrace what the base may feel about a given leader or issue.

Fourth, radicals always can speak more clearly than politicians. Radicals don't have to engage in compromise. It's why a Al Sharpton is a voice for a segment of the population, but he won't be make a good politician because he's radical. He's not given to the art of compromise. Same with Rush Limbaugh and many of his listeners. Rush may speak for conservatives, but Rush wouldn't make a good politician because Rush is a talk show host living in a bubble, so to speak. He can say what he wants, but he doesn't have to deal in an environment that calls for negotiation and compromise.

Same as with the Internet. People can say whatever they want to here. But this is a "bubble." Some of the very things we say here would never be said in the open, in public areas where you have to compromise and negotiate with others.


That's what I'm talking about. And I know what I'm talking about. If you don't understand, you can ask a question. And I'll clarify. But what I'm saying makes perfect sense, especially for one who has to observe how the system works almost on a daily basis.

[tyke1doe]

Of course libs like little tyke want the Republican party to move left. As Bush and McCain proved without a doubt, acting like a moderate liberal is not going to help the party. You can not out lib the libs. We need to get rid of all the RINO's. Choosing between a leftist socialist and moderate liberal is really not much of a choice.

Yeah, and choosing ultra conservative, no-nothing Palin helped the party too. :rolleyes:

The Republican Party needs to clean its house, make its talk match its walk and develop/cultivate intellectual politicians with moral integrity who can be models and examples of the policies they want everyone else to follow except themselves.

[Cajuncowboy]

More straw men, I see. :laugh1:

Somebody must be building a huge barn somewhere. :D

First, who said anything about moving the party to the center? As a social conservative, that's hardly the direction I want the party to go in.

Second, I can see where it makes little sense to you. I think any reasonable person would interpret those engaged in the process as, oh, Republican politicians, leaders of the RNC, not people just listening to the radio. :rolleyes:

Third, it was the same with McCain, who was definitely not a social conservative and in previous years had strongly criticized social conservatives and members of the Religious Right. Yet, he tried to appeal to them by toning down his rhetoric, courting a few of their leaders and even tabbing Palin as his running mate. That is an example of appealing to a base even though one actively engaged in the party doesn't embrace what the base may feel about a given leader or issue.

Fourth, radicals always can speak more clearly than politicians. Radicals don't have to engage in compromise. It's why a Al Sharpton is a voice for a segment of the population, but he won't be make a good politician because he's radical. He's not given to the art of compromise. Same with Rush Limbaugh and many of his listeners. Rush may speak for conservatives, but Rush wouldn't make a good politician because Rush is a talk show host living in a bubble, so to speak. He can say what he wants, but he doesn't have to deal in an environment that calls for negotiation and compromise.

Same as with the Internet. People can say whatever they want to here. But this is a "bubble." Some of the very things we say here would never be said in the open, in public areas where you have to compromise and negotiate with others.


That's what I'm talking about. And I know what I'm talking about. If you don't understand, you can ask a question. And I'll clarify. But what I'm saying makes perfect sense, especially for one who has to observe how the system works almost on a daily basis.

You are entertaining as heck.

You are dead wrong mostly, but entertaining just the same.

The things I say on here I say the same things in business and in public. Only a spineless coward would hide behind a message board to say what he really feels. Further, I don't "compromise" my values to get things done. again, it's more Democrat lite thinking like that which causes splits within the party.

As far as I'm concerned however, the Republican party is a shell of what it once was and what it should be.

[JBond]

Yeah, and choosing ultra conservative, no-nothing Palin helped the party too. :rolleyes:

The Republican Party needs to clean its house, make its talk match its walk and develop/cultivate intellectual politicians with moral integrity who can be models and examples of the policies they want everyone else to follow except themselves.

Whats your beef with Palin? Do you object to how she has run her state? Her state runs a surplus and business pay the citizens for the privilege of doing business there. She was smart to build a mutually beneficial relationship with the oil companies. A lesson Dems have yet to learn.

[Doomsday101]

Whats your beef with Palin? Do you object to how she has run her state? Her state runs a surplus and business pay the citizens for the privilege of doing business there. She was smart to build a mutually beneficial relationship with the oil companies. A lesson Dems have yet to learn.

As far as I know all oil producing states get royalties from the oil companies. Texas does as well.

[tyke1doe]

You are entertaining as heck.

You are dead wrong mostly, but entertaining just the same.

The things I say on here I say the same things in business and in public. Only a spineless coward would hide behind a message board to say what he really feels. Further, I don't "compromise" my values to get things done. again, it's more Democrat lite thinking like that which causes splits within the party.

As far as I'm concerned however, the Republican party is a shell of what it once was and what it should be.

First, I wasn't talking specifically to you with respect to the Internet. It was a general comment.

Second, I don't compromise my values either. But the way and method in how I do things might change. You can still sing the same songs with the same meaning and value, but just in different styles. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the difference.

Third, with respect to this issue I am NOT dead wrong. There's a reason radicals don't get elected often. It's because while people love them "telling it like it is," they would be virtually ineffective as politicians because they never are willing to make allegiances and, thus, never get their agenda fulfilled. That's not politics.

Fourth, I'm glad I can bring merriment to your life. And I hope you learn something while you're laugh. ;)

[Cajuncowboy]

First, I wasn't talking specifically to you with respect to the Internet. It was a general comment.

Second, I don't compromise my values either. But the way and method in how I do things might change. You can still sing the same songs with the same meaning and value, but just in different styles. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the difference.

Third, with respect to this issue I am NOT dead wrong. There's a reason radicals don't get elected often. It's because while people love them "telling it like it is," they would be virtually ineffective as politicians because they never are willing to make allegiances and, thus, never get their agenda fulfilled. That's not politics.

Fourth, I'm glad I can bring merriment to your life. And I hope you learn something while you're laugh. ;)


It won't be English. :D

[tyke1doe]

Whats your beef with Palin? Do you object to how she has run her state? Her state runs a surplus and business pay the citizens for the privilege of doing business there. She was smart to build a mutually beneficial relationship with the oil companies. A lesson Dems have yet to learn.

Being successful in Alaska isn't all that difficult when it is one of the leading oil producers in the country and when it receives federal subsidies and has a steady flow of income through petroleum revenue.

As for my objections with Palin? You can't be serious. The woman was wwwaaayyyy over her head as a vice presidential candidate. And I'm being generous.

[tyke1doe]

It won't be English. :D

:laugh2:

Touche! :)

[Cajuncowboy]

Being successful in Alaska isn't all that difficult when it is one of the leading oil producers in the country and when it receives federal subsidies and has a steady flow of income through petroleum revenue.

As for my objections with Palin? You can't be serious. The woman was wwwaaayyyy over her head as a vice presidential candidate. And I'm being generous.

And yet she was far more qualified than the guy who one.

(I don't agree with your assertion on Palin BTW)

[Cajuncowboy]

:laugh2:

Touche! :)

So you revert to French???

Liberal. :rolleyes:




J/K

:p:

[tyke1doe]

And yet she was far more qualified than the guy who one.

(I don't agree with your assertion on Palin BTW)

Forgive me if I take Colin Powell's word over yours. ;)

[tyke1doe]

So you revert to French???

Liberal. :rolleyes:




J/K

:p:

What does that make me if I still refer to my fries as "French"? ;)

Actually, I've sworn off fried food for Lent. :)

[Cajuncowboy]

Forgive me if I take Colin Powell's word over yours. ;)

Powell was in the tank for Obama for one reason and reason only. He supported a black man. There is no way anyone can honestly believe that someone with a background of community organizer/activist can be as qualified as the top executive of a state in which they are responsible for payroll, balancing a budget and developing foreign relations to attract business.

If you want to think otherwise, fine, but you are kidding yourself.

[Cajuncowboy]

What does that make me if I still refer to my fries as "French"? ;)

Normal

Actually, I've sworn off fried food for Lent. :)

Actually I've taken up fried food for lent.

Any reason I can find to eat more fried food, I'm there.

:dance3:

[JBond]

As far as I know all oil producing states get royalties from the oil companies. Texas does as well.

That is true, but not all states have leadership clever enough to get some of that money back directly to the people. I believe they also do not have an state income tax.That's a pretty good job by Palin in my opinion.

If the democrats would learn how to partner with businesses as opposed to demonizing them, the entire country would benefit.

[JBond]

Forgive me if I take Colin Powell's word over yours. ;)

Actually I had the opportunity to see Colin Powell speak in person two weeks after the election. He mentioned Obama once and spent the rest of his time talking about Ronald Reagan and the principles he learned from him.

By the way Powell is an excellent public speaker.

[tyke1doe]

Actually I had the opportunity to see Colin Powell speak in person two weeks after the election. He mentioned Obama once and spent the rest of his time talking about Ronald Reagan and the principles he learned from him.

By the way Powell is an excellent public speaker.

Very intelligent man. Too bad he didn't want to run for president.

At any rate, this is a good place to end this discussion.

Thanks for your participation, JBond et. al. :)

[DIAF]

So how did your idiotic theory work out the last 8 years? How about in the last election? You are what is wrong with the Republican party. You nominate moderate liberals like Bush and McCain and then act surprised when it does not work out so well. Get a clue. Trying to out Democrat a Democrat is not leadership. Go ahead and continue to sit on the fence while your country is being sold down the drain by liberals.

"Moderate" policies aren't what got Bush in trouble with the voters. Botching Iraq is what got republicans by and large tossed out on their collective ears in 2006, also somewhat fueled by some anger stemming out of high gas prices and a couple of high-profile scandals that hit the news at the same time. Katrina didn't help either, although I don't think that factored as much into voters' minds.

Moderates worked out pretty good in the election before last. In 2006, a good many of the newly elected congressional dems were Blue Dogs.

You and your pal Cajun keep going on and on about how Moderates are really liberals. Your definition of liberal is "anything that doesn't agree with my rather narrow-minded view". Again, I question your intelligence if you think that kicking MORE people out of the Republican Party is going to win you votes. "Hey, let's shorten our voting base! That will surely win us some elections! What a great idea! BRILLIANT!" This is what is wrong with the Republican Party today. Too many "My way or the Highway, and if you don't like it, ___ YOU!" Republicans. Politics shouldn't be a pissing contest. It should be about people of differing opinions and values finding suitable compromise, whether it be between parties or groups within the parties themselves. Not one group trying to shove their will down another's throats. Neither party is actually very good at this, but right now Republicans are downright DREADFUL at it.

[burmafrd]

Love how DIAF ignores the effect of years of relentless criticism from the MSM and others.
And lets face it- the election could very well have gone the other way if the economy had not gone in the tank when it did. And that would have only happened because then enough Americans would have realized how stupid it would be to elect such an inexperienced person as President. And how liberal he clearly was and would be.
The Republicans did best when they had clearly conservative agenda.
Bush steadily lost support and the republicans steadily lost strength the more liberal they went. The immigration bill disaster was clearly a liberal bill and BUSH supported it all the way- with all too many Republicans right behind him.
Its clear that bush got more moderate all during his terms. As did the republicans in the Congress. You claim to be experienced there- how in the world cannot you connect the dots. Probably because you don;t want to.

[MetalHead]

Forgive me if I take Colin Powell's word over yours. ;)
Be very careful there kid....careful.

[trickblue]

Forgive me if I take Colin Powell's word over yours. ;)

I respect Mr. Powell GREATLY, but he was well-known as a "dove" among the military community...

[DIAF]

Powell was in the tank for Obama for one reason and reason only. He supported a black man. There is no way anyone can honestly believe that someone with a background of community organizer/activist can be as qualified as the top executive of a state in which they are responsible for payroll, balancing a budget and developing foreign relations to attract business.

If you want to think otherwise, fine, but you are kidding yourself.

Funny that someone that has accused me of the race card on numerous occasions is now doing so himself, and even more disgusting that he's denigrating Colin Powell.

[DIAF]

Love how DIAF ignores the effect of years of relentless criticism from the MSM and others.
And lets face it- the election could very well have gone the other way if the economy had not gone in the tank when it did. And that would have only happened because then enough Americans would have realized how stupid it would be to elect such an inexperienced person as President. And how liberal he clearly was and would be.
The Republicans did best when they had clearly conservative agenda.
Bush steadily lost support and the republicans steadily lost strength the more liberal they went. The immigration bill disaster was clearly a liberal bill and BUSH supported it all the way- with all too many Republicans right behind him.
Its clear that bush got more moderate all during his terms. As did the republicans in the Congress. You claim to be experienced there- how in the world cannot you connect the dots. Probably because you don;t want to.

Geez, not that crap again. The MSM is not all-powerful and is a lot less liberal than you think. Are they still biased? Yep. Did Bush need their help to tank the 06 and 08 elections? Nope. He did most of that on his own.

Its amazing to me that you dismiss everything Bush did wrong by claiming MSM bias and THEN turn around and say that everyone (including Bush) got more moderate. If they got more moderate, why the hell didn't more moderates vote FOR them? Answer: because they didn't get any more moderate than they were before. And the thing that lost them the election was not the immigration bill, it was not the spending (the american public demonstrates over and over that it doesn't really care about that when its time to pull the lever), it wasn't even the Scooter Libby or Abramoff or Mark Foley or the Justice Dept firings or any of the other scandals (take your pick) although they sure didn't help. Plain and simple, it was Iraq which was a constant source of bad news ever since Saddam was captured up until right before the Surge. Katrina was an extra kick down the hill. By the time Iraq calmed down and the surge started working, the narrative was already written and the voters minds were made up. We also had people grumbling about their pockets with the high gas prices, contributing to voter anger in the fall of 06. After that, people were just ready to move on from Bush and there was pretty much NOTHING republicans could have done to defeat Obama or even Clinton. McCain might have had a better showing had he picked Romney or someone else who knew what the hell they were doing as his running mate instead of Mrs. Legs-and-Glasses-Rawr who immediately started pandering to the lowest denominator of the party, but ultimately it would have been a futile effort anyways.

[trickblue]

The MSM is not all-powerful and is a lot less liberal than you think.

I respectfully disagree with you, here...

[DIAF]

I respectfully disagree with you, here...

Well, as I said before, I spent 6 years working in the big bad evil media (granted, I wasn't really a news person beyond gathering tape for newscasts, i was more on the production side of things with the occasional sportscast pinch-hit) but I've met my fair share of newsies, read the industry publications, been to the conventions, produced over 2800 newscasts (3 newscasts a day-5 days a week for 4 years), majored in college, and attended forum after forum and saw industry speaker after industry speaker so I have a pretty decent handle on exactly how liberal print and broadcast journalism really is. Are they more liberal than your typical conservative? Yes. Are they more liberal than your typical moderate? Only slightly so. They aren't commie socialists like the more vehement right-wingers think they are (or most of this forum, for that matter) and the "agenda" isn't really driven by personal ideology.....it's money. Like everything else. The media is more about telling you what it thinks you WANT to hear....more people tuned in, more people reading = more $ to the bottom line.

[trickblue]

Well, as I said before, I spent 6 years working in the big bad evil media (granted, I wasn't really a news person beyond gathering tape for newscasts, i was more on the production side of things with the occasional sportscast pinch-hit) but I've met my fair share of newsies, read the industry publications, been to the conventions, produced over 2800 newscasts (3 newscasts a day-5 days a week for 4 years), majored in college, and attended forum after forum and saw industry speaker after industry speaker so I have a pretty decent handle on exactly how liberal print and broadcast journalism really is. Are they more liberal than your typical conservative? Yes. Are they more liberal than your typical moderate? Only slightly so. They aren't commie socialists like the more vehement right-wingers think they are (or most of this forum, for that matter) and the "agenda" isn't really driven by personal ideology.....it's money. Like everything else. The media is more about telling you what it thinks you WANT to hear....more people tuned in, more people reading = more $ to the bottom line.

I spent many years in the industry as well... and I found a distinct bias in their reporting...

We'll agree to disagree...