-Because the Facts Have a Liberal Bias! (and I'm too fat to fit on a soapbox).
Yeah Steve. Another vote for tolerance on your part. Eleanor Clift is skewing the story. There is a reason she is earned the nickname Eleanor "Rodham" Clift. She is notoriously liberally biased and it is unlikely that she ever tried to look at this from any other angle.I agree with her final paragraph, but the whole subject matter regarding Romney is devoid of any research on the man.I would suggest their is much better reading on Romney than Clift.http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008991or check out this site that deconstructs Clift's article.http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/index.php?title=eleanor_clift_can_read_mitt_romney_s_min&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Steve's (and Clift's) point is still right on the money. Romney (and all of the other Republicans) are running as fast and as desperately as they can to the right for the nomination. McCain has already changed his position on several issues, most notably abortion, and I'll wait and see if he changes his mind about a federal marriage amendment. But Romney is trying to latch onto an issue that causes so much anger and anxiety, and trying to exploit that is particularly despicable (especially when we have more important issues to deal with, like that we have over 45 million Americans with no health care). It'll be very interesting to see how they all continue to worm their way to the far right, and I think only Sam Brownback is the real conservative in the race. Republicans don't trust McCain, they won't stand for Guiliani's pro-choice, pro-gay rights positions, and Romney is from Massachusetts. Slim pickins if you want an honest conservative candidate, eh?
Byron,Romney has been singing the same tune on traditional marriage for 13 years before most anyone else was even considering the issue, before the Mass. Supreme Court legalized same sex unions.Clift has it wrong. He didn't do a 180 and start pandering to the right on this issue because of a 2008 Presidential run. He is a staunch conservative. If he is vile in some people's minds it isn't because he is pandering to anyone. It is because he is a conservative. He is who he is. Look at what he did in Salt Lake City for the Olympics. He said this is what I am going to do and then he did it and saved the Olympics from certain disaster.The thing that conservatives will look at very closely is Romney's implementation of universal health care in Massachusets. Clift should have written about that. If that is your issue then you should love this guy for giving everyone in Mass. healthcare coverage.The entire delegation of GOP Presidential hopefuls are running to the right as fast as possible. The entire delegation of Democration Presidential hopefuls will be running to the left as fast as possible too. Come time for the general election they will all be running back to the center.However, I think Romney is firmly planted in the right. I also thing Gingrich is as well. I don't think either of them will run back to the center.As for the Dems. Bill Richardson. He is in the center. Will run from the center. Come general election time (assuming he is the Dem. nominee) he will stay firmly in the center and become President of the United States.I agree with your assessment of McCain, Guiliani, and Brownback.Respectfully,
Mr. Keelan,Notoriously liberally biased? It's called a point of view. But, since you get your news from "great newspapers" such as the Moonie Times and your opinion pieces from the WSJ, where only Obejective Truth is found and from which bias has been banished, I guess you're not familiar with the concept.Sheesh. I have no problem with there being fascist propaganda rags, since free speech is the lifeblood of fascism's sworn enemy, democracy. What should not be tolerated, however, is the Big Lie that these rags are "fair and balanced" and the only bias that exists is of the liberal variety.You might also consider dropping by the clue store and getting this: Save for Freepers, liberal is no longer a dirty word.
Moonie Rag?? That is as tolerant as it gets around here. I guess you never read the paper. What do you have against Moonies? What did they do to you?Clift is liberally biased. I didn't say anything was wrong with it - it only frames the conversation. What perspective is the writer coming from is always a good question to ask.Aside from that - she didn't do her research. Being liberal doesn't make her wrong. Poor research makes her wrong. Additionally, I actually agreed with some of her points and said so.I do my fair share of reading and I try to read both sides. Why else do you think I read Steve's blog? He doesn't provide much commentary, but he has good source material. The links to my blog are not what most people would consider standard conservative (I mean Fascist in your book) fair.Let me ask. Did you bother to read the information on the links I provided? Something is nagging at me and telling me that you probably didn't bother.If you know of an honestly and completely objective news source please tell me where I can find it because I would never suggest that the WSJ, the Washington Times, etc are not biased.It seems as though you are rather defensive. Reading insult into my comment when none exists.Where do you get your vindictiveness?I would suggest you stop by your doctor's office and get a perscription for a chill pill.
BTW: None of this means I am supporting Romney.I once wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Times about a front page article they published about Sen. John Edwards. Something about him being late on his Real Estate taxes in the district. I told them I respected their paper, but thought that the article was beneath their normal standards. He could have been late for 100 reasons - none of which they attempted to examine. They just took the opportunity to bash him. It was a BS article and had no business in the paper let alone the huge front page headline it got.A couple of days later I got an anonymous letter in the mail calling me a liberal hack who wanted to sleep with Bill and Hilary Clinton.I didn't support John Edwards either.My whole point is that I thought both the Times article and the Clift article were beneath their other wise fine journalistic credentials.
good morning fellas. I'm honestly into shoes and I had been digging as far as something that singular model. The prices seeking the velcros are all over 350 dollars everwhere. But for all I set this locate selling them for the benefit of half price. I really love these [url=http://www.shoesempire.com]prada sneakers[/url]. I will probably buy them. what is your opinion?
Hello. And Bye.
hi there people. I'm actually into shoes and I had been searching as far as something that meticulous model. The prices for the sneakers were around 310 dollars on every page. But completely I set this locate selling them as a remedy for half price. I really want these [url=http://www.shoesempire.com]gucci sneakers[/url]. I will probably purchase those. what is your opinion?
hi dudes. I'm actually into shoes and I was looking for the sake of that meticulous brand. The prices as regards the shoes are approximately 310 dollars everwhere. But finally I set this area selling them as a remedy for half price. I really like those [url=http://www.shoesempire.com]gucci sneakers[/url]. I will probably buy those. what can you tell me about these?
Post a Comment