MSNBC: Journalists & Editors Overwhelmingly Donate to Democratic Oriented Campaigns
 

MSNBC is out with an investigative story, based on info from the FEC pertaining to political donations by people employed by news media outlets.
It seems that, <b>out of 143 of these people it identified, MSNBC found that less than 20 donated to republicans.</b> I'm wondering....knowing what we know, why the number supporting republicans is still so high.....

Can any journalist or editor donate to republicans and still be considered a news professional, this late in the current cycle of republican scandals, lawbreaking, and obstruction of justice?

I believe that it is ethical to do so...albeit while displaying poor judgment and flying in the face of the facts that would deem such donations as "fringe" behavior, as long as the journalism professionals publicly disclose their donations. The majority of those who voted in an MSNBC poll that asked this question, seem to agree.

Is anyone else surprised that there are still so many of these folks donating to republicans?

I think that the donations are skewed so far towards democrats because republicans have migrated to an alternate, parallel universe to obtain the news and talking points that shape their points of views, and these "sources" are not credible and noticeably warp the POV of those who take in the information that they disseminate....a journalist or editor cannot be taken seriously by the majority if they work in a fact gathering and reporting capacity, but have a preference for the republican "take" on news events and political messages....so they don't, in order to maintain credibility.

To embrace the republican POV, would have put any journalist on the wrong side of all of the major current events since.....Dec. 12, 2000....the FLA 2000 vote....WMD....the invasion and occupation of Iraq....the actual threat to the US from "terrorism".....the actual need for the Patriot acts to maintain US security....the justification for Gitmo prison....for not cooperating with the rest of the world to mitigate the threat from global warming....the fallacy that the Bush tax cuts were just or in the best interest of most Americans, evolution vs. intelligent design.....or the notion that christians are not freely allowed by government to worship as they please....or that it is beneficial to most of us to "privatize" SSI....or that the "free market" should be left unfettered by government to "handle" the issues of excessive US petroleum consumption or the best use of natural resources on protected, federally owned land, and workplace safety and environmental protection.....and on and on and on.......so the journalism profession obviously shuns all of it.

The message from republicans is so unified and narrow that, to embrace it and repeat it, a journalist would sound very similar to Rush or to Brett Bozell III.....like....uhhhh.....Drudge does. The corporate ownership....reflected in the editorial pages of publications like WAPO, WSJ, and NY Times.....often reads much like Rush and Bozell....and the difference between what comes from the editorial page....vs. actual news reporting would come as a shock, if editorial opinion...like, for example...."Richard Armitage was the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity, so it is unfair and not necessary to prosecute "Scoot", was taken seriously by most of us....and "Scoot" was prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison, anyway.....

Journalists are savvy....just like most of the public has become....otherwise, it wouldn't be possible to explain "the decider's" 26 percent job approval rating, while the stock market makes new record highs, almost weekly....would it?

In a world without propaganda, only the Bond villan-esque would donate to the Republicans, but in reality they can trick many, many people into jumping on board, usually using their fear or stubbornness. 1 in 5 dentists is going to be an idiot. Likewise, 20/143 journalists are going to be stubborn or ignorant asses.

I have to admit, this got a chuckle out of me a bit. "the number supporting republicans is still so high"...1/7 isn't bad at all. If we can get a number like that at Fox News, we will have won.

Pretty funny shit Host, but can you still deny liberal bias at TV rags like msnbc?


Sorry took me a minute to get off the floor, meanwhile back at the ranch.....................

Are these the same 123+ people who donated to the democrat party while all the scandals were going on whilst slick willie was is office? Would it have been bad then?

Nevermind I know the answer.

RM out

I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but whatever your politics, this "study" is basically bunk.

Here's why.


I don't see how anyone could credibly tout a study with a data set of only 144 journalists as being representative of anything whatsoever.


Quick update: Reconmike, I can tell you right now that the quickest way to get any liberal or Democrat to see red and ignore every single substantive point you could possibly make is to refer to the Democrats as the "Democrat Party." Everyone knows this is a code word for "I don't respect you enough to properly pronounce your name." It's like throwing in an ad hominem slur: it's rude, distracts from your arguments, and eradicates your credibility. I hope you'll refrain from doing this in the future.

Regardless of how flawed this study might be, it would not surpise me to learn that most reporters are Democrats and most media company owners are Republican.

In my experience that's certainly true. The owners of ANY company tend to lean republican because the republicans are the ones giving all the huge breaks to companies. If I had several million on the line, I'd probably vote republican too (except for that whole conscience thing, and that whole giving a shit about my fellow man thing .. . ;) )

Meanwhile the journalists, who's job it is to know what's really going on, don't so much tend to lean democratic as they tend to lean to whichever side makes the most sense and promises to do the least amount of damage.

But we are capable of separating our personal beliefs from our job. You won't find me calling Bush a moron in any of my stories -- I reserve that for the TFP ;)

All that said, it is completely inappropriate for a journalist to donate to a political cause. Some people have already been fired as a direct result of the information exposed in this story, and more heads are expected to roll.


By the way, if the press really had a liberal bias, do you really think the network that's so often accused of that would run a story like this?

My post was exactly as I intended it to be, you are correct I have no respect for the DEMOCRAT party, their motives, or the people who vote these
"we need to be kinder and gentler and talk this out pussies into office".

Truthfully I am not really concerned about my credibility here on the way left leaning, Host and crew rah rah board, OK?

Yes, that shows.

Reconmike....here is some support for my opinion that you are out of your league here....and that you would not be able to recognize a "real" Marine, even if he consistently spoke the truth and was punished by USMC brass and the Bush admin. for doing so.....

The following supports my contention that you have "bought"...swallowed a political propaganda message, hook, line, and sinker, and that the "op" that brought that message to you and the others who still subscribe to it, is the rationale for continued support of a hyped, failed, needless mission that is still getting "our kids"....Marines just like the ones you post that you used to lead....KILLED IN IRAQ, for no reason other than "the mission" carried out by Bushie political zealot, Jim Wilkinson.....

....the shame of it is....you, Reconmike, will refuse to allow any of what I'm displaying here, to "sink in".....but "the crew", on this "rah rah" board, will take note of all of it......

....and Reconmike, can you recommend a more "balanced" forum where we can see your version of "truthful" views posted, and supported?

Here's Jim Wilkinson.....the republican, "everywhere" man....the man credited with inventing the accusation that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet... The Bush "crew" is spread mighty thin.....if this guy had to be pressed into so many roles as a trusted "operative"....from the "coup" in Florida, all the way to his present day duties as a "minder" of outsider, Hank Paulsen at Treasury....and <b>they are full of shit....or they would not have to resort to pressing so hard to push their falsehoods on unsuspecting Americans....like.....Reconmike....</b>

That is what has happened to this country.....there are folks who don't know or who refuse to accept the "con" of the last 6-1/2 years....and there are the folks who recognize that it cannot be anything but a criminal conspiracy that has sucked in the media.....in exchange for "access".

Jim Wilkinson is a "poster child" of a political party where those "elected" (by any means necessary....) never stop campaigning.....they "govern" using the same dirty tricks and misinformation that they used in Florida in November, 2000.... It doesn't matter if the lives of our troops or those of the populace of Iraq are put in the balance by "the campaign"...to these thugs of the Bush/RNC juggernaut....it is business as usual. The consequence is that they've fucked over the US and a significant portion of the rest of the world, and Reconmike not only doesn't see it.....he doesn't care.....he impresses me that....in his mind...."it's all political, anyway...." Some things aren't....they can't be....and still function. We're witnessing the dysfunction that results in placing the same people who are the "on the ground" politcal operatives during the election campaign, in all of the hiring, policy, and information distribution roles during the actual period of government "service" that the dirty tricks laden political campaign achieves for the thugs who operate the campaing, and later, the government, itself.....


The "tell" is that folks who believe that the "media is liberal" have only one other place to go.....to the space where the "information" is catapulted by Bush and his "operative", James R. Wilkinson....and that is a pathetic place where you'll end up with a POV similar to the one regularly exhibited in the posts of Reconmike.....
Links to supporting info in preceding quote box:
Selling the war to the American Public...The CON JOB of the century...:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-...ad.php?t=50562

Host< here is your greenboy Al Gore's exact quote, Sounds like to me create fron dictionary.com
cre·ate /kriˈeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-eyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, adjective
–verb (used with object) 1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
3. Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.
4. to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer.
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.
6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise.
–verb (used without object)

and Invent

in·vent /ɪnˈvɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-vent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph.
2. to produce or create with the imagination: to invent a story.
3. to make up or fabricate (something fictitious or false): to invent excuses.
4. Archaic. to come upon; find.

Are kind of the same thing, so they way I read the quote from Mr. Gore he said he invented the internet.

And please do not try and school me on what a real Marine is, as with the rest of the US military which is overwhelmingly republican, do you know why that is?

The democrats poster boy JFK said it best, Republicans ask what they can do for their country, while democrats ask what their country can do for them.

Mike....just for the record:

The High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (HPCA) was a bill created and introduced by then Senator Al Gore (it was thus referred to as the Gore Bill). It was passed on 09 December, 1991.

This bill led to the development of the National Information Infrastructure (the so-called "information superhighway"), the National Research and Education Network, the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative (an off-shoot of the HPCA), Mosaic (the first web browser), and the creation of a high-speed fiber optic network that, when utilized, would help stimulate the economy.
http://www.answers.com/topic/high-pe...on-act-of-1991

Would the Internet be what it is today without this initiative?

is there any real need for things to devolve back to the hoary old days of the 2000 presidential campaign? i understand that the republicans did much better in opposition than they have since 2000, so maybe there's a bit of nostalgia in it--but it is fucking tedious. it is self-evident to anyone who bothered then to look what gore meant by that remark, which the cretinocracy of conservativeland turned into some element of their GroupHate approach to identity politics.

but this is not 2000. it is 2007. it is now abundantly clear what the implications of conservativeland in 2000 were when it came to exercising power. and it is obvious that conservativeland itself is just a tired rickety old amusement park, kind of like some backwater copy of coney island---and it is also clear that the right is going to have to rebuild from the fiasco that the bush years have been in much the same way (though perhaps not in the same direction) as the rest of us will.

i guess all that is just tought to face fro some of the faithful on the order of reconmike. kinda in the way that iraq is for the bush administration and the 20% of the population that still supports them must be.

DC, sure it would have. Because private investing is what would have propeled the internet to what it is today. Who knows it might have been a whole lot better if the Gorebill didnt interfere with it.

And this is what this forum has basicly become, nitpicking, and I'll show you why I believe this, my response to your Al Gore timeline DC will be this timeline
which clearly shows the internet well upon its way long before Gore "invented it"
.

When did I bring up the 2000 election Roach? Can ya quote it for me?

And just to set the record strait, I dont visit conservativeland, never been there, dont plan on it.
I fancy myself a libertarian, a women should have the right to rip a fetus from her body,

There should be same sex marriages, hell someone should be able to marry livestock for all I care.

People should take responsibility for their own stupidity, like taking a bath with a blow drier, they shouldn't have to put a warning label on it saying "do not use in bath" these people should be weeded out according to Darwin's law.

Bible thumpers should keep their morals and opinions to themselves, and not dictate to me how I should live my life or where I'm going when it is over.

Just because I favored this war, and still support winning it, becuase losing will be very ugly later, does not mean I live in conservitiveland.

The only thing I have ever posted about that remotely resembles conservitive
leanings is this war.

Mike...the examples you cited (IBM, Apple, CompuServe, etc) all benefited from huge investments in computer R&D (and grants to`industry like IBM) by the federal government from the 50s through the 80s.

In fact, the federal government has been at the foundation of developments in science and technology throughout our history.

Thomas Jefferson had a vision of strong federal support for science, largely through agriculture and Alexander Hamilton advocated government subsidies for the advancement of technologies for the benefit of economic and industrial development.

In a truly libertarian scenario to which I guess you subscribe, advances in medicine, science, computer technology etc if left solely to the private sector, would probably have occurred, but at a far slower rate. We all have benefited from the federal commitment to R&D, including the National Information Infrastructure that Gore's bill created and funded.

But I guess that is nitpicking.

Well, OK then. Nobody is making you comment on a board with members of mixed ideology. Can I suggest somewhere else instead?

Your input is greatly appreciated, we will make a note of it, as of this time it is not possible. Thank you for playing tilted politics.

Recon, I am of the understanding that the people on TFP are actually not a bad cross-section. There are a shitload of Republican Bush haters out there in the good old US of A. When a great majority, over 70%, of TFPers bash the current administration, they're a close reflection of the stats you can find on CNN.

I'm a big fan of Host, but we don't always agree. It's the same with RB, Pan, DC, ng, and a plethora of others here. Because you're not liberal, and you're a Bush supporter, things are going to seem a bit one sided here...but overall, they're one sided across the country. Sure, you may personally be surrounded with people that support Bush, but you're in a micro-niche.

Will, I have been coming to this board for alot of years, long before there was a tilted politics. I have seen it go from right leaning to where it is now falling off the left side.

Things are one sided here, if that is not obvious I dont know what to tell you.

There is a huge amount of administration bashing going on here, Host calls the AG a thug, I cant remember the last time he ordered a house burned down with women and children in it, or had someones wife shot and killed by a sniper. That would make him a thug no?

This board followed the trend. Virtually everyone was right leaning in late 2001 to early 2002. After Afghanistan was carpet bombed and Iraq jumped on to the agenda, things started to shift. You're seeing the continued movement left. If Ron Paul beats out McCain and Rudy, you'll see that start to move back towards the center again.
Psst.... things are one sided in most places in the US. Just like I said in the post you quoted.
I can remember when he couldn't remember shit about doing his job. I can remember when he said that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution", and gave Gitmo a legal argument. I remember when Bush had to deny investigators access to AG when everyone found out the NSA was listening to our conversations. These were inexcusable, and had a Democrat or Indy done that, I'd want their fucking head on a platter.

Don't pretend like this administration is okay and we're all just being sensitive. We're torturing people. We're kidnapping people from other countries, without warning the governments many of whom are close allies, in order to torture them. Only a madman could think that's what America is all about.

Bull. This board didn't follow any trend. Those of us who lean left have always been here. The conservatives wussed out and quit because so much shit has come out about Bush and his cronies that it's completely impossible for them to continue to support him without getting laughed out of the room.

There was a time not so very long ago when Ustwo and others were on here proudly touting Bush and his policies. The war in Iraq is great! We'll find WMD's soon!

But now that all of that has been exposed as the idiotic lie many of us always knew it was, the conservatives have no one to cheer for. Naturally, they stopped posting.

Saying that the board has followed the trend implies that we have changed our minds. We haven't. I was against the war before it started. The only thing different about the board now than the way it was before is that the conservatives are being quiet - -that doesn't mean they're suddenly leaning left.


QFT.


Well, that Is what America is all about, because that information has been available for years (go read Ghost Plane) and no one's done jack about it.

The people support torture because the people aren't doing anything to stop it.

Do I sound angry? Well, yeah. I'm damned angry. I'm angry that I can't be proud of my country anymore. I'm angry that I have to go a step further and be ashamed of it. But any country that invades other countries that aren't doing anything to it is evil. Any country that promotes torture is evil. And anyone who sits by and watches it happen without lifting a finger or at the very least a voice to stop it is evil as well.

They didn't just stop posting, a lot of them stopped saying Bush was right or good. This wasn't just on TFP, but across the country. When the information that Iraq had jack to do with 9/11, Bush lost a shitload of support. Shitload is my word today. Just like those on TFP who spoke against Bush have always been here, likewise regular joe liberals around the US have been doing the same since the stolen election. I have. I mean the board as a whole followed the trend, not that most people who are anti-bush now changed their minds.
My turn to QFT.

I'm right there with yah. If there was any justice, Alberto would be waterboarded and kept awake with loud music in a dimly lit room for years at a time. Bush would have his shitty ranch invaded by Iraqi nomads and have his daughters kidnapped and taken to Gitmo. I'm not advocating this, but it would be the eye for an eye justice that can be effective.

People who still support the Bush administration should be ashamed of themselves. I'm ashamed of them, but not my country. I'm disappointed that more people didn't speak up. Bush lost 2 elections and is still sitting in Gore's/Kerry's chair. That fucker needs to go home and read a book.

Recon, you're alone just like IL, Ace and many other conservatives because your representative leaders are fools or evil or both. It's hardly Host's fault that AG is a piece of shit.

This keeps getting said - 'idiotic lie' - but every thread asserting this never seems quite able to prove either part. That we were stupid for believing it, or that we were intentionally duped into believing it. Of course, there's PLENTY of evidence of faulty intelligence. There's evidence of cherry-picking. But a lie? But obviously false from the get-go?

If I missed the conclusive thread - and please link me up if I did - it's because it was buried amongst the countless threads that failed miserably to back up the allegation.

(fwiw, though, I do very much regret my vote for Bush. the few positives haven't been worth the many embarassing - and more importantly, destructive - negatives)

What's the distinction between cherry picking and a lie? A lie is a statement intended to deceive. Intentionally presenting selective evidence to sway the overall message of said evidence is a lie. If I got in a car accedent because I was driving drunk and ran a stop sign, but the other guy didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, and I only told the police about the other guy not stopping at the stop sign and omitted the fact I was intoxicated and ran a stop sign, I would be lying.

It was deliberately misleading, which is a lie.

It's amazingly noble to admit that you regret your vote. I hope you understand how much I respect that ability to learn from one's mistakes or misjudgments. We all screw up, especially me, but it's when you learn from those mistakes that you improve yourself. I applaud that.

back on topic...

This is so weird for the follwing reasons:

How does an item like this get posted by the left (liberal, democrat...)?

How does this get turned into something that is wrong with the republican party?
To me, on its own, this says MORE about the press than it does about the republican party. In order for it to say something about the Republican party (e.g. that support for republicans is down) you would need to have a previous study that shows the numbers were higher for Republican support.
This, on its own, only says that people employed by news media support the Democratic party more than the Republican party.

How does a news item like this get completely turned around into something against the Republican party?
I am sure that there are many other news stories, studies, whatever that are interesting and can be used to start a thread against the Republican party or the current leaders of that party.
But to take this story and twist it away from something other than showing that the media supports teh Democratic party more than the Republican party?
Is this something new or has it always been that way?
flstf and Shakran say that this is the way it is with the media owners being Republicans and the employees democrats.
Isn't this the claim of the right?

This is just backwards.
Is it only this board?
Is it only me that sees this as weird?

See what I mean. Doesn't this news item just support what those folks are saying. This story is syaing that the media supports the democrats.


There is more to the conservatives than the current leaders.
Should conservatives no longer support the Republican party? Should they get up and quit or should they try to make their voices heard.

Willravel, I know you did not say Republican supporters and that you specifically the entioned Bush administration but you guys should really take a closer look at some of the things that were said in this thread:

The Rebuplican party is just as ligitimate (or illigitimate - however you want to look at it) as the Democratic party. Host, do you mean Bush administration.
The real question here is can any journalist or editor donate to any party and still be considered a news professional.

A journalist should not be on any side of major current events.

Republicans should support the Republican party becuase:
- They believe in the ideals of the party
- They feel closer to the political ideology of this party more than the other parties
- They are happy with the current administration (some are)
- They are unhappy with the current administration and they want to support better candidates

Nice shot. (republican bashing? OK, maybe this is just a joke)
Realisticaly...we are talking about a poll that asked which party a person makes donations to. It did not ask whether you support Bush or not.
Tell me becuase I don't know...what is the general split amongst the population of the U.S. of people who consider themselves Democrats vs. people who consider themselves Republicans.
- Is it 14% Republican, 86% Democrat as the poll suggests or is the media a inacurate representation of the total U.S. population?
- Is it 30% Republican, 70% Democrat?
- Is it closer to 50/50?
(other parties left out for simplicity)

More Republican bashing?
Come on guys. You would not talk this way about other groups.

Ron Paul is good people. If conservatives want to worship someone, drop Bush and pick someone more worthy.
If more Republicans were to call Bush on his BS, it'd be harder to lump everyone together.
I bash fascists all the time. I also speak about radical fundys this way. I could go find things I've said about Pat Robertson if you want.

what the poll in the op speaks to is in part the political orientation of the social group from which journalists are drawn. that's it.

so unless there is--as there appears to be at points in sticky's post above---some assumption or (stronger) a secret requirement at some level that the social composition of journalism as a profession should or must mirror that of the population of a whole, i'd say there's not a hell of a lot to talk about.

but if there is no such requirement (why would there be and if there was, where would it come from?) there there still isnt much to talk about.

the only thing i would say about the results themselves is that it seems to me that if you have to generate descriptions of the world you are less likely to be able to operate within the illusion of immediacy that populist conservatism seemed (when it was of interest) to champion than it would be for folk whose line of work does not require that one write descriptions of the world. seems to me that simply having to describe what's going on around you pushes you into a bit of a distanced relation to what you see. so maybe that reinforces a tendency to think critically about what you see. which i would think a good thing. makes for better writers.

Eh, maybe none of these distinctions really matter individually, but for me they add up to the point where a statement like "they lied about WMD" is just plain false.

(Unless, as I said, I missed the conclusive thread.)

They didn't lie about the WMD. They didn't even lie about the evidence for WMD - evidence was there. They were deceptive about the aggregate of the evidence, however, and obviously that matters.

But as much as it matters, as important as it is, it just doesn't add up to "they lied about WMD" and it sure as hell doesn't add up to 'idiotic' lies or "many of us always knew".

Maybe those distinctions don't really matter. But I'm still annoyed when they're apparently ignored.

What can I say? Bush failed to meet my already low expectations. I was looking for "not Kerry" and got "maybe Kerry's not the worst option after all".

Third party next time, unless Paul pulls a miracle or Romney shapes up. The miracle's probably more likely. At least I can use a pointless Libertarian vote like it was indie cred. "Yeah, and I was listening to the new Andrew Bird as I pushed Badnarik a little bit closer to the 2% threshold. How cool am I?"

Here are some stats in response to your questions, Sticky:

Sticky, if you've read my posts, I've documented extensively why I believe that the RNC and the republican party, at least on a level that includes many elected and appointed federal officials, could be reasonably described as bearing an uncanny resemblance to a RICO conspiracy. Abramoff, K Street, gutting of the house ethics committee, CNP influence over the republican presidential candidate nominating process, and the CNP tie in with the religious fundamemtalists, Kay Cole James and her 150 executive branch hires from Pat Robertson's comparatively tiny Regents University, the implosion of the DOJ under Gonzales, investigations, indictments, and convictions of almost exclusively republican senators and congressman, the abandonment of any pretense of congressional oversight of the executive branch by the house and the senate, until this year, acceptance of illegal wiretaps, Gitmo abuses, unprecedented executive branch secrecy, the push by the republican house majority in 2000 to not renew the special prosecutor statute, vote suppression, dismantling of voting rights abuse investigation by the DOJ civil rights division, the Federalist Society's influence....an organization of 34,000 almost exclusively republican lawyers that wields so much influence over the republican controlled executive branch, yet is so controversial that SCOTUS nominee John Roberts felt it necessary to deny his ties with the society, the "tie in" between politcal extermists funded "think tanks" like Heritage.org and AEI.org, and "research groups" like those created by Brett Bozell III. with the RNC and it's political agenda.....yeah....I've posted about all of it....with much supporting references.....almost all of it unchallenged by Sticky....who now challenges the very concept that all of it fits a pattern of a RICO organization, and I've only described the tip of the iceberg here....

What does it all look like to you, Sticky....just a random series of unconnected groups who independently present their research, message, and agenda to the rest of us curious and politcally oriented Americans?

Pick a point that I've made.....challenge it, present an argument counter to mine, support it with sources that make it more persuasive....i.e., let's have a politcal discussion in a political forum which goes beyond "host" presenting "in depth" arguments that go unchallenged or are replied to with "one liners" of opinions supported by ??????????


FoolThemAll.... we've been over this more times than I can count. I'll distill it here, and....if you sicerely are interested.....you can read the "middle"...the supporting articles, official quotes, and news reporting....detailed in several "definitive posts":

The case that they knowingly and intentionally "lied us into war" is supported by this example....with the background reporting that Powell was reluctant to deliver this.....he did not author it....it came from the people in the executive branch, including Bush and Cheney, who pushed the invasion of Iraq agenda:
FoolThemAll.....and Sticky, for that matter....how can we have a REAL discussion, unless we can all agree that a "reasonable person" would react with outrage and incredulity to the idea that practically everything that Powell told the assembled world body in the Feb. 2003 quotes above, was reduced to this by late 2006:
....and this:
...and Cheney was still saying this in April, 2007, repeating what he, Bush, and Rice were saying in autumn, 2006:
....a "definitive post" challenging Powell's Feb., 2003 UN presentation statements, quoted above, and support for the accusation that Cheney and Bush continued making the false assertions in the above statements, in 2006 and 2007, long after they were refuted as relevant reasons to invade Iraq:

April 7, 2007:
and in that same thread, I followed up my first post with this....I can't fit the supporting articles in the post, but they can be viewed here:
I suggest that you read the entire post that contained this:

....and even at the risk that I am using the term, "definitive" more loodely than you would, FoolThemAll, is it more unreasonable....or reasonable.... to describe this post as "definitive"? Please read all of the lower part of the post, after the documentation of "flip flopping" about capturing Bin Laden, andv about denying the policy of "staying the course".....it contains this, and much more:

Host, my gripe was with the seemingly unsupported "they lied about WMD" claim, and the information you post deals entirely with the false Al Qaeda-Iraq connection, no?

Nevertheless...

These guys are snakes, and a lot of what you posted looks like snakes deliberately deceiving without technically lying. Kinda like Clinton, only it's about issues that are much, much more important.

For a lot of this, 'deception' might be a much better word, even if the connotation isn't quite as harsh.

The whole problem is that the most damning fabrications, the ones that are most obviously lies, are only implied in words that can be interpreted various ways. 'Direct', for instance, doesn't necessarily mean 'operational'.

You might have to hold my hand a little more here, host. The most confusing part for me is the timeline. When Colin said those things - particularly the "converging on Baghdad" bit - was the evidence insurmountably slanted against those claims?

Removing a harmful dictator and improving the lot of the Iraqi people, creating a democratic domino effect in the middle east... those are what come to mind right now. I have a lot more sympathy for the former justification, though we've done a terrible job with that theory in practice. And I'm not sure I would've supported the war without WMD or terrorist ties. I'd still find 'removing a dictator' to be a convincing argument *in theory*, but I'd sooner deal thoroughly with Darfur or North Korea. (Though, then comes the argument that Iraq should get higher priority because it's easier to handle than Korea or Iran.)

Bottom line... I could still see good reason for going into Iraq, but very little reason for rushing into it as we did.

I don't care for the Republican Party because it has increased the size of government, increased government spending, supported legislation that violates the rights of citizens, and gone to war with a country that didn't attack us. What I don't understand is why I should consider the Democrats to be preferable when they shown that they are very willing to do those same things. This is like Jack The Ripper and Jeffrey Dahmer running against each other in an election, with each telling the public, "Don't vote for my opponant! He's a serial killer!"

One of the few good things about the Bush administation, in my opinion, is that it's allowed both parties to show how hypocritical they are.

Host,

...And my gripe is that this thread is titled "MSNBC: Journalists & Editors Overwhelmingly Donate to Democratic Oriented Campaigns".
Where are we dicussing this?

What does it tell is that "MSNBC: Journalists & Editors Overwhelmingly Donate to Democratic Oriented Campaigns"
This is what my post was about.

That is why I piped in.

The only claim I made about the republican part was the following
This is true any political party is legitimate in the U.S. unless it is outlawed under U.S. law.
I did not say that the political ideologies, strategies of its administration and leaders,or its administration and leaders are legitimate.
All I said was that the Party is legitimate.

The reason I added that point is to point out that it is legitimate for U.S. citizens to idfentify themselves as a Republican.

I did not make any such claims (whether I believe them or not) on this thread or any other thread on this board.

host, just becuase you write it out and then throw pages and pages of quotes and sources after it does not make it true.
Please do not put words in my mouth.

The intent of my post was to point out two things:
1. We are not discussing the topic of this thread and when we did breifely cover it we turned it completely around.
2. People are allowed to be Republicans and we should all be careful how we use words to describe these people

That's it.

Had I wanted to do this I would comment on any of the many other threads where these same things are said over and over again.

I was hoping to put focus back on the supposed subject of this thread.



host, thank you for the stats. That shows that it is Republican and Democratic party affiliation is pretty even. Even now.

The Bush approval rating stats say more about the Democrats and independants then it does about the Republicans.
- While one may not be happy about it, it is somewhat expected that a higher percentage of Repuiblicans would approve of Bush. Should it be lower?Maybe. Probably. Hopefully. Idealy.
- What does it say about Democrats that Bush enjoys support from 8% of them?
- What does it say about independants that bush enjoys support from 24% of them?

willravel, I am sure that you are correct. I said groups rather then political groups on purpose. We take a lot more care at not innapropriately bashing people belonging to religious groups, people living in certain countries, people of certain sexual orientations.
I though that we should just be a little more careful.

I wonder how you choose to judge people. I usually judge them by their actions and beliefs. Those who voted for Bush and believe that he was and is right are ripe for judging. Finding: Guilty of a massive mistake, and massive stubbornness to the point that they're supporting a thief, lier, spy, traitor, and someone who is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

judging them is fine.
words used to describe them can be chosen.

I chose 'ignorant asses' to describe MSNBC workers who donated to the Bush campaign because they were too stubborn to vote in their own best interest. I'm sure most people are familiar with "stubborn as a mule". When someone is treating others badly for selfish reasons, they are an asshole. When they are being stubborn, they are an ass (as in stubborn donkey). I think the label speaks for itself. I'm of the opinion that most Bush supporters are as such because of stubbornness more than even fear. Anyone who's afraid of terrorism or the bogeyman wouldn't choose an idiot to defend them. I doubt anyone can make a reasonable case that Bush isn't and idiot, so I have to believe that it's stubbornness.

How do you know what is in their own best interest?

It's clear that the only media that's favored by the current administration is the Funfy Fox News and such pandering organizations. When news organizations have tried to fight back, it's been suggested that they leaked classified information and that people should be jailed. Look at Judith Miller. MSNBC is home to people like Olbermann who are almost the opposite of the Bill ORly's over at Fox.

These people are not uni-dimensional.
- They are media employees
- Where do they live
- What jobs to family member's and other important people to them work at
- Do they invest? If so where is there money?
- What about their pensions? Where is that money tied up.
- Do they get political pressure from their employers
- Are their state/local representatives good.


A generalization works for a good amount of a populations, in this case media employees. So we are seeing that 86% fit that genralization. 14% do not fit that generalization.
Maybe you are right about what is in the best interests of the 86% but maybe not the 14%.

Is this possible?

The only people who benefit from Bush are the superrich, and journalists aren't usually superrich. Some of them are well off, of course, but not billionaires. So that's like 99.9% that fit into my generalization.

Who cares if they vote for or against their self-interest. If that was the only determinant for voting, then democracy truly would be nothing more than "the tyranny of the majority". Maybe these people thought they were voting in the best interest of the country, against their self-interest.

I don't see how that line of debate helps anyone understand this issue.

You keep on focusing on Bush.
They did not donate to Bush they donated to the Republicans and/or conservative causes.

They updated the story.
You can see the whole list and the jornalists comments on theor donations.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/

I still think this says alomt more about the makeup of the media in that it is much closer to what the right says about it (i.e. that in general it is made up of those from the left).

MSNBC is relatively liberal. I'm sure those numbers might be slightly different at SkyNews or Fox News.

They are not just msnbc journalists.
The story is from msnbc.
The list of journalists includes those from ABC, CNN, FOX, PBS, MTV, MSNBC, The Economist, Forms, Inc., Newsweek, RollingStone, Time...

Huh. I misread that, then. That would suggest that the 20 are probably working for Fox and are voting in their best interest. That hardly excuses their bad journalism, but it's explanation enough for their funding practices.

You can actually look at the whole list and see if you want.

I went through it for you with regards to Fox and Fox affiliates.
There were five Fox journalists on the list of them 4 donated to Democratic causes and 1 donated to Republican causes.

Here is the summarized list (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/)- as I said they also have a detailed list where it has comments on the donations from each of the donors:
Television:
(D) ABC News, Mary Fulginiti, "Primetime" correspondent. Click for details.
(D) ABC affiliate in Boston, WCVB, Sangita Chandra, producer. Click for details.
(D) ABC affiliate in Wichita, KAKE, Susan Peters, anchor. Click for details.
(D) CBS News, Serena Altschul, correspondent for "CBS Sunday Morning." Click for details.
(D) CBS News, Edward H. Forgotson Jr., producer, "CBS Sunday Morning." Click for details.
(D) CBS affiliate in Boston, WBZ, Liz Walker, newsmagazine host. Click for details.
(D) CBS affiliate in Los Angeles, KCBS, Claudia Bill, news writer. Click for details.
(D) CBS affiliate in Memphis, WREG, Markova Reed, anchors the morning and noon news. Click for details.
(D) CNN, Guy Raz, Jerusalem correspondent, now defense correspondent for National Public Radio. Click for details.
(R) CW affiliate in Chicago, WGN, Jay Congdon, news producer. Click for details.
(R) CW affiliate in Los Angeles, KTLA, Diana Chi, news writer. Click for details.
(R) Fox News Channel, Ann Stewart Banker, producer for Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor." Click for details.
(D) Fox News Channel, Codie Brooks, researcher for Brit Hume's "Special Report." Click for details.
(D) Fox affiliate in Omaha, KPTM, Calvert Collins, reporter. Click for details.
(D) Fox affiliate in Minneapolis, KMSP, Alix Kendall, morning anchor. Click for details.
(D) Fox affiliate in Washington, D.C., WTTG, Laura Evans, anchor. Click for details.
(R) MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, host of "Morning Joe" and "Scarborough Country." Click for details.
(D) MTV News, Gideon Yago, "Choose or Lose" presidential correspondent. Click for details.
(D) NBC News, Victoria Corderi, "Dateline" correspondent. Click for details.
(R) PBS affiliate in New York, Thirteen/WNET, Rafael Roman, host, "New York Voices." Click for details.
(D) Independent station KTVK, Phoenix, Steve Bodinet, reporter. Click for details.

-----
Online:
(D) MSNBC.com, Rachel Schwanewede, senior editor, TodayShow.com. Click for details.
(D) MSNBC.com, Joel Widzer, travel columnist. Click for details.
(D) Salon.com, Gary Kamiya, writer at large and former executive editor. Click for details.
(D) Salon.com, Katharine Mieszkowski, reporter. Click for details.

-----
Magazines:
(D) The Atlantic Monthly, Martha Spaulding, assistant managing editor. Click for details.
(D) Business Week, Prudence Crowther, chief copy editor. Click for details.
(D) The Economist, Andreas Kluth, technology correspondent. Click for details.
(D) The Economist, Joanne Ramos, financial writer. Click for details.
(R) Forbes, Jean A. Briggs, assistant managing editor. Click for details.
(R) Forbes, Robert Lenzner, national editor. Click for details.
(D) Forbes, Tatiana Serafin, senior reporter. Click for details.
(D) Inc., Jane Berentson, editor. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, David Denby, film critic. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, Henry Finder, editorial director and books editor. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, Tad Friend, Hollywood reporter. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, Ann Goldstein, head of copy department. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, John Lahr, theater critic. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, Janet Malcolm, writer. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, George Packer, war correspondent. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, Mark Singer, profile writer. Click for details.
(D) The New Yorker, Judith Thurman, writer. Click for details.
(D) Newsweek, Temma Ehrenfeld, associate editor. Click for details.
(D & R) Newsweek, Jane Bryant Quinn, personal finance columnist. Click for details.
(D) Newsweek, Anne Underwood, correspondent on health and medical stories. Click for details.
(D) Rolling Stone, Jason Fine, deputy managing editor. Click for details.
(D) Rolling Stone, David Swanson, assistant editor. Click for details.
(D) Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner, editor and publisher. Click for details.
(D) Time, Jim Frederick, senior editor. Click for details.
(D) U.S. News & World Report, Michael Freeman, researcher. Click for details.
(D) U.S. News & World Report, Amanda Spake, senior writer. Click for details.
(D) Vanity Fair, Elise O'Shaughnessy, contributing editor. Click for details.
(D) Vanity Fair, Michael Shnayerson, contributing editor. Click for details.

-----
Newspapers:
(in order by approximate circulation)
(D) McClatchy Newspapers, Beryl Adcock, news desk chief, Washington bureau. Click for details.
(D) The Wall Street Journal, Krishnan Amantharaman, managing editor of the classroom edition. Click for details.
(D) The Wall Street Journal, Henny Sender, senior special writer. Click for details.
(D) The Wall Street Journal, Eben Shapiro, editor of the Weekend Journal section. Click for details.
(D) The New York Times, Randy Cohen, ethics columnist. Click for details.
(D) The New York Times, Christine Muhlke, deputy editor, style magazine. Click for details.
(D & R) The New York Times, Nancy Tilghman, freelance writer. Click for details.
(D) Los Angeles Times, Nick Cuccia, design editor. Click for details.
(D) Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis, film critic, now at The New York Times. Click for details.
(D) Los Angeles Times, Dan Neil, automobile critic. Click for details.
(R) Los Angeles Times, Charles Perry, food writer. Click for details.
(D) New York Daily News, Celia McGee, reporter, and freelancer for The New York Times. Click for details.
(D) New York Daily News, Matthew Roberts, photographer. Click for details.
(R) The Washington Post, Stephen Hunter, film critic. Click for details.
(D) The Chicago Tribune, Maureen Ryan, entertainment reporter. Click for details.
(D) The Chicago Tribune, John von Rhein, classical music critic. Click for details.
(D) San Francisco Chronicle, William Pates, letters editor for the editorial page. Click for details.
(D) Newsday, Long Island, Rita Hall, section designer/artist/writer. Click for details.
(D) The Boston Globe, Rebecca Ostriker, arts editor/writer. Click for details.
(D) The Boston Globe, Henry Riemer, sports statistician. Click for details.
(R) The Star-Ledger, Newark, Robin Gaby Fisher, feature writer. Click for details.
(D) Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Barbara Haugen, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) Detroit Free Press, Susan Hall-Balduf, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) Detroit Free Press, Joel Thurtell, reporter. Click for details.
(D) The Oregonian, Portland, Steve Amick, reporter. Click for details.
(R) The Miami Herald, Harry Broertjes, copy editor/page designer. Click for details.
(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Penni Crabtree, business reporter. Click for details.
(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Bob Elledge, assistant news editor. Click for details.
(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Shaffer Grubb, graphic artist. Click for details.
(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Arline Smith, news production editor. Click for details.
(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Charlie Smith, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) The Sun, Baltimore, John Scholz, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) San Jose Mercury News, Rachel Wilner, sports editor. Click for details.
(D) Boston Herald, Chris Donnelly, news librarian. Click for details.
(D) South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, Ethan Skolnick, sports columnist. Click for details.
(D) Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Randy Galloway, sports columnist. Click for details.
(D) Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Vincent Langford, sports copy editor. Click for details.
(D) The Hartford Courant, Nancy Gallinger, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) The Hartford Courant, Bill Lewis, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) Richmond Times-Dispatch, Michael Hardy, state political reporter. Click for details.
(D) Richmond Times-Dispatch, Pam Mastropaolo, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) Contra Costa Times, Calif., Robert Taylor, fine arts reporter. Click for details.
(D) The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif., Mark Benoit, wire editor. Click for details.
(D) The Palm Beach Post, Fla., George McEvoy, columnist. Click for details.
(R) The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Barbara Bradley, fashion editor. Click for details.
(D) The Des Moines Register, Stephen P. Dinnen, business reporter. Click for details.
(D) The Honolulu Advertiser, Chris Neil, wire editor. Click for details.
(D) The Blade, Toledo, James Bradley, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) Lexington Herald-Leader, Brian Throckmorton, copy desk chief. Click for details.
(R) The Morning Call, Allentown, Pa., Beth Hudson, sports reporter. Click for details.
(D) The Daytona Beach, Fla., News-Journal, Marc Davidson, editor. Click for details.
(D) Albany, N.Y., Times Union, Greg Montgomery, graphic design editor. Click for details.
(R) The Washington Times, Gary Arnold, film critic. Click for details.
(D) San Gabriel Valley Newspapers, Calif., Eric Terrazas, sports editor. Click for details.
(R) The New York Sun, Liz Peek, financial columnist. Click for details.
(D) The Lincoln, Neb., Journal Star, Paul Fell, editorial cartoonist. Click for details.
(D) The Lincoln, Neb., Journal Star, Sylvia Hermanson, copy editor. Click for details.
(R) The Macon, Ga., Telegraph, Stephen "Keich" Whicker, local government reporter. Click for details.
(D) New Hampshire Union Leader, David Johnson, sports copy editor. Click for details.
(D) Corpus Christi, Texas, Caller-Times, Elvia Aguilar, business writer. Click for details.
(D) National Catholic Reporter, Margot Patterson, senior writer and arts/opinion editor. Click for details.
(D) York, Pa., Daily Record, Teresa Cook, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) Muskegon, Mich., Chronicle, Terry Judd, reporter and chief of the Grand Haven bureau. Click for details.
(D) Fort Wayne, Ind., News-Sentinel, Fran Adler, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) Fort Wayne, Ind., News-Sentinel, Faith Van Gilder, copy editor. Click for details.
(D) Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Times, Whit Griswold, copy editor. Click for details.

-----
Radio:
(D) Air America and CBS Radio, Betsy Rosenberg-Zimmerman, environment talk show host and environment reporter. Click for details.
(D) National Public Radio, Corey Flintoff, newscaster. Click for details.
(D) National Public Radio, Michelle Trudeau, correspondent. Click for details.
(D) NPR affiliate in Washington, WAMU, Susan Goodman, reporter. Click for details.
(D) WWJ News Radio, Detroit, Vickie B. Thomas, reporter. Click for details.

-----
Wire services:
(D) Bloomberg News, Katherine Burton, reporter. Click for details.
(D) Bloomberg News, Robert Dieterich, energy editor. Click for details.
(D) Bloomberg News, Joshua Fellman, reporter in Asia. Click for details.
(D) Bloomberg News, Robert Houck, multimedia news editor. Click for details.
(D) Bloomberg News, Milanee Kapadia, reporter. Click for details.
(D) Bloomberg News, James Polson, reporter on energy and utilities. Click for details.
(D) Bloomberg News, Carlos Torres, reporter in Washington. Click for details.
(D) Bloomberg News, Robert Urban, real estate reporter. Click for details.
(D) Bloomberg News, John Wydra, radio newscaster. Click for details.
(D) Dow Jones Newswires, Samuel J. Favate Jr., editor. Click for details.
(D) Dow Jones Newswires, Billy Mallard, credit markets editor. Click for details.
(D) Reuters, Lisa von Ahn, news desk editor. Click for details.
(D) Reuters, Michael Erman, reporter. Click for details.

-----
Non-English-language news organizations:
(D) La Stampa, newspaper in Turin, Italy, Paolo Mastrolilli, New York correspondent. Click for details.
(D) New Delhi Television, Stephen Marks, reporter. Click for details.
(D) The Korea Daily News, Chang W. Kim, journalist. Click for details.
(D) Pakistan TV, Jack Khangura, reporter. Click for details.
(D) Oriental Daily, Chun Fai Cheng, reporter. Click for details.

I would just like to make two points.

1) Nobody should be shocked by the results of this poll, legit or not. Journalists, as part of their job, are supposed to bring about change, which makes it obvious that a majority would lean liberal (and therefore Democrat).

2) Host is asking the wrong question in the opening post. Instead of asking something about journalistic integrity towards those who donated Republican, we should, if anything, be questioning the integrity of all. They are donating money, and therefore have a vested interest, in a certain party.

3) I don't know why I'm responding to this, because this is simply another in a long (no pun intended) series of posts by Host that show a complete lack of objectivity in his ability to comment on political affairs. Anyone who is this virulent in their attacks on one side while downplaying or even ignoring past and present sins by the other should not get as much attention as he does.

I have to disagree with you on your first point. The primary job of a journalist is to objectively report how things are, not work to make society how he or she would like it to be. I understand that some journalists may have political motivations, but that should never interfere with their responsibility to give an unbiased account of whatever it is they are reporting.

djestudo, just as I believe that the priority of journalists is to report current events and their background in a reliable way..... I think that it is difficult to do so if one is lacking in integrity or cannot report reliably because of personal bias.....I attempt to follow the same standards in my posts to this forum.

Just as the work product of the media enters the stream of the competition of ideas and opinions, so too do the content of each of our posts to this forum.
I have nearly a three year "record", here, now. I think that my "record", aka my "rep" is "made" or "broken", not by how partisan you decide that I am, but by the reliability of what I post, vs. what we learn later.....the "outcome" that unfolds in the "fullness of time".

....and, of course....I am "saddled" with the "bias" that is my inspiration to expend the effort to post on the subjects that I post about. I have to be "moved"....to be emotionally affected. I endeavor to counter my emotional bias that moves me to post, by finding, editing, and posting the supporting information for my opinions. You have no idea how numerous the opinions that inspire me to post about, are....but are not posted because the depth of supporting details for them cannot be found to satisfy my editorial standards.
I end up posting opinions that are least difficult to support.

Instead of the "blanket" dismissal of my "contribution" to this forum that you've recently posted, why not hone in on one of my opinions that you decide is least difficult to challenge....and then post to refute it. We could actually engage in a political discussion....that way....

Much of what I post is my "take" on what is happening in "real time". An example is....I posted in 2004 that the government claims that Saddam had WMD and active WMD programs that constituted a threat that justified invasion and "regime change" were contrived and false. I posted when Scooter Libby was indicted, in Oct., 2005, that he obstructed justice in an attempt to stop the progress of the DOJ special counsel's CIA Plame leak investigation, and he was convicted of doing just that.....

I posted many supported opinions of the idea that Bush is a war criminal, and now the case for that argument has never been stronger or more widely supported. I posted my concern that NIST was not committed to issuing a timely, reliable report as to why WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11, into it's own footprint. I pointed out that NIST had decided not to increase it's staff to perform the investigations of the collapse of the 3 major WTC towers, even though the events were....and still are....unprecedented.

Today....NIST is two years late in releasing it's WTC report....compared to what is claimed was it's "final report", issued in summer, 2005, excluding WTC 7.

....and I pointed out....do you remember....that the republican party methodically used "race" as a divisive, criminal, and cynical way to win elections, since it could not win them by attracting enough votes on the strength of appeal of it's political platform. I posted that I believed that Maryland republican senate candidate, Michael Steele, had to know about republican racial political strategy, but was a republican, anyway, IMO, to the detriment of his character and reputation.

Can you tell me how I could post "both sides" of the following, and how it might be more "reliable" that way? Please read the OP of my new thread, contrasting the treatment of ex-Gov. Siegelman vs. that of high profile republican convicts, and post your appraisal of my "bias"?

Do you believe that all opinions are of equal weight....merit....reliability? I believe that my opinion is only as strong as the support that I can accompany it with.

Here's where we are since one of our last exchanges......considering the following, does Michael Steele seem more principled....supporting the republican party....or less.....or, for that matter, do you...... in hindsight....for supporting his candidacy?
Back on March 14. 2006...on this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=14 ....

....you and I posted this exchange:

<b>djestudo</b>, do you think that the candidacy of Michael Steele demonstrates that republicans are the party of "equal opportunity", and that the lack of elected black Maryland candidates to high offices, considering the following reporting....which was not widely known or known in such depth at the time of our last discussion....strengthens...or weakens your argument that "both parties" fail in anywhere near a similar way....to sincerely represent the interests of all of their members?

Host first of all you will take any smidge of a poll and try to use it to bash the Republician party, as in this threads topic.
And it seems in every thread you seem to threadjack it in some way to bash the Republican Party.

If you want to ramble on about how the Republicans stole this or rigged that please do it in a new thread or one of the 100 other threads you have started about it.

Do some "work" to back the opinion that you post, reconmike.... The recent reporting of McClatchey and the 2004 reporting of WaPo....I posted both articles...support the accusations that I've posted, and the ones I posted in March, 2006.

The congressional investigative committees have the "caging" emails from the 2004 election, and Tim Griffin is being investigated. Why do you think he .resigned, 4 weeks ago, as interim US Atty in Arkansas, after the bullshit "provision" that was secretly inserted in an already consolidated bill by one of Arlen Spector's "staffers"....that would have exempted Griffin from senate approval to keep his job....was found and overturned by the congress, making it necessary for Griffin to testify under oath before the senate judiciary committee, if he wanted to pursue senate confirmation for a permanent US Atty appointment?

Let's have an actual discussion, reconmike. I'm posting what I've learned....how this scandal is unfolding, and it's background.....and what are you and djestudo posting, in response???

on edit....reconmike, this is just out.....they've hidden their lawbreaking, encouraged by no attempt by congress to "check and balance".....for the first six years of their administration. That has changed....for the better:
If you have not, you ought to get "up to speed" on this. Conyers and Leahy have copies of all of Palast's RNC "caging" emails. Tim Griffin and the firing of the 9 US Attorneys is all a piece of the vote suppression "op" of the republican party, run out of the white house and "muscled" by the DOJ.

Politically, these white house, DOJ, and RNC guys are "dead men walking"..... posting dismissively about me, in response to what I post, seems kind of a silly way to react. You might want to reconsider your responses......

Once again, my response was this thread was titled, MSNBC: Journalists & Editors Overwhelmingly Donate to Democratic Oriented Campaigns, to which you proceeded to bash the 8% of journalists who donated to the Republican party.

Then you threadjack it with "the repubs stole both elections here are the facts".

Thats all my last post was saying.

How long will it be before the thread turns to 9/11, Bush piloted one of the planes and parachuted out just before impact? Complete with 4 pages of cut and pastes?

Edit: After reading the letter that you posted Bush should look to see if Sandy Berger is available for hire.

That depends - how long before CB Brooklyn and Pai Mei and the like discover that this thread exists?

And host, reconmike does have a point in that the conversation has strayed well away from your OP.