I know you probably mean me here, but I don't think source material or data is partisan. It's about numbers. Here's some stuff from Steve Rendall:

First, who is he: Rendall has appeared on dozens of national television and radio shows, including appearances on CNN, C-SPAN, CNBC, MTV and Fox Morning News. He was the subject of a profile in the New York Times (5/19/96), and has been quoted on issues of media and politics in publications such as the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post and New York Times.

Rendall contributed stories to the International Herald Tribune from France, Spain and North Africa; worked as a freelance writer in San Francisco; and worked as an archivist collecting historical material on the Spanish Civil War and the volunteers who fought in it.

Now:





Now you can say FAIR is a partisan source all you want, but they aren't just making up numbers.

I myself may be "partisan left," but that doesn't change the numbers.

OK, I read the FAIR articles you mentioned on their website.....don't totally disagree with you, but let me do some digging now........

Although, Jeff Cohen , the founder of FAIR, is a regular panelist on Fox News Watch, so obviously some balanced viewpoints are getting through not to mention,

Greta,
Geraldo,
Paula (not there now)
Juan,
to name a few

It is a slant simply by the fact that did not "hint" about pulling out of the treaty -- the pulled out of the treaty.

Violating the treaty's 2 major provisions is certainly more than a hint.

For some reason CNN is passing it off as less than it actually is. Why?

Well, one reason could be the fact that Democrats have been losing on the "war" issue. They had a major upset in the last election (it was an upset, even though it wasn't a sweet). The Democrats have an interest in keeping stories about defense/potential conflicts as palatable as possible.

Another example from a few minutes ago, also on CNN:

The in-studio reporter was speaking with Paula Zahn about the Republican economic plan, which hasn't been released yet. The reporter said that the tax cut "might not benefit many people, but it's better than nothing," to which Paula Zahn replied, "I guess so."

It is surely a SLANT! to criticize a plan that is yet to be announced.

Another slant: CNN is hailing the Democrats' proposed $300 tax credit as an idea of pure genius. Where were they when the last $300 tax credit was pushed through? Oh yeah, they were criticizing it as something that wouldn't help anyone but the rich. But now, $300 helps everyone. SLANT!

Mike

Yes, I have. I mentioned in my posting that I had. Have you read any of its critiques? Including those from the dozens of people who claim they were misquoted or quoted wildly out of context? Obviously not. Coulter makes a relatively convincing case for the fact that some people on the left can be just as nasty as some people on the right (duh). But that's it. The rest of her work is 100% pure bullpoo-poo (as they say around here).

Again, if you are determined to read slanted half-truths (and I don't mean network news), Goldberg is much more adept at it.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance, as I don't watch any TV at all. I don't know, beyond Geraldo, who these people are at all. I was restricting the criticism to sources and "experts" cited during the presentation of the news, not the existence or not of liberal/conservative commentary shows.

These slants are both subtle and effective; the posts on this thread show how effective they are. Recipients of this doctrinization cannot even imagine that a contrary view exists let alone acknowledge that it holds merit.

Kudos Mike.

But, what is good for the goose...

Corporate interest in gas pipelines, oil fields, government contracts - the deals negotiated the throwbacks. What initiative is going to serves who? This is all glossed over regularly.

And there is product culture.

Represented through commercials, sitcoms, infotainment is the corporate ideal where everyone looks product perfect, where products work all the time, and where everyone has plenty of money to buy plenty of products.

Corporate interests are at the heart of this materialist culture, and the media perpetuates it as well as liberalism.

jjirout

Sorry Mike,
But I still see the downplaying of N. Korea's actions as a SLANT that only benefits Bush.

Eliminate our materialist culture and you put a lot of people out of work. Greed accomplishes more good than charity.

[quote=hugo,Jan 8 2003, 08:25 PM][/QUOTE]
Eliminate our materialist culture and you put a lot of people out of work. Greed accomplishes more good than charity.[/quote]
Healthy capitalism is built on companies that create new stuff, more choices, and better service. This serves the general public. Who will argue with that? But creating an imaginary need for these products - creating a culture where people depend upon products for their self-esteem, for their sense of belonging - this serves only business.

Trickle down theory. As businesses flourish, people have more income. But as people have more income, businesses make people believe that they need to have more stuff. Not want - but need to have the newer car, the bluer suit, the perfect weight, the clearer skin, the whiter teeth...

Businesses are not drawing upon healthy capitalistic greed here. They are not drawing upon a healthy want for products. They are drawing upon people's insecurities, and they are creating needs where there isn't any.

Who needs to have frighteningly white teeth?

Businesses are putting themselves in a position where they can dictiate to people how people will spend their money and, no longer simply in charge of the average person's income, they are now in charge of the average person's out-come.

This "product perfect state" that Americans are taught to strive for - is more a burden than it is a privilege.

jjirout

Well, we are given 12 years of free education. We should be able to decide which products we wish to buy. The only groups forcing me to spend my money, in ways I do not wish, are local, state and federal governments.

Hugo I haven't been able to agree with you much very far. But I agree about adults having the power to choose what they buy. We should have a better understanding of what the intent of advertising is. That sounds to obvious to say but I've seen people react like that Bloom County Pengiun (Opus?) to infomercials for crap they would have never bought if they had the product in their hands at a store.

And yes the local, state, and federal governments have the right to take our property and spend it in ways we do not want. This has been put in place in a democracy by elected officials voted for by your peers and the peers of the generations before us.

I hope you still think I'm agreeing with you. I hate to be lying when I'm making nice.

I agree with this too. No one makes me buy anything I don't want to buy.

I recall Gephardt (sp?) taking credit for getting the immediate $200 and $300 check to most taxpayers for the Democaratic Party as a late amendment to the tax cut. I'll go hunt on Snopes to see if I am living a urban legend.

Phew, this surfing can be tiring. Perhaps I was right, or mostly right? (But not Right)

Senate Democrats propose using surplus for one-time tax cut
March 27, 2001
Web posted at: 2:52 PM EST (1952 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Democrats proposed an immediate tax cut Tuesday in an effort to "provide economic stimulus" to all taxpayers in the slowing economy.

The legislation would dedicate $60 billion of the fiscal year 2001 surplus to a one-time tax refund for all those who pay income and payroll taxes this year. It also would reduce the 15 percent income tax bracket to a new 10 percent tax bracket for all taxpayers.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said there has been Republican support for both of these proposals. "We should get this done now," he said.

Republicans have argued that no tax cut should be voted on until the president's full proposal is considered.

Daschle called this legislation the "first tax cut they don't like." The Democrats argued that the president's tax plan would not stimulate the slowing economy because it would not help tax payers this year.

Republicans are concerned that a tax rebate passed now could slow the momentum for the president's overall $1.6 trillion tax cut proposal later.

Daschle said he would "hate to hold hostage" an issue with strong support like the rebate, which he said the Senate could pass by the end of April.

The liberal media is not involved in force either. No one forces people to think a certain way.

I never said anything about force.

It is coercion -

and business is just as guilty of it as any liberal media.

jjiorout

Webster's dictionary: coerce, to compel by force

Hugo seems to be learning from liberal tactics. By changing the subject to sematics, he is attempting to cloud the water and incidentally discount logic points altogether.

Once again revealing the hypocritical side to conservatism.

Corporations are just as guilty of mental mindwashing as the liberal media is, and neither corporations nor the media force this branwashing. They do it by insinuating. Manipulating; it is the slant, the twist - planned and plotted.

"Cast the beam out of thine own eye" before you see clear enough to cast the mote out of your brother's.

jjirout

Hey - when did liberals take out a copyright on the semantics tactic?

You had better define what you mean by coercion then. I was just giving the standard definition. The fact is only government coerces money out of me. There is a difference between persuasion and coercion. The media can persuade, corporate commercials are obviously meant to persuade. Corporations can only use coercion when they persuade government to provide protective tariffs, or regulate competition in other ways.

One name: Sen. Patty Murray

Case, point and match.

Thank you,

Darcaine

Darcaine-

Either POST or LURK.

But don't just post these one line posts with no substance whatsoever.

It's getting pretty lame.

Who is this Sen. Patty Murray and what does she have to do with this topic?

Mike

Mike,

The whole point is that we DON'T know who she is and what she did. Or, am I off topic again by pointing this out? I can GUARRANTEE that had this been a Republican we would have. She makes Lott's comments pale in comparison.

http://www.columbian.com/12192002/clark_co/345147.html

Darcaine

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It is subtle, and I have a hard time explaining it fully.

But I have noticed lately that Foxnews has actually slanted a few stories to the left, or at least closer to the center.

This is another move in a series of obvious attempts at looking more balanced. They hired the CNN guy (I don't know his name) and Gretta (I know, it was a while ago).

Keep a keen eye out for it, you'll spot some liberalism poking its head at Foxnews...

Mike


[edit]


That helps. Just trying to find out who this lady is, and since you seemed to know I figured it would save us all a bunch of time if we were provided with a general idea of who she was...
[/edit]

Mike, I was trying to prove a point. The fact that no one knows who she is after addressing a high school with the garbage she spouted was WORSE than Sen Trent Lott. I guess the media is biased after all.

Case, point and match.

Darcaine

Gotcha Darcaine... (is "onya" appropriate?)

More examples of a liberally biased media:

In the last 10 ABC newsbreaks I have heard on conservative talk radio, President Bush was reffered to only as "Mr. Bush".

Americans give the President, no matter who he is, the respect the office deserves. He is the President. He should be called "the President" or "President Bush". I never called President Clinton "Mr. Clinton". Like it or not, he was my President.

Another one...

CNN is out on the picket lines with the GE employees today. Their average piece has been about two minutes, with approximately the last 10 seconds being devoted to the company's perspictive.

Seeing as unions are for the most part liberals/Democrats, wouldn't you think this is a bit biased towards Democrats? The unions are getting 1,100% more airtime.

-----------------

I did check out that fair.org website that was mentioned above. Seems like they are slanted to me.

Their goal is to convince you that the media as not trustworthy. Their goal is to convince you to listen to their radio programs. Their goal is to get you to donate to their organization.

And their stories are horribly slanted editorials.

MIke

Whether or not the media is liberal or not; I can state with total certainty that Eric Alterman, author of a new book, What Liberal Media? is a JERK.

He appeared last week on the local NPR affiliate. He was rude to callers, disdainful of any opinion differing from his own and at one point he sounded like he was eating while the radio host was trying to interview him.

Alterman whined that "real" liberals like him don't get invited on CROSSFIRE or on Fox News.

Maybe they prefer their guests to conduct themselves like they have manners.

Truly an embarassment to liberals everywhere.

Further to Alterman (sorta), Musing from the Middle asked, in the CNN thread for books on the conservative bias in American media. I have not yet read What Liberal Media? (it's in the post as I type this), but I can recommend several books by Noam Chomsky and/or Edward S Herman: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a very good place to start - as well as the slimmer Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. Also recommended are the two volumes of The Political Economy of Human Rights (The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism and After the Cataclysm, Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology). One good thing about the Chomsky/Herman books is that, contrary to popular belief, they describe bias on both sides when it occurs, especially in Chomsky's Media Control, which looks back over the whole of the 20th century.

Other works addressing this issue are Ben Bagdikian's The Media Monopoly which, if memory serves, is also quite good and Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times by Robert McChesney, which is also worth a look. For a more recent examination of conservative spin in the US media, I'd highly recommend Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You by Norman Solomon and Reese Erlich, which addresses the coverage of the current war-mongering up to last December. I'm about to embark on Gore Vidal's Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, but I'm not yet sure to what extent Vidal looks at media coverage of the Bush regime. Watch this space...


To raise a point more directly related to this thread: If we have such a liberal media, why have conservatives been so staunchly opposed to the Fairness Doctrine for the past twenty-odd years - a law which they once ardently championed? Could it be that conservative politicians know (despite what they claim) that there is no liberal bias in American media and that the doctrine would only give more equal time to their opposition? If not, why oppose something which would give them the voice that they claim is so sorely lacking in news coverage? Anyone?

It looks like country radio stations across America are no longer playing the Dixie Chicks, free speech is sometimes costly.

Here here nighttimer!


Alterman has a superiority complex. He's convinced that eveyone who doesn't agree with his views exactly is stupid. Just look at his attacks in The Nation on respected authors Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky, and his condemnation of Alexander Cockburn for "willing to ally himself with the caveman right" and "going in a different direction than real liberals" in that he holds some beliefs that Alterman didn't agree with. What a creep .

Alterman is sort of like a liberal version of Ann Coulter, except he's not a far-leftist, he's a moderate leftist. But he sure is just as willing to make blatantly stupid attacks on people who disagree with him.

Bernie Goldberg. He cinched my view. Read Bias and this topic will die.

Let's try and be more CONSTRUCTIVE in our debates

The topic claimed this was a myth. I though of it as a perception. Goldberg presented the facts. No one has denied his work but they sure seem to avoid confronting him.

No, it's that Goldberg has already been mentioned here. Do you have anything else to support why you feel the concept of the liberal media is a truth or do you just want to rehash what some others have already said?

Ok, how about the media who jumped to conclusion the missles falling into residential parts of Iraq and the one that hit the Iranian refinery were US missles?

Want proof?

Initial reports claiming an official apology from the US Dept. of State
to
Iran were wrong...and numerous retractions are here with proof it is
most
likely Iraq who fired the missles.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stray_rockets_2


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._iran_britain_1

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stray_rockets_1

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../iraq_iran_dc_1

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...q_usa_iran_dc_4

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...q_usa_iran_dc_2

Oh, we can get more in depth on Goldberg if you like. Facts? Lets see...

One of his biggest points was about the CBS flat tax coverage, a specific story in which Steve Forbes flat tax idea was studied. He claims this case as one of his central bits of evidence. In that segment of CBS Evening News (2/8/96), there were four sources used: House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an advisor to the senior President Bush, a former Nixon-era IRS Commissioner and a tax expert. So, four mostly conservative sources criticizing a Republican's tax proposal is evidence for a liberal bias in the media? Wow...

Goldberg's Bias was full of broad generalizations, but short on facts. I have mentioned earlier that conservative media watchdogs routinely cite the voting preferences of journalists as their biggest proof of media bias. I think this is because it's the only place they can use real numbers and not blow their own case. But it's mostly irrelevant, because the numbers that really matter are, who are your sources? Who are your "experts?" And those numbers don't lie. They are overwhelmingly conservative. In the example above, what does it matter that Rather is a democrat? After the story aired, do you think most people saw the report as biased because of Rather's own views? How can that be, when the sources they used, the people doing the actual criticizing of Forbes were themselves conservatives!

Another example. The broadcast news has done "a million" stories about deadbeat dads, says Goldberg, but has aired "hardly a word about prostate cancer." A quick search of Nexis shows that prostate cancer has been mentioned 393 times on the three major networks since January 2000--while the phrase "deadbeat dads" came up exactly 19 times. Hmmm.

But wait! There's more!

Goldberg tells us that the networks "re-discovered" homelessness at the beginning of GW BUsh's administration after ignoring while Clinton was in office (see Goldberg's chapter "How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness"). But Goldberg isn't watching very carefully, or perhaps he hoped no one would check his sources: The segments he cites (ABC, 2/11/01; CNN, 8/4/01) both pointed out that the current rise began in 1999 and 2000--that is, during the Clinton years. Hmmm.

Shall I go on? Goldberg says that Dan Rather characterized George W. Bush's presidential agenda as "Republican-right," and wonders why he didn't "talk about President Clinton and his 'Democratic-left agenda.' " Might that have anything to do with the fact that Bush ran without apology for the GOP's right wing, while Clinton was straight ahead honest about of moving his party from the left to the center?

Remember in 2001, when that protester was shot by the police in Genoa, during the G8 protests? CBS Evening News had this to say: "Violent demonstrators laid waste to the city's center" in a "frenzy of destruction," reported CBS's John Roberts (7/21/01); the day before (7/20/01), Roberts told viewers that "violent protests transformed parts of this tranquil Mediterranean port city into a war zone today" in an episode of "civil unrest and trouble-making." Oh my, those damn socialist news reporters!

Here's an excerpt of a study by FAIR about "think tanks." Now, some people have been dismissing FAIR as a liberal group, and inherently biased. But those same critics don't argue about the numbers - they keep it generalized, because these numbers are hard data. They can't be debunked as propaganda. I do not cite any of FAIR's own analysis, only the numbers gotten from monitoring the media. If these numbers were false, why is it that the conservative "media watch dogs" never debunk them?



You still think reading Glodberg would end this debate? Think again, my friend.

One point I would appreciate some conservative who supports this myth to explain is the oppostion to the Fairness Doctrine. Now that's a point which could end this debate...

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative and it's not a myth (but I'm not interested in debating it, it's a dead horse -- just read Goldberg's book if you haven't; if you have and you aren't convinced, you can't be convinced), but opposition to the Fairness Doctrine isn't hard to explain at all.

It's purely a freedom of speech issue, and that's all there is to it. Sorry if you were hoping for something more elaborate but it really is that simple. I am and always have been opposed to the FCC having anything to say about content of broadcasts. Same as if they had some government board that tried to regulate newspaper content. (Gah! What a horrible idea!)

I never bought any of the argument about the airwaves being public utilities that need to be regulated - I'm for auctioning them off and making them totally private.

As for the conservatives who once thought the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea, they were being hypocritical and supporting something contrary to their principles for the sake of having a shot at getting their message out. I thought they were wrong to compromise their principles like that and I still think so.

If your going to say it is not a myth, then declare you don't want to debate it, then why post that at all? Kind of a cop out. I've read it. It's full of factual errors ( a few of which I pointed out above - any response?) and gross generalizations. I feel like I am beating a dead horse here, but...

If you look at the facts, the facts are that all of the major corporate media outlets seek out more conservative than liberal sources and experts. This is true. And no matter how many newspaper editors are Democrats, no matter how many liberal columnists there are, what we're talking about is the presentation of the news reports.

I like data. I like facts. And what I see is some real data about sourcing, countered on the conservative side by numbers showing how many reporters are Democrats. Well so what? Every employee in a GE factory might be gay, but that doesn't mean they're building gay dishwashers. They're doing their job, and like any job they are operating under guidelines. Guidelines set by some of the most powerful corporations on earth.

Let me change it up here for a moment. You know that book that comes out every year, something like The Most Censored Stories of 2000 or whatever? OK. Most of those stories could be seen in some way to be stories which a "liberal" media would love to sink their teeth into. So why do they not get reported, or get under-reported? Check these books out. They are well sourced and researched. If you and Goldberg are right, these stories should all be "conservative" stories. But they are not.

Since so many conservatives think the media is liberal, and so many liberals think the opposite is true, perhaps the media really serves the corporate interest, which ultimately serves neither of us, and leaves both of us wanting? Just a thought...

Any media report which is not right out of Rush Limbaugh, Gordon Liddy or RNC headquarters playbooks is "liberal media" for the conservatives.

Any media segment which does not bash democrats 24/7 is "liberal media" for the conservatives.

Any media that does not bash the Clintons regularly is "liberal media" for the conservatives.

Any media piece which does not sing the praises of the GOPers 24/7 is "liberal media" for the conservatives.

Any media segment which is objective is "liberal media" for the conservatives.

Any media piece which points out the errors of the GOP agenda is "liberal media" for the conservatives.

Madtown

Izdaari/Quarkie: Yep, I've read it, too - and also found it full of errors, generalizations, and - er - bias. It is marginally more credible than Ann Coulter's Slander, but that's like saying molten steel is marginally cooler than molten titanium.

Madtown: Overall, I'm afraid I'd have to agree (if some of these people could see real liberal coverage, they'd probably expire on the spot). The only exception I'd take to your list is this one:
That's not "liberal media" - that's treason!

I'm a conservative and I fit none of those generalizations. Blanket statements bug me.

To me, there is a distinction between conservatives and members of the Republican party. Are you saying, Madtown, that the media is generally controlled by conservatives, the GOP or both?

Because Wertz had a question and wasn't getting an answer. He wanted to know why conservatives are opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. I answered it.

I don't want to debate it because I've already debated it ad nauseum on other forums and have concluded that regardless of facts, it is impossible to change anyone's mind on the subject by argument. You see that as a cop out, I see it as not wasting effort on hopeless causes.

I'll agree the media (as a very, very broad generalization) serves corporate interests. I don't take issue with that statement until somebody adds "and those corporate interests are conservative." The Suicidal Corporation by Paul H. Weaver sheds useful light on why they are not.

I wish you were a Republican - it'd be great to see a member of the GOP calling Newt Gingrich, Jesse Helms, and the NRA lobby opportunists and hypocrites with compromised principles! In fact, when the doctrine was finally to be made federal law in 1987, the bill passed by 3-to-1 in the House and 2-to-1 in the Senate. Looks like there were a lot of hypocritical opportunists around at the time.

It was only Ronald Reagan, who had staffed the FCC with corporate types bent on deregulating the media at all costs, who remained relatively free of such hypocrisy by vetoing the act. I remember no "free speech" arguments at the time...

And is it as simple as you claim? Have conservative legislators really developed a sensitivity to the First Amendment since 1987? Is there any other evidence of this hypothesis? Or are they simply aware of the fact that Reagan's deregulation of the media and its subsequent monopolization has rendered such an act obsolete? We've got a media biased toward corporate conservatism - who needs "fairness" now?

I have never met a Republican that was not a conservative. Not all conservatives are Republican, that's true, but they might as well be.

I'm saying the media is controlled by conservatives.

Madtown

Ooh - that's a bit harsh. There's actually a fair range of parties (as well as quite a few unaffiliated individuals) which would consider themselves conservative, but definitely not Republican - members of the Libertarian Party, the Natural Law Party, the American Independent Party, the Constitution Party, the Christian Alliance, the Confederate Party of America, the America First Party, and all those white supremacist parties that no one really talks about much.

To tar them all with the same brush would be the equivalent of conservatives considering Democrats to be roughly the same as Socialists who are roughly the same as Communists who are roughly the same as revolutionary anarchists with bombs under their trenchcoats - and I doubt you appreciate that very much. Expect to find yourself unpopular with the numerous Libertarians here for a few days.

I am a libertarian Republican (see my Party line?) and I just did call all those folks hypocrites and opportunists for that. Happy?

(That despite having a certain fondness for the Newtster and being an NRA member.)

(Recently gave up working with the LP over policy differences and effectiveness. I'm out of the LP when my current membership expires, and I've started working with the Republican Liberty Caucus instead. I'd put Libertarian instead of Independent in my Politics line, but Mike doesn't want to give us that option. Not carping, just explaining.)

No doubt you're right that they haven't all had a First Amendment epiphany and are just opposing the Fairness Doctrine because of a perception that it no longer serves their interests.

[quote=Izdaari,Mar 31 2003, 06:54 PM] Or are they simply aware of the fact that Reagan's deregulation of the media and its subsequent monopolization has rendered such an act obsolete? We've got a media biased toward corporate conservatism - who needs "fairness" now? [/QUOTE]


No doubt you're right that they haven't all had a First Amendment epiphany and are just opposing the Fairness Doctrine because of a perception that it no longer serves their interests. [/quote]
They may be right for all the wrong reasons, they are still right. The Fairness Doctrine is an unneccesary infringement on free speech.

So Wertz! You're calling me a communist and a Socialist huh??( hideious scowl) That really was not necessary. I only meant....who cares if you're Republican, Libertarian, or whatever? A conservative is a conservative when it comes to persisting in the liberal press myth.

I'm not concerned about being unpopular. That concern is one of the reasons the news media has gone to the right. Journalists worry about being branded "liberal" because they know if they are, they will be attacked by the right wing media watch dogs. Editorial writers understand this also. They are not willing to take the risk that goes with writing critical articles about Bush and the big shot Republicans either. Slant right.....it's survival.

Mike: We need a Hideous scowl

Madtown

Madtown

They are there, I guess you just haven't met them. There are plenty of liberal Republicans in Massachusetts and New York, and no doubt in many other Eastern states. Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York is one. In Washington and Oregon (both very liberal states west of the Cascade mountains; the eastern halves are more conservative)) we have our share of them too.

Libertarians (the ideology, not the party) aren't necessarily conservative at all. Many are in the sense of having come to libertarianism from the conservative movement, and still having sympathies there, and that would apply to me, a former YAF activist. But many others came to libertarianism from the liberal side and have few if any conservative habits of thought.

In another sense libertarians are not more than half conservative by definition so far as policy. We're more pro-laissez-faire than conservatives, and more pro-gun rights than many conservatives, but we're also for legalizing drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., and those positions are conventionally thought of as leftish. Most are pro-choice on abortion. Many libertarians (like Harry Browne, the LP candidate for President the last few times) are quite dovish on foreign policy as well.

Oops - sorry. I keep thinking of you as a Libertarian. You always strike me as being too rational and well-informed to be a Republican.

Yes - you've made my week!



I would tend to agree. I used the oppostition to the (unnecessary from a corporate conservative point of view) Fairness Doctrine as support for my claim that the American media is not "liberal". I wasn't endorsing the Doctrine myself.


Madtown: Don't you use that hideous scowl on me! I just thought it was worth pointing out that, believe it or not, there are worse things than being Republican - and better ways to be conservative.