Mickey Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 In another thread, in criticising democratic leaders, I also pointed out that: "...the Republican character assassination team usually has them for dinner. It is already starting with Murtha for example." This drew fire from RK and KRC who, as usual, resorted to personal villification rather than to actually address the attack now brewing on Murtha. Apparently, this can't really be happening or be a legitimate issue because I am a democrat. Well, it appears I am not the only one concerned with the Republican habit of attacking veterans who disagree with them. James Webb, veteran and Reagan's former Naval Secretary published this piece which expresses the same concerns I have: Purple Heartbreakers You may remember Webb as the Naval Secretary who resigned in protest of congressional budget cuts he felt were going too far in reducing our Naval capabilities. In Viet Nam he served as a rifle platoon and company commander in the infamous An Hoa Basin west of Danang and he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. He later served as a platoon commander and as an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School, and then as a member of the Secretary of the Navy's immediate staff, before leaving the Marine Corps in l972. Let the personal villification of Webb begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 In another thread, in criticising democratic leaders, I also pointed out that: "...the Republican character assassination team usually has them for dinner. It is already starting with Murtha for example." This drew fire from RK and KRC who, as usual, resorted to personal villification rather than to actually address the attack now brewing on Murtha. Apparently, this can't really be happening or be a legitimate issue because I am a democrat. Well, it appears I am not the only one concerned with the Republican habit of attacking veterans who disagree with them. James Webb, veteran and Reagan's former Naval Secretary published this piece which expresses the same concerns I have: Purple Heartbreakers You may remember Webb as the Naval Secretary who resigned in protest of congressional budget cuts he felt were going too far in reducing our Naval capabilities. In Viet Nam he served as a rifle platoon and company commander in the infamous An Hoa Basin west of Danang and he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. He later served as a platoon commander and as an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School, and then as a member of the Secretary of the Navy's immediate staff, before leaving the Marine Corps in l972. Let the personal villification of Webb begin. 572384[/snapback] Your link cites just one website that decided to attack Murtha's record. How many people even read that website? Any one of us on the other side could counter by linking to the lunatics at Democratic Underground (hopefully not representative of the left) or worse. Attacking Murtha's military record is stupid because: 1. It's classless. 2. It implies that anyone with a distinguished military record can't be wrong on policy (and therefore his or her record must be attacked rather than their opinions). 3. It means wasting the opportunity to debate what Murtha said by focusing on who Murtha is. And by skipping what he said to talk about something else, it makes it seem like you think he has a point and you don't want to deal with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 How come Cybercast News Service is "a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Republican Party", but the New York Times isn't "a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Democratic Party"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 This drew fire from RK and KRC who, as usual, resorted to personal villification rather than to actually address the attack now brewing on Murtha. 572384[/snapback] It's not my fault you are incapable of holding Democrats to the same lofty standards to which you hold Republicans. Instead of addressing my post, you try to deflect to other topics. I noticed you still have not addressed my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Funny...I havent heard Murtha's name for weeks. And Bush (and everyone else) who critiqued his comments tripped over themselves to praise the man's service. Ill get to the rest later....Im working, believe it or not. If I dont feed these hogs by 1, they get pissy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 How come Cybercast News Service is "a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Republican Party", but the New York Times isn't "a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Democratic Party"? 572456[/snapback] I am not sure where to start. It was founded by L.Brent Bozell of the "Media Research Center" whose funds were donated by conservative foundations. Its original name was "Conservative News Network" but they changed "conservative" to "Cybercast". Their first executive editor was Scott Hogenson who spent 6 years with the RNC and actually took a leave of absence to go back to the RNC during the 2004 election. The executive editor of the Times is Bill Keller who has been a reporter since 1970 when he wrote for the Portland Oregonian for 9 years and has, along the way, worked for the Dallas Times Herald and the Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, he won a Pulitzer in 1989 for coverage of the Soviet Union. I am willing to bet that Hogenson couldn't spell P-u-l-i-t-z-e-r. As far as I know, Keller has never worked for a political party let alone the DNC or taken a leave of absence to work for them during an election. That doesn't even begin to cover the differences, its just a teaser. I won't argue with you your belief as to the liberal bias of the NYT's. Despite that, assuming its totally true, the Times and CNS are still not at all alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 It's not my fault you are incapable of holding Democrats to the same lofty standards to which you hold Republicans. Instead of addressing my post, you try to deflect to other topics. I noticed you still have not addressed my statement. 572470[/snapback] You apparently didn't make it through the entire thread and missed where I said: "I have no problem with the idea that what Hillary said was stupid, mean spirited, the very thing that makes reasonable discussions so difficult to have. Accusing the entire Republican party of being like plantation owners is the kind of rhetoric that just alienates people, prevents any reasonable discussion and further poisons public debate. By they way, I have never, ever even remotely supported the idea of her running for President. Never. Don't let that little fact get in the way though." Apparently you also missed the seven times I asked you to explain your assertion that I was giving democrats complete immunity from all criticism despite my actual comments which were directly critical of them, to wit: "the Democrats have a serious leadership problem." "Most of the problem is that their leaders are pretty bad in their own right." By my estimate, that makes eight times I have asked you to explain this. I critisized democrats and you accuse me of immunizing them from criticism. Explain that to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 Funny...I havent heard Murtha's name for weeks. And Bush (and everyone else) who critiqued his comments tripped over themselves to praise the man's service. Ill get to the rest later....Im working, believe it or not. If I dont feed these hogs by 1, they get pissy. 572543[/snapback] I think Webb's point is that groups like CNS, with their employee roster interlocking with that of the RNC, do the dirty work so that the damage is done while the President distances himself so as to avoid the backlash against such tactics. That way they get the benefit of dirty pool with out the burden of the unpleasant side effects. Plausible deniability. Based on repeated examples of this, Webb no longer finds the denials plausible. You may not agree with him on that score but you have to admit that having underlings toss the mud to keep the boss clean is not exactly re-inventing the wheel when it comes to politics. Political parties come and go but the strategy of winning elections remains the same regardless of party. "Swiftboating" is just a new name for an old tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 That doesn't even begin to cover the differences, its just a teaser. I won't argue with you your belief as to the liberal bias of the NYT's. Despite that, assuming its totally true, the Times and CNS are still not at all alike. 572564[/snapback] One is an obscure blog, the other is The Paper of Record with a daily circulation of over 1MM, mostly upper to middle class audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 Your link cites just one website that decided to attack Murtha's record. How many people even read that website? Any one of us on the other side could counter by linking to the lunatics at Democratic Underground (hopefully not representative of the left) or worse. Attacking Murtha's military record is stupid because: 1. It's classless. 2. It implies that anyone with a distinguished military record can't be wrong on policy (and therefore his or her record must be attacked rather than their opinions). 3. It means wasting the opportunity to debate what Murtha said by focusing on who Murtha is. And by skipping what he said to talk about something else, it makes it seem like you think he has a point and you don't want to deal with that. 572451[/snapback] I am glad to see you oppose this kind of character assassination. I am not avoiding whether or not Murtha's stance on the war is good, bad or indifferent. Bill in NYC posted a question about democratic leaders and why they all stink so bad. He is not happy with republicans but doesn't see the democrats as a viable alternative. I responded to the question he asked. I pointed out that I agreed that democrat leadersip is a train wreck. As a side point, I offered my opinion that on occasion when someone promising comes along, their character gets assassinated before they can get off the ground and used Murtha as an example of it starting to happen right before our eyes. Murtha's views were not the issue we were discussing. As for the notion that this is just a lone nut case web site crying in the dark, that is how it starts. Even as we speak (cue foreboding music), it is spreading through the machine. You can see its footprints here, here, here and here. By no means a complete survey. Then the story gets repeated and pretty soon the mainstream media will pick it up. They will just report the fight over the charge but in doing so, give the scurrilous charge more air time. Well worn territory here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 One is an obscure blog, the other is The Paper of Record with a daily circulation of over 1MM, mostly upper to middle class audience. 572601[/snapback] Also, "New York Times" is spelled differently than "Cybercast News Service". I would have thought that the differences between the two would be obvious enough but I guess we better not leave it to chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Also, "New York Times" is spelled differently than "Cybercast News Service". I would have thought that the differences between the two would be obvious enough but I guess we better not leave it to chance. 572686[/snapback] Don't forget to mention that one's a propaganda outlet for its political party, and no one takes the other seriously. Or is that too ambiguous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 Don't forget to mention that one's a propaganda outlet for its political party, and no one takes the other seriously. Or is that too ambiguous? 572697[/snapback] Very clear. Your opinion is that a paper that has won 90 Pulitizer Prizes, that has a widely viewed web site (555 Million page views in the month of March of 2005 alone) and that has 1.1 million daily subscribers and 1.6 million sunday subscribers is not being taken seriously by anyone. I guess people just really like the crossword puzzles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Very clear. Your opinion is that a paper that has won 90 Pulitizer Prizes, that has a widely viewed web site (555 Million page views in the month of March of 2005 alone) and that has 1.1 million daily subscribers and 1.6 million sunday subscribers is not being taken seriously by anyone. I guess people just really like the crossword puzzles. 572744[/snapback] Its great for lining birdcages. The droppings find a kindred spirit. They pay Will Short or others to contribute the nice crossword puzzles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Very clear. Your opinion is that a paper that has won 90 Pulitizer Prizes, that has a widely viewed web site (555 Million page views in the month of March of 2005 alone) and that has 1.1 million daily subscribers and 1.6 million sunday subscribers is not being taken seriously by anyone. I guess people just really like the crossword puzzles. 572744[/snapback] I like the bridge column and Science Tuesday too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 Its great for lining birdcages. The droppings find a kindred spirit. They pay Will Short or others to contribute the nice crossword puzzles. 572756[/snapback] Aha! I knew you were the type to keep little birdies. Like it or not, justified or not, there is no question that it is a widely read, influential paper and quite a lot of people do take it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Like it or not, justified or not, there is no question that it is a widely read, influential paper and quite a lot of people do take it seriously. 572770[/snapback] No question. But to assert that the editors are anything but extreme leftists is laughable. How many Bush/GOP/Conservative/Corporate/Military BAD! pieces appeared on the Op-Ed page today? I think the over/under was 3 1/2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Like it or not, justified or not, there is no question that it is a widely read, influential paper and quite a lot of people do take it seriously. 572770[/snapback] I'm sorry, what was the point of the comparison, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I'm sorry, what was the point of the comparison, again? 572788[/snapback] Sounds like our wonderful lawyer is trying to argue that you and CTM are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Aha! I knew you were the type to keep little birdies. Like it or not, justified or not, there is no question that it is a widely read, influential paper and quite a lot of people do take it seriously. 572770[/snapback] That it is...the NYT. I keep no birds, but feed the outside ones year-round. There's a practical aspect beyond the viewing and aural pleasure they provide. The various species have learned that my plot is a place favorable, and so they are always nearby and keep my grounds quite free of pesky flying insects. A profitable bargain for both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts