<p>Your article is from 2004, DRJ! (I always follow the links!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love when people use this line to somehow justify their arguments. </p>
<p>Well, I suppose it’s better than, “Not surprising, the Jew-owned media” that I sometimes see…</p>
<p>“Well, I suppose it’s better than, “Not surprising, the Jew-owned media” that I sometimes see…”</p>
<p>As opposed to the veiled anti-semitism invoked with the term “neo-con?”</p>
<p>
Yes, the article is from 2004, but I don’t get your point. Are you saying that something happened in the last 2 years that caused Cheney to become Bush’s “puppetmaster”? </p>
<p>Versions of this story have circulated since Bush selected Cheney as his running mate or, to be precise, since Democrats claimed Cheney strong-armed Bush into selecting him as a running mate. It’s become part of the Democratic talking points because it validates 2 popular liberal myths: “Bush is stupid” and “Cheney is a megalomaniac.” It is, in my view, the precursor to what became Bush Derangement Syndrome.</p>
<p>BTW, when Cheney’s not controlling Bush, Rove is. So who is it, Cheney or Rove?</p>
<p>zoosermom,</p>
<p>Using neo-con as a code word for Jew is just as stupid. Who said otherwise? </p>
<p>Why does every instance of pointing out a silly use of political speech have to be balanced out, lest someone freak out and say, “ZOMG, we have a counterexample!”</p>
<p>Silly is silly, people.</p>
<p>DRJ4,</p>
<p>It’s along the same lines of those who saw Hillary as the power behind the throne, or Kissinger as the same.</p>
<p>This may come as a shock, but you know what? The parties aren’t that stupid. They know how to keep particularly bad or stupid people out of the light.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I’ve never heard reference to the jew-owned media. Never. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t happen, but I’ve never heard it.</p>
<p>The fact is that the media IS a bastion of liberalism. There’s no real question about that.</p>
<p>Really? That’s why more than a few papers, almost all of the radio, and an entire 24 hour news network are conservative? </p>
<p>Hell, even the Economist is closer in editorial content to American conservative, and it’s a bloody commie Euro paper!</p>
<p>I just tire of the “liberal media” BS that is used to justify arguments. Enough. We’ve all heard it. Millions of times. It’s done.</p>
<p>zoosermom, wow, you need to get out…that old story of jewish controlled media has been around forever…as has the “liberal” media, </p>
<p>what you think all news should be in defense of the adminitration, and anything that disagrees with it is somehow bad? not sure I am undertanding you</p>
<p>I for one just found at least 5 websites devoted to talking about Jews and the media…</p>
<p>as for neo-con, what does it mean to you> I don’t see anti-semitism or pro-semitism in reference to the word…more of a political, corporate way…</p>
<p>"Really? That’s why more than a few papers, almost all of the radio, and an entire 24 hour news network are conservative? "</p>
<p>Talk radio is conservative because liberals failed at that endeavor. One 24-hour news network is conservative. Three others are liberal. All of the “big three” networks are liberal as are the top five most influential newspapers in the country, the three most influential news magazines, most talk shows and most actors/singers/hollywood folks. Yep. The media is liberal.</p>
<p>Liberal or middling?</p>
<p>You realize that just as many liberals call out the major papers for being oh-so-corporate and conservative in reporting as well, right? </p>
<p>And the WSJ is liberal? 
</p>
<p>
Not that he’s bad or stupid but how do you explain John Kerry in 2004? In my opinion, he wasn’t the best choice. Ditto for Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush. Political parties are full of people that aren’t the best choices but who gain seniority anyway.</p>
<p>guess ABC might disagree</p>
<p>and please show me how the media - the networks are “liberal” </p>
<p>please, is it because they show errors the administration has made? come on, give me a hint as to what you consider liberal…news, maybe that is it, showing both sides of a story… ah HAH!!! balance is considered liberal…its best to show jsut one side like Fox does…</p>
<p>
More on media bias here: <a href=“http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp[/url]”>http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp</a></p>
<p>"And the WSJ is liberal? "</p>
<p>Who said that? Not I.</p>
<p>The WSJ editorial board is an entirely seperate entity/enterprise from the rest of the paper. Not even in same building, virtually no cross-over.</p>
<p>driver,</p>
<p>Actually, Tim Groseclose at UCLA found that the editorial board wasn’t all that conservative as some suggest. And I didn’t say the editorial board. ;)</p>
<p>The paper, however, wasn’t all that liberal, either.</p>
<p>CGM Posted:“zoosermom, wow, you need to get out…that old story of jewish controlled media has been around forever…as has the “liberal” media,”</p>
<p>The media is liberal. You wouldn’t notice because you spout the exact same viewpoint and so it seems normal to you.</p>
<p>“hat you think all news should be in defense of the adminitration, and anything that disagrees with it is somehow bad? not sure I am undertanding you”</p>
<p>Do you even read what you post or do you just like to read words with your name next to them? I disagree with the administration on many, many issues and quite vocally, too. That just doesn’t fit in with your posting. Survey after survey shows how the citizens that make up the media vote and in what proportion. THere is nothing inherently wrong with that, but let’s not lie about it.</p>
<p>" for one just found at least 5 websites devoted to talking about Jews and the media…"</p>
<p>Well, bully for you.</p>
<p>“a for neo-con, what does it mean to you> I don’t see anti-semitism or pro-semitism in reference to the word…more of a political, corporate way”</p>
<p>If you haven’t seen the reference, then YOU need to get out more. If you can google to make your point, then you can google to learn something. A neo-con is someone who was once a liberal and then saw the light!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He was the closest thing to a safe candidate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ugh, this is why I hate domestic politics. SOUNDBITES.</p>