Bring on Bloomberg!

David Weigel | December 31, 2007

It's been a couple months since the last Bloomberg-for-President boomlet, and voila: First David Broder's account of their grand meeting, now this NYT report on the all-centrist, all-flakey alliance to put the mayor in the White House. Has-beens, ranging in vintage from the 80s to the summer of this year, are meeting after the Iowa Caucus to give us the bounty of their wisdom.

Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”
...
Among the other participants invited to the session next Sunday and Monday is Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who has said he would consider being Mr. Bloomberg’s running mate on an independent ticket.

Mr. Boren declined to say which candidate would be strongest, but suggested “some kind of combination of those three: Bloomberg-Hagel, Bloomberg-Nunn.” He said Mr. Bloomberg would “not have to spend a lot of time raising money and he would not have to make deals with special interest groups to raise money.”

Yes—think of all the special interests Ron Paul's had to suck up to this year for his $30 million! It makes a grown man cry.

Glenn Greenwald slaps Bloomberg around* over at Salon.

Clearly, this is just exactly what our country desperately needs, what it is missing most -- a neoconservative, combat-avoiding, Bush-supporting, Middle-East-warmonger who sees U.S. and Israeli interests as indistinguishable and inextricably linked, with a fetish for ever-increasing government control and surveillance, and a background as a Wall St. billionaire. We just haven't had enough of those in our political culture. Our political system, more than anything, is missing the influence of people like that. That's why it's broken: not enough of those.

Obviously, derision is the proper response to the Bloomberg fantasy, but I confess I'm happy there's no people-powered groundswell of support for Bloomberg the way there was for Ross Perot. When Perot started exploring his run in 1992 he was something like a folk hero. He'd tried to send Christmas packages to POWs in Vietnam and he'd hired mercenaries to free employees trapped in revolutionary Iran, an adventure immortalized in Ken Follett's 1983 book On Wings of Eagles (and the TV movie that followed). The Perot surge was the result of a really rancid flavor of populism, from voters who wanted to close the borders, hike taxes, and scrap trade deals, and who believed a pistol-packin' egomaniac was the man who'd lead them to the promised land. The Bloomberg movement is, by comparison, pretty pathetic and harmless.

Also, if it's not already on your blogroll, go and visit Third Party Watch.

(Bonus fun from my Lexising: Peter Applebome's March 29 New York Times report on Perot's mounting bid includes this piece of expertise.

"Ross Perot is the untested wild man, and while that may be attractive here at the beginning, I'm not sure it will be attractive at the end," said Karl Rove, a Republican consultant and party loyalist in Austin. "What's his message? I'm the zillionaire that built his company on government contracts?"

What ever happened to that guy?)

*Not actually hard. He's really tiny.

UPDATE: Just for fun, I used the WSJ's electoral calculator and checked who would win the presidency if Bloomberg ran and spoiled the Democratic candidate in New York while the Democrat won the twin prizes of Ohio and Florida. The result:

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|12.31.07 @ 2:33PM|#

"What's his message? I'm the zillionaire that built his company on government contracts?"

Actually that quote makes me like Rove.

|12.31.07 @ 2:34PM|#

failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, "I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent."

It's funny how all of a sudden everyone wants bipartisanship now that the Dems are poised to have control over the executive and legislative branches of government. Where were all these devotees to bipartisanship when the GOP and Bush were ramming their corrupt agenda right up America's asses???

I guess in the modern political landscape "bipartisan" seems to mean Dems are not to be allowed to control/set the Washington agenda

Guy Montag|12.31.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Obviously, derision is the proper response to the Bloomberg fantasy, but I confess I'm happy there's no bottom-up groundswell for Bloomberg the way there was for Ross Perot.

Let's not get personal here David. I apologise for offending you in the past.

Bingo|12.31.07 @ 2:42PM|#

No Child Left Behind, the PATRIOT Act, Prescription Drugs, McCain-Feingold... gotta love bi-partisanship!

Charlie|12.31.07 @ 2:44PM|#

"What's his message? I'm the zillionaire that built his company on government contracts?"
---

Well, it sure worked for Bush and Cheney...

|12.31.07 @ 2:47PM|#

Where were all these devotees to bipartisanship when the GOP and Bush were ramming their corrupt agenda right up America's asses???

Are you kidding? I've never noticed a shortage of bipartisanship bleating in the media, regardless of which side is in control.

|12.31.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Bring them all on!

This Revolution is happening and the establishment are shaking in their boots.

Liberty!
Peace!
Ron Paul!
America Back!

I rather like Hagel but it doesn't say much for him that he is so enthused by this Nanny state liberal.

|12.31.07 @ 2:50PM|#

Bloomberg points up one of the many * teensy * little flaws in the campaign-finance First Amendment violations: Us ordinary folks get severe limits on what kinds of free speech we can support via campaign contributions, while billionaires are free to dump huge amounts of campaign contributions into their own campaigns.

joe|12.31.07 @ 2:53PM|#

How does one formally embrace bipartisanship? Does it require a blood test?

Oh, yeah, and what ChiTom said. Look at that, the electoral situation favors the Democrats for President, and the national media is boosting a third-party run. Just like in 1992. And 1996. And 2000. And not 2004. And not 1988.

|12.31.07 @ 2:53PM|#

Are you kidding? I've never noticed a shortage of bipartisanship bleating in the media, regardless of which side is in control.

Are YOU kidding? I don't remember anyone in the media demanding Bush act in a more bipartisan manner. Only after the Dems took control of the house and Senate after the 2006 election did I hear about this necessary bipartisanship. There was even some speculation that Bush might actually be forced to act in a bipartisan manner and consult with the Democratic Congress to get things done (HA HA HA)

But I don't remember any major political scribes demanding that the GOP act in a bipartisan manner while they controlled the government.

So the main plank in Bloomberg's platform will be to end gridlock?
Hoo boy!
Can we wait!
(Yes we can wait.)

|12.31.07 @ 2:54PM|#

Hey guys:

Found a great quote...

Paul's young Iowa press coordinator put it, "Bush spends money like two drunk Democrats."

haha

R C Dean|12.31.07 @ 2:55PM|#

formally embrace bipartisanship

The utterance of this phrase instantly drains all credibility. I really don't care what else someone who blathers on like this has to say; they stand revealed as someone I can safely ignore.

Elemenope|12.31.07 @ 2:55PM|#

Joe, I tend to agree, though there wasn't much *boosting* going on in 1996. I think that election was just so boring that the media was looking for something to write about.

|12.31.07 @ 3:00PM|#

Not, Chicago Tom, I remember the national media calling for bipartisanship throughout the Bush years.

The Democrats should set aside partisanship and vote for the war. The Democrats should set aside partisanship and vote for Bush's wingnut judges. The Democrats should set aside partisanship and vote for war funding (work into a lather, rinse, repeat).

R C Dean,

How about if he embaces bipartisanship in a business-casual manner?

Heinrick|12.31.07 @ 3:03PM|#

I am still hoping for gridlock (and a spellcheck on this comment board).

Brandybuck|12.31.07 @ 3:04PM|#

We just haven't had enough of those in our political culture.

While Glenn often annoys me, I have to agree with him on this. Bloomberg in the role of "someone different" is as bizarre as Kerry in the role of "common man".

|12.31.07 @ 3:11PM|#

But I don't remember any major political scribes demanding that the GOP act in a bipartisan manner while they controlled the government.

Well, first, which political scribe is suddenly demanding that the Democrats act in a bipartisan manner? All I see is a quote from a former GOP Senator calling for it. You don't think there were plenty of Democrat politicians calling for bipartisanship when the GOP had control? I hardly think that counts as a sudden resurgence of bipartisanship whining just when the Democrats might have a shot at the White House.

It seems to me the more likely explanation is that you notice it more when it's aimed at Democrats. As someone who has, on average, fairly equal distaste for both sides (though at the moment certainly more disdain for the GOP) and who is scared of any call for bipartisanship, it seems pretty consistent to me.

Jesse Walker|12.31.07 @ 3:12PM|#

some kind of combination of those three: Bloomberg-Hagel, Bloomberg-Nunn

When Hagel and Nunn are supposed to be interchangeable, you know you've entered the Twilight Zone.

|12.31.07 @ 3:15PM|#

Bloomberg is my savior!!! According to some political analysts, he would take away from or cause Hillary to lose NY, CA, & MA. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

|12.31.07 @ 3:16PM|#

I wouldn't count on it, RJ.

I don't think Democrats are going to look for the next Ralph Nader eight years after Florida.

|12.31.07 @ 3:18PM|#

Perot didn't ever want to close the borders, he opposed a trade deal that didn't even pass yet based on reasons as a businessman himself, pressured to move abroad, understood--not trying to 'scrap' it--and wanted a combination of raising and lowering taxes in a way that would be pragmatic, like using health costs to help pay for health care, or gas costs to pay for alternative fuel and infrastructure; in a way that would alleviate debt problems by taking care of the costs. In response to Rove's question, Perot ended up, for a lot of people who believed in his candidacy, standing for fiscal responsibility, reforming government, and common sense. Despite what some would have you believe, people followed Perot because they agreed with his platform, not out of cultism.

And disagree with Perot and his supporters all you like, but I think its ludicrous that this juvenile unreasoned rant is on the page of a website titled "Reason".

I'm still wondering why an article that was really about Bloomberg required taking potshots at Perot, a man who is out of politics and hiding from news reporters because he got tired of people calling him "crazy" and blaming him for everything between conspiring with Clinton to purposely destroying third parties to be in the election to sell books. I think it must be an emotional problem.

Aside from that, it is accurate to say that while some people say Bloomberg being more mainstream than Perot is his plus, its also his minus.

Neu Mejican|12.31.07 @ 3:24PM|#

A Jew supports micromanaging our lives. BIG SURPRISE THERE! :)

|12.31.07 @ 3:26PM|#

(and a spellcheck on this comment board).

Firefox. Firefox. Firefox. Firefox.

And when you're done watching Clint Eastwood kick Russkie ass, you should download the Firefox browser and use its spell-check.

|12.31.07 @ 3:28PM|#

And disagree with Perot and his supporters all you like, but I think its ludicrous that this juvenile unreasoned rant is on the page of a website titled "Reason".

Drink!

|12.31.07 @ 3:30PM|#

I think its ludicrous that this juvenile unreasoned rant is on the page of a website titled "Reason".

Hey, just in time for New Year's Eve - drink!

VM|12.31.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Already there, Danger! Already there!

|12.31.07 @ 3:31PM|#

That and remember to hit "refresh" before posting a comment... :)

Neu Mejican|12.31.07 @ 3:31PM|#

I'm glad to have found chapters of David Duke's classic book online, here...
http://www.davidduke.com/general/my-awakening-table-of-contents_131.html

Did you know, for example, that 5 out of the top 6 leaders of the Russian Revolution were Jews? Please, read with an open mind before you comment.

joe|12.31.07 @ 3:32PM|#

That's not Neu Mejican.

Whatsamatter, chavez is a thug, did he kick your ass on some other thread?

gary|12.31.07 @ 3:36PM|#

South Dakota will NOT vote for the Republican, trust me. Unless, it's Ron Paul maybe..

So Actually the Democrats would win by 1 electoral vote.

|12.31.07 @ 3:41PM|#

The last presidential candidate who was widely at odds with the prevailing political opinions in his home state was Al Gore in 2000.

Why would we assume that Rudy Guiliani's annointed successor would win New York State?

"conspiring with Clinton"

I have an audio tape where Chrisopher Ruddy interviewed one of the Arkansas state troopers where the trooper stated that there were lots of phone calls at the Governor's mansion between Perot and Clinton before Perot entered the race. When Perot quit the race and Bush went ahead in the polls, the phone calls started up again and shortly thereafter Perot reentered the race. Enquiring minds want to know.

|12.31.07 @ 3:44PM|#

South Dakota will NOT vote for the Republican, trust me. Unless, it's Ron Paul maybe..

What makes you think that? SD hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since 1936.

Brandybuck|12.31.07 @ 3:44PM|#

Did you know, for example, that 5 out of the top 6 leaders of the Russian Revolution were Jews?

Did you know that 9 out of 10 leaders of the German Nazi Party were white aryan males? When we see a pattern we can no longer call it coincidence, so think about this other fact that 8 out of 9 leaders of the French Terror were also white caucasian males.

Izengabe|12.31.07 @ 3:45PM|#

As a New Yorker the idea of Bloomberg become President would be a nightmare.

I don't think New York City could handle even 3 months with Betsy Gotbaum (the City's Public Advocate) as Mayor.

Please Mr. Bloomberg stay in New York and do the job you were elected to do!

|12.31.07 @ 3:51PM|#

Seriously though ..the site must get a lot of people saying the name is a misnomer, and a lot of thats probably said in vain, by people who don't get the point. But if it gets to where you don't even have the pretense anymore, its not really different from websites on the left, and I don't know whether thats the point.

Rattlesnake, its common for candidates to contact each other, and when Perot quit, Clinton's polls rose higher than Bush's. Thats actually one of the biggest myths of the 1992 election, it was common wisdom among pollsters at that time (1992) that because Perot's leaving led Clinton's numbers to go up, that he took votes away from Clinton, not Bush. So Clinton didn't want Perot in the debates, but Bush insisted on it.

We do know (in 1996 it was reported in major newspapers on Page 82 or whatever) that people in Bushs campaign revealed they did try to convince Perot that they were going to play dirty tricks on him that would involve his family.

So if you want you can believe a lot of BS that makes it look like Clinton couldn't have won an election on his own, like a lot of idiots believe Bush couldn't have won an election on his own without vote tampering.

"It's funny how all of a sudden everyone wants bipartisanship now that the Dems are poised to have control over the executive and legislative branches of government. Where were all these devotees to bipartisanship when the GOP and Bush were ramming their corrupt agenda right up America's asses???"

Tom, for your information, Boren is a Democrat.

|12.31.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Well, first, which political scribe is suddenly demanding that the Democrats act in a bipartisan manner?

David Broder for one (and last I checked he is pretty influential in pundits's circles).
As is any journalist who has talked up the "Unity '08" as a much needed direction for this country.

Tom, for your information, Boren is a Democrat.

So is Nunn. So what? My point is that many/most of these people demanding bipartisanship now was not demanding bipartisanship during the Bush years. During those years, when the minority party was clearly locked out of the legislative process and the majority party did whatever the hell it wanted (to the point where Don Young even altered legislation AFTER it was voted on and moved out of the House-Senate reconciliation to be sent to the Pres.) NO ONE was attacking the partisanship of the GOP and demanding that the GOP act in a more bipartisan manner.

Now though, since the Dems are poised to take control of the Presidency while controlling both chambers of Congress, all this partisanship has suddenly become unfathomable and unacceptable. (Even to conservative Democrats)

Someone show me where these same people were troubled by partisanship from 2000 - 2006, and I will freely admit that I am wrong.

Neu Mejican|12.31.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Bradybuck,

The obvious difference is that whites were a majority in France and Germany, while Jews were a tiny minority in Russia. Why is 1917 called the "Russian Revolution"? If a group of internationalist Estonians overthrew the Mexican government would we call that a Mexican revolution?

|12.31.07 @ 4:21PM|#

The thing about Boren and Nunn in any case is that both of these Senators were strongly behind centrist politics before Republicans even got into Congress. Perot had a relationship with both Boren and Nunn, who both attended the UWSA conference. The Reform Party was politically poisonous, but Boren said he would accept a draft on the ticket. As Democrats , they were conservative Democrats, and were in office when it was the conservative Democrats that got elected.

But anyway on bipartisanship, part of the reason there are more calls for Democrats to be bipartisan are obvious, Republicans, when in power, maintained larger minorities, and they controlled all branches. When your power in Congress teeters on your ability to work with Republicans and keep them honest (as most voters would like Republicans if they were honest to their platform), then you better be bipartisan.

|12.31.07 @ 4:22PM|#

larger majorities i mean:/

SIV|12.31.07 @ 4:22PM|#

I don't think Democrats are going to look for the next Ralph Nader eight years after Florida.

It isn't Democrat voters you lose with Bloomberg, but independents who would have otherwise voted Democrat.

IIRC after Al Gore failed to steal the 2000 election the MSM was insisting Bush be bipartisan as he lost "the popular vote".

Neu Mejican|12.31.07 @ 4:23PM|#

Here is text from the book I linked to earlier. Ask yourself if its all a coincidence.

____

Here is a condensation of Dr. William L. Pierce's "Who Runs the Media" on the current state of American broadcasting.

Who Runs the Media?

by Dr. William L. Pierce

Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates of concentrated Jewish power.
The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney empire owns Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television, its own cable network with 14 million subscribers, and two video production companies.
As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth (also a Jew), includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies such as The Crying Game, Priests and Kids.
In addition to TV and movies, the corporation owns Disneyland, Disney World, Epcot Center, Tokyo Disneyland, and Euro Disney.
In August 1995 Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC Inc., to create a media empire with annual sales of $16.5 billion. Capital Cities/ABC owns the ABC Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.
ABC's cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and the Arts & Entertainment Network cable companies. ABC Radio Network owns 11 AM and ten FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates.
Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1994. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications (Women's Wear Daily), and the Diversified Publishing Group.
Time Warner Inc., is the second of the international media leviathans. The chairman of the board and CEO, Gerald M. Levin, is a Jew. Time Warner's subsidiary HBO is the country's largest pay-TV cable network.
Warner Music is by far the world's largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Stuart Hersh is president of Warnervision, Warner Music's video production unit. Goldberg and Hersch are both Jews.
Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a new genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.
In addition to cable and music, TimeWarner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio) and publishing. Time Warner's publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People Magazine, Fortune).
Levin will again be the number-one media magnate when the planned deal with Turner Broadcasting System is completed. When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was a panic in media boardrooms across the nation. To block Turner's bid CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a "friendly" takeover of the company, and from 1986 till 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network have been obstructed by Levin's Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals.
If TBS merges with Time Warner, Levin will become Turner's boss, and CNN, the only rival to the network news, will come under complete Jewish control.
Viacom Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), is the third largest megamedia corporation in the country, with revenues of over $10 billion a year. Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 12 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing.
Its publishing division includes Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster Video stores. It is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games.
Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989, MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. Redstone, who actually owns 76 percent of the shares of Viacom ($3 billion), offers Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and Europe. MTV pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71 countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.
Nickelodeon has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and also is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy that is MTV's trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV.
With the top three, and by far the largest, media conglomerates in the hands of Jews, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part.
What about the other big media companies?
Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chernin, who heads Murdoch's film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew.
Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew. Alan J. Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division.
Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as "the premiere independent TV program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew who also owns Revlon cosmetics.
The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big three.
Two other large production companies, MCA and Universal Pictures, are both owned by Seagram Company, Ltd. The president and CEO of Seagram, the liquor giant, is Edgar Bronfman, Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress.
It is well known that Jews have controlled the production and distribution of films since the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of this century. This is still the case today.
Films produced by just the five largest motion picture companies mentioned above - Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram) - accounted for 74 percent of the total box-office receipts for the year to date (August 1995).
As noted, ABC is part of Eisner's Disney Company, and the executive producers of ABC's news programs are all Jews: Victor S. Neufeld (20/20), Bob Reichbloom (Good Morning America), and Rick Kaplan (World News Tonight).
Westinghouse Electric Corporation recently purchased CBS. Nevertheless, the man appointed by Laurence Tisch, Eric Ober, remains president of CBS News, and Ober is a Jew.
At NBC, now owned by General Electric, NBC News president Andrew Lack is a Jew, as are executive producers Jeff Zucker (Today), Jeff Gralnick (NBC Nightly News), and Neal Shapiro (Dateline).1

The overwhelming Jewish control that Dr. Pierce writes about in television and movies is not a new phenomenon. It is not a short-term aberration in the entertainment and news industry. It has been prevalent for decades. Over time the names may change, but the heritage usually remains the same. If anything, the Jewish power in media continues to consolidate and grow. Jewish publications themselves often boast about their power for their own readers.

MCW|12.31.07 @ 4:27PM|#

Michael Bloomberg is a plutocratic, big-business boosting, wall-street loving, union-busting wingnut. I'm surprused libertarians aren't rushing out in the streets to support him!

|12.31.07 @ 4:28PM|#

"As Democrats , they were conservative Democrats, and were in office when it was the conservative Democrats that got elected."

Also, Boren is from what has now become a conservative Republican state, so he had to be conservative to get elected.

|12.31.07 @ 4:29PM|#

Theory: Don Black is stealing the names of commenters and trolling the threads of "the Jew Weigel."

|12.31.07 @ 4:32PM|#

Brandybuck|12.31.07 @ 4:34PM|#

Neu Mejican: There is a difference between reading racist rantings with an open mind, and reading racist rantings with a mind devoid of all substance.

|12.31.07 @ 4:34PM|#

"IIRC after Al Gore failed to steal the 2000 election the MSM was insisting Bush be bipartisan as he lost "the popular vote"."

On the other hand, the MSM had already fallen for his 'uniter not a divider' bullshit, and pretty much gave Bush head all the way from the primaries through, well, Katrina actually.

Gilbert Martin|12.31.07 @ 4:36PM|#

The only thing that "bipartisanship" means coming out of the mouths of the liberal journalists and political analysists is that everyone is supposed to agree to move in a leftward direction.

|12.31.07 @ 4:41PM|#

"On the other hand, the MSM had already fallen for his 'uniter not a divider' bullshit, and pretty much gave Bush head all the way from the primaries through, well, Katrina actually."

Jon, if you think the MSM is pro Bush, you must be living on another planet than me. (Excepting Fox ofcourse)

|12.31.07 @ 4:44PM|#

RJ,

He's talking about 2000-2001, when the media was absurdly pro-Bush and anti-Gore. Not 2007, but 2000.

The New Freaking Republic ran a banner editorial in 2000 about how we needn't worry about Bush's Supreme Court appointees overturning Roe vs. Wade, because Bush was such a responsible, centrist unificator, rather than one of those extremist divisinators.

|12.31.07 @ 4:46PM|#

"Michael Bloomberg is a plutocratic, big-business boosting, wall-street loving, union-busting wingnut. I'm surprused libertarians aren't rushing out in the streets to support him!"

Because he's also a statist. MCW, you still havn't figured our what libertarianism is. We are anti-statists, not plutocratic, big-business boosting, wall-street loving, union-busting wingnuts. We are opposed to right wing statists just as much as left wing statists.

|12.31.07 @ 4:48PM|#

When Bush got into office he did make a lot of moves to work with Democrats and they were surprised by how friendly he was with them. That all changed with Iraq. But at that point it was also equally the Democrats fault. As much as Republicans by default agreed with Bush 100% , Democrats by default disagreed with Bush 100%. I seriously think Clinton would have done the same thing if in the presidency, and the roles of support would just be reversed (like in Kosovo?)

|12.31.07 @ 4:50PM|#

"He's talking about 2000-2001, when the media was absurdly pro-Bush and anti-Gore. Not 2007, but 2000."

Joe, are you telling me that in 2000, people like Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Peter Jennings, Dan Brokaw, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, etc. were absurdly pro-Bush? Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming.

Brian,

You mean like promising Ted Kennedy he'd support fully funding NCLB in exchange for Democratic support for testing?

BTW, 42% of Congressional Democrats voted for the AUMF.

|12.31.07 @ 4:51PM|#

Dear dogs in heaven. Bloomberg has Nannyfied NYC. Times Square looks like an urban Disney Land. No smoking (when will he intrude upon private homes?). No transfat (where could I find a good piecrust in Manhattan?) I eagerly await a no drinking mandate.

New Yorkers sadly suffer Bloomberg, Spitzer and Clinton. Meanwhile the state continues to lose business and residents.

Where's a libertarian when you desperately need one? I absolutely do not understand NYC and NY state voters.

|12.31.07 @ 4:53PM|#

Yes, RJ, excepting perhaps Rather. They gave cowboy, man-of-the-people Bush the kid-gloves treatment, while repeating every anti-Gore talking point handed to them by the Bush campaign ad nauseum.

Did you know Al Gore said misidentified the FEMA bureaucrat he toured Texas with? I bet you did.

MCW|12.31.07 @ 4:55PM|#

The media has always been pro-Republican, or at least anti-Democrat. They are owned by the giganctic multinational corporations, thus making them support Corpratist Republicans.

|12.31.07 @ 4:57PM|#

joe,

Bush's proposals, like NCLB and private SS accounts pretty much were moves towards the center. I don't consider Bush less of a centrist than Clinton was. Ted Kennedy is not in the center, Bush was dealing with centrist Democrats and marginalizing both the left wing and right wing. Take the immigration issue, also.

That said Bush has some of the same problems as Clinton, including with foreign policy and trade (they pretty much agree--you can't tell a neo-conservative from a neo-liberal).

Anyway my point on the war, is thats when things started to splinter, war is much more of an issue that can divide the public than social security policies.

|12.31.07 @ 4:58PM|#

joe, why would the MSM who normally vote 80% Democratic, support Bush over Gore?

|12.31.07 @ 5:01PM|#

Historically, third parties have met with success when they have taken up an issue that neither of the major parties are adequately addressing, and which a large segment of the populace feels strongly about.

The most famous example is the Republican Party being founded to oppose slavery, when neither the Whigs nor the Democrats would do so. They eventually replaces the Whigs.

Perot was talking about budget deficits and opposition to NAFTA when neither of the parties had done anything about the former, and both candidates were supporting the latter.

What's Bloomberg/Unity 08's issue? Bipartisanship? Is there really a large body of voters out there angry that the Democrats aren't splitting the difference enough with the Republicans?

Why would we assume that Rudy Guiliani's annointed successor would win New York State?

I wonder how many New Yorkers would vote Bloomburg for president just to get him the hell out of town...

Gilbert Martin|12.31.07 @ 5:02PM|#

"are you telling me that in 2000, people like Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Peter Jennings, Dan Brokaw, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, etc. were absurdly pro-Bush? Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming."

LOL

Somebody is dreaming all right but it's not you. The vast majority of the MSM has never been anything other than absurdly pro-liberal democrat.

I've been reading a book called "Whitewash" that documents how the media has been in the tank for Hillary Clinton ever since her husband's first presidential campaign. People like Elanor Clift, Margaret Carleson, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Matt Lauer, Katic Couric, etc. have been such cheerleaders for her, they should have been waving pom-poms every time they opened their mouths about her.

|12.31.07 @ 5:02PM|#

Yes, it's plainly obvious the person posting under NM's handle is not NM. I haven't been reading H&R much so it's not obvious who has it out for him...

NM's one of the more thoughtful posters on this site. One think a parody of him would at least have had some similarity to his ideas. Lame...

|12.31.07 @ 5:05PM|#

"joe, why would the MSM who normally vote 80% Democratic, support Bush over Gore?"

I don't know about "support" but they might give Bush, or any GOPer kid gloves treatments since conservatives always cry and bitch about any negative coverage of their candidates by the "MSM." Playing the ref...
I don't think it's all that unusual for the press to be mostly Democrats, most of the knowledge class are...

|12.31.07 @ 5:06PM|#

David Broder for one (and last I checked he is pretty influential in pundits's circles).

Well, my question was which one started calling for bipartisanship with the recent rise of the Democrats political fortunes. Broder has been calling for bipartisanship since before there were political parties. I doubt many would ascribe his love of bipartisanship to any pro-GOP sentiments.

|12.31.07 @ 5:08PM|#

"We are anti-statists, not plutocratic, big-business boosting, wall-street loving, union-busting wingnuts."

Yeah MCW, the plutocratic, big business boosting, wall street loving, union busting you see in hardcore libertarianism is just an added bonus of being anti-statist!

|12.31.07 @ 5:09PM|#

I doubt many would ascribe his love of bipartisanship to any pro-GOP sentiments.

Then you should have no trouble digging up columns where he attacked the GOP and Bush for acting in such a partisan manner between 2000 - 2006.

|12.31.07 @ 5:11PM|#

Brian,

First, Bush dealt directly with Ted Kennedy on NCLB, having him to the White House on several occasions and trumpeting his ability to reach an agreement with him. There was a huge press campaign built around that "odd couple" in 2001, have you forgotten?

NCLB would have been a move toward the center, or at least towards a bipartisan accommodation, if Bush had actually followed through on his promises to provide the funding the Democrats wanted. But he didn't, he got the conservative elements and then ignored his half of the bargain. Have you forgotten that, too?

Social Security Privatization was NOT the center, unless you think Grover Norquist and the Reason Institute are the center. Social Security Privatization was immensely unpopular among moderates and liberals alike, which is why it died a humiliating death despite the best efforts of the Beltway press to mau-mau the Democrats into supporting it. Its "centrism" can be judged by the fact that it went down in flames, despite the entire Republican Noise Machine being cranked up to push for it (have you forgotten that nationwide tour Bush carried out?), and by the fact that introducing that proposal was the beginning of George Bush's favorability rating's long slide into the 20s.

The immigration issue is the lone example of Bush trying to take a genuinely bipartisan tack. I agree, he genuinely tried to work across the aisle.

As for the war, wars typically unite the populace to a very high degree, at least at the beginning. Remember Congress singing "God Bless America?" Remember Bush's 90% favorability ratings? Destroying that bipartisan unity took a great deal of deliberate effort from Karl Rove's political shop. Do you really think they scheduled the vote for September of an election year because they wanted to work in a bipartisan manner with the opposition?

And have you forgotten how they used the (sadly) non-controversial Department of Homeland Defense-creating bill to create a wartime wedge issue by saying people who wanted employees to have collective bargaining rights "care more about unions than the safety of the American people?"

You need to forget a lot to postulate a bipartisan George Bush administration.

|12.31.07 @ 5:13PM|#

If there's one thing I've learned, its that "the media" is always on the other side than the speaker. Right left, up down, it doesn't matter. The media is always on the other side. And you can always prove it too.

|12.31.07 @ 5:16PM|#

"joe, why would the MSM who normally vote 80% Democratic, support Bush over Gore?"

I think Irving Kristol lays out the "working the ref" strategy very well.

They go out of their way to be "fair" to the conservative because they are terrified of being accused of "bias" by people who make their living ad Republican activists hurling charges of bias against the media.

|12.31.07 @ 5:20PM|#

joe,

I don't think Bush's moves towards the center were always successful, but neither were Clintons. Eventually Clinton had to cave in to Republicans and Bush has had to cave in to Democrats. They've more been attempts to define the center in terms of liberalism or conservativism than really true centrist politics. But like I said, I don't believe Bush was less of a centrist than Clinton was. The point was to define a pragmatic platform. (And I believe both were corrupt, flawed politicians that divided people in the end)

The social security plan wasn't about fully privatization either, but allowing for private accounts within a public system, which is a move towards the center compared to what a lot of people on the right want. So i think its honest to say that he was at least looking to create something that appeared centrist

|12.31.07 @ 5:26PM|#

Atrios is never shy about pointing out that the golden age of bipartisanship the Broders are always pining for was the 70s, when a bipartisan majority could be put together among Dixiecrats (who were still present in sizable numbers) and Southern Strategy Republicans.

joe, yes but it seems Broder (and/or others) has also pointed to the decline of the liberal northern Republican as well as the conservative southern Democrat, as being partially to "blame" for what they see as less bipartisanship.

|12.31.07 @ 5:31PM|#

joe,

btw I think your comment on the media bias is misleading. News programs would often 'work the ref' by say on some social issue calling up some hard-core religious person like Falwell to speak for the conservative side, where you could have had a more intelligent and less pungent person speak on those issues that Republican voters actually liked. Falwell had very little support.

The liberals who are in the media 'work the ref' by doing what they think is fair, by their own representations of the other side. So when they put up someone like Falwell to debate against a moderate Democrat, they would say "what we're being fair, its an accurate representation of conservative arguments".

Or when they covered the Lewinsky scandal every day, out of fairness, then drove home the point with commentators that Ken Starr was a maniacal conservative who was ruining America, as the moral of the story. (With breaks, asking people to vote in TV polls "is the media covering this story too much?")

since Fox News its true the news media has changed, not necessarily overall more biased towards the right either.

And as someone who has worked with third parties, they're a lot more biased against third parties than either against Democrats or Republicans.

|12.31.07 @ 5:37PM|#

Uh, yeah, covering the Lewinsky scandal every single day on the news sure does show anti-Republican bias. Every single day,

If Jerry Falwell - who very rarely appears on TV - is so outside of mainstream conservative opinion, what was with all of those White House visits in the 80s?

BTW, here's what "working the ref" really means:

Rich Bond: "There is some strategy to it. I'm a coach
of kids' basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any
great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.'" Working
"the ref" means to raise a stink about every adverse call the
referee makes so that "Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on
the next one."

William Kristol: "I admit it. The liberal media
were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as
an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

Patrick Buchanan: "I've gotten balanced
coverage, and broad coverage-all we could have asked. For
heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every
Republican on earth does that."

|12.31.07 @ 5:39PM|#

The people who make the charges admit it's a scam, Brian, to manipulate people.

Why anyone continues to believe them is beyond me.

|12.31.07 @ 5:47PM|#

joe,

You're missing my point. They had to cover the Lewinsky scandal because that was a story, there were threats of impeachment, plus it was sensationalist and they could milk it for ratings. But the gist of the news coverage was always that Ken Starr and the Republican congress were the villains, not Clinton. The media also did not shy from making it an issue about sex over other things.

So to me its not so much an issue of blaming the liberal media for coverage of Lewinsky--there were a lot of media-related reasons for how they covered it and why.

But when its brought up as an issue of how the media is not biased, its complete BS.

In any case, the media bias tends to be pro-institution, and people like William Kristol and Bob Novak get plenty of time on shows like Crossfire. They also can be pro war and pro business when the right issues are at stake.

But a lot of times this institutional bias against Republicans. btw, If someone wants to make an argument based on the fact the news media is owned by corporations, they have to realize businessmen are not necessarily conservative on everything, they support a lot of liberal social policies (to cater to a diverse market) and a lot of government programs that insure their workforce. In fact if you wanted to find a politician who is closest in political views to most CEOs , you end up with Bill Clinton.

I'm not even speaking as a Republican, I supported Perot, and then Nader.

But maybe my view that Bush isn't this far right antichrist who caused all of the political divide in America makes me look right-wing to some people.

|12.31.07 @ 5:55PM|#

They New York Times - allegedly ground zero of the liberal media conspiracy - ran editorial after editorial and "news analysis" after "news analysis" about that story, Brian. They didn't just "cover it," they devoted ridiculous amounts of space to it. It became a story, because the media made it a story.

but the gist of the news coverage was always that Ken Starr and the Republican congress were the villains, not Clinton. I lived in this country in the later 1990s, I watched the news, don't give me that crap.

In any case, the media bias tends to be pro-institution I agree with this part. That's a good way to put it. The national media consider themselves part of an elevation society that includes the heads of business, high government officials - The Powers That Be, as it were - and they are very biased towards the people they drink cocktails with in Georgetown.

|12.31.07 @ 5:57PM|#

Brian,

The coverage of Mike Huckabee's gaffe is a good example of what you're saying.

Imagine how that story would be covered if it John McCain at that media event.

Gilbert Martin|12.31.07 @ 5:58PM|#

"But the gist of the news coverage was always that Ken Starr and the Republican congress were the villains, not Clinton."

That has always been the gist when it came to the press covering any scandal or anything embarrasing about Bill OR Hillary. The media carried the water for the Clinton's and the spin was always about diverting attention by questioning the credibility or motivations of those making the claim agains the Clintons and not any serious investigation or skepitcism about whatever the Clintons did or had to say about what they did.

Hillary got a complete pass from the media about the White House Travel Office affair. She was the one who initiated the firing of Billy Dale and trumping up false embezzlement charges against him as a pretext for doing it so she could get Clinton cronies in to take over the place. She then lied under oath about her involvement in it. The press wasn't the least bit interested in holding her to account for that.

Rhywun|12.31.07 @ 6:03PM|#

I absolutely do not understand NYC and NY state voters.

All it takes to win is 51%. It's not like these guys are winning with landslides. There hasn't been a mayoral landslide since Koch in 1985. As for the governors, well, after 12 years of Pataki the Democrats could have put up Al Sharpton and won.

|12.31.07 @ 6:06PM|#

Of course papers like the New York Times will trash conspiracy theories, whether they have a liberal bias or not, because even if they are liberal they're not far left. And it would make sense for a liberal politician to attack conspiracy theorists just as much, in order to gain credibility and keep the debate on winnable grounds. IF you have a Democratic politician, his advisor will tell him to disown conspiracy theories. In any case, The New York Times isn't run by a bunch of radicals who would actually treat conspiracy theories fairly. I'm not sure why their coverage is an issue.

I'm telling you what I saw in the media reporting of Lewinsky anyway. That was what I saw as pretty much the gist of the coverage. It was the Lewinsky scandal btw I think which ended being a mechanism for starting to polarize the country. Which was driven by sensationalism more than anything else.

I think how the media talks about things is shaped by a lot of educated ways of thinking about the world and framing the debate. I think they mostly intend to be fair, but have a certain way of thinking and talking about things and debating them. But a lot of that has also been shaped around really the fact that for decades a large liberal presence in policy making and intellectual discussion.

It was only in the 80s and moreso in the 90s did conservatives gain ground this arena, and mostly on the economic side and not on the social side. Conservatives are still trying to vet their arguments and make inroads. And talk radio, Fox News, and conservative magazines are part of that process.

|12.31.07 @ 6:17PM|#

joe, sorry i misunderstood what you were talking about first. excuse me if i make those types of mistakes anywhere because im tired.

but on the other things i think im right, and intellectual discussion has had been connected to the left for a while, since the beginning of the 20th century maybe, and conservatives are just beginning to make inroads

|12.31.07 @ 6:19PM|#

I meant what you were talking about with the New York Times article. I misread what you were saying.

Anyway I do think they have some liberal bias but they also have a lot of great reporters that are fair, I like the NY Times better than most papers, and conservatives who whine about it I think are dumb

|12.31.07 @ 6:23PM|#

Don't two parties have to exist to make bipartisanship a meaningful issue? We've got the Statists, and the Other Statists.

|12.31.07 @ 6:36PM|#

Brian,

I think you misunderstimate the efficacy of the effort, begun by people like Paul Weyrich in the early 70s, to create a "counter-intelligensia."

I look at how the media treated the administration's claims, and those of its opponents, in the runup to the Iraq War and for the first year or so, and I have a great deal of trouble believing that liberals dominate our political discourse.

|12.31.07 @ 6:45PM|#

To anyone who thinks the press is objectively pro-Democrat, consider the press coverage during the week of Petraeus' congressional testimony. It was being framed as a gigantic challenge to the Democrats because Petraeus was so awesome and the war was going to become popular again. And they didn't even bother waiting for his testimony before they started writing those stories.

Maybe they just like power?

Mad Max|12.31.07 @ 6:46PM|#

Is it too late to make fun of the NORML ad on the top of the thread?

"Mike Bloomberg is a pot user. This message was brought to you by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America."

|12.31.07 @ 6:53PM|#

Chicom Tom-

Where were all these devotees to bipartisanship when the GOP and Bush were ramming their corrupt agenda right up America's asses???

Where was the FUCKING "Left"? (See the vote on the "Patriot Act"...)

The "Left" has had a "perfect storm" for the last four years... ("Mission Accomplished", MediScare drugs, NCLB, FEMA, "housing bust", FISA, immigration, health care-- even "charter schools suck!"... )

Vote Dem in 2008- we 'promise' that we'll grow grow some balls!

|12.31.07 @ 6:57PM|#

we 'promise' that we'll grow grow some balls!

I meant to do that!

Cuz the Dems need an exponetial growth rate on their 'testicular fortitude'...

|1.1.08 @ 4:01AM|#

asdf is on the right track: where was the Left when the bipartisans were cramming expensive and dangerous mercury-filled light bulbs down the throats of the American poor?

Where was the Right's outcry on the same issue?

All I see is Statist Party A and Statist Party B.

Also, I think Brian resolved the media issue: the MSM is resolutely pro-government, regardless of who is in charge. You have to ask yourself why big stories like little old ladies getting shot in their beds and innocent men on death row have to be investigated by Radley Balko, instead of being in the headlines day after day.

The MSM is fundamentally lazy and moderate, kind of like the Government. No wonder the two get along so well.

|1.1.08 @ 4:07AM|#

ooo, I also wonder when the MSM is going to get around to noticing that so-called "flyover country" is not only getting huge in population, but more blue as well.

What pithy name will we come up with for combined Blue Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota? We have the Left Coast for the West Coast...what should we call the North Coast?

|1.1.08 @ 4:16AM|#

apologies for the triple post, but this link shows the media's willingness to spin any little onerous diktat into something good.

Pathetic; just look at how USN&WR is willing to defend this crap.

Bleh!

ed|1.1.08 @ 7:30AM|#

Having a businessman for President is worse than having a politician...why again?

Guy Montag|1.1.08 @ 9:20AM|#

99th post!

Neu Mejican (authentico)|1.1.08 @ 6:39PM|#

Brandybuck...

I have not posted on this thread.
That was Grand Chalupa.
He has decided that posting his racist rantings under my name is appropriate revenge for calling him Grande Cabron for most of 2007.

Oh well.

joe,
Thanks for noticing.

Neu Mejican (Authentico)|1.1.08 @ 6:48PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,

I see you noticed the imposter as well...

It is Grande Cabron (aka Grande C., the Big Taco, Grand Chalupa...)

He tipped his hat with his David Duke reference.

Grand Cabron|1.1.08 @ 6:53PM|#

You're absolutley right, you have caught me, I am also secretley a homosexual who lusts after what I believe is the negro penis

Neu Mejican (authentico)|1.1.08 @ 6:59PM|#

Grand Cabron,

The obvious difference is that whites were a majority in France and Germany, while Jews were a tiny minority in Russia. Why is 1917 called the "Russian Revolution"? If a group of internationalist Estonians overthrew the Mexican government would we call that a Mexican revolution?

Yes, since it was a revolution that took place in Mexico.

Did you know, for example, that 5 out of the top 6 leaders of the Russian Revolution were Jews? Please, read with an open mind before you comment.

You follow this interesting factoid up with a list of successful Jewish capitalists.

I want to get your accusations straight...are Jews a threat because of their socialist ways, or because of their capitalist ways? Are they trying to take over out media with capitalist techniques so that they can later use the media to start a socialist revolution that will result in a communist government run by formerly successful capitalist media barons?

Truly strange paranoia has developed.
Is it the Colorado altitude that causes the difficulty with straight thinking?

B|1.1.08 @ 7:45PM|#

"Clearly, this is just exactly what our country desperately needs, what it is missing most -- a neoconservative, combat-avoiding, Bush-supporting, Middle-East-warmonger who sees U.S. and Israeli interests as indistinguishable and inextricably linked, with a fetish for ever-increasing government control and surveillance, and a background as a Wall St. billionaire. We just haven't had enough of those in our political culture. Our political system, more than anything, is missing the influence of people like that. That's why it's broken: not enough of those."

Bloomberg, a neoconservative? Hahahahahahaha, this is the most retardedly fucking stupid thing I have read all day. And I wonder if this douchebag was writing the same things about Bill Clinton concering his avoidance of service of Vietnam; the man made draft-dodging into an artform.

Joe is so fucking dumb, he is |1.1.08 @ 7:59PM|#

"But when its brought up as an issue of how the media is not biased, its complete BS"

Only an idiot like joe could seriously claim there is not a liberal bias in the major media. How many surveys have to come out showing that 90% of the major media considers themselves liberal or that the huge majority of political donations go to the Democratic party ( I guess joe's memory is so bad he doesn't remember this story when it came out on MSNBC only a few months back)or that the huge majority of those involved in the major media (ie print and television journalism)supported John Kerry or voted for Democratic congressional candidates before some people finally admit liberal bias is persavive in the mainstream media? Arguing that there is no real liberal media bias is roughly equivalent to claiming there is no liberal bias in the humanities departments of American public universities.
There is not a dearth of evidence to support the claim of liberal media bias; the amount of evidence is vast and overwhelming. To claim otherwise shows, once again, that joe is a total fucking idiot, and debating him is the intellectual equivalent of debating a class of preschoolers.

authentico|1.1.08 @ 8:13PM|#

Hmm...

There may be other David Duke fans posting at H&R...

Kevin Alfred Strom|1.1.08 @ 9:39PM|#

Hmm...

There may be other David Duke fans posting at H&R...

Did you know that as recenrley as the 1930s all anthropologists accepted the differences in the races as much as they accepted different species and subscies of every other animal?

By the late 1990s, Jewish writers began to brazenly write about their domination of American anthropology. In a 1997 edition of American Anthropologist, which is published by the American Anthropological Association, Jewish scholar Gelya Frank writes that egalitarian American anthropology was so thoroughly Jewish that it should be classed as "part of Jewish History." Frank goes on to admit that anthropology is in the service of a social agenda and that her essay focuses on Jewish anthropologists who are "concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism." The same breed of anthropologists who so fervently declare that "there is no such thing as race" concerning Blacks and Whites are now hypocritically affirming the unique genetic homogeneity of Jews. Moreover, increasing numbers of Jewish anthropologists have come out of the closet in celebration of their special genetic and cultural heritage.

http://martinlutherking.org/ma-chapter18.html

Neu Mejican (authentico)|1.1.08 @ 10:24PM|#

Did you know that as recenrley as the 1930s all anthropologists accepted the differences in the races as much as they accepted different species and subscies of every other animal?

Do you know of any major scientific discoveries since the 1930's that may have changed the basic understanding of species?

http://library.thinkquest.org/20830/Textbook/HistoryofDNAResearch.htm
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html

Neu Mejican (authentico)|1.1.08 @ 10:27PM|#

Hey Kevin,

I like your photo on wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom

Creeeeeppppppyyyyy

Walter|1.2.08 @ 9:17AM|#

10 year olds, dude.

|1.2.08 @ 11:38AM|#

When liberals discuss bias in the media, they talk about what appears in the media.

When conservatives talk about it, they talk about on-air personalities' political preferences.

I don't know what my dentist's partisan preferences are. When I judge him as a dentist, however, I think about what he did to my teeth.

|1.2.08 @ 12:36PM|#

hahah Walter, nice one.

What is up with Nazis link to sexual deviancy?

Of the top of my head the guess would be that they feel inferior to the norm because of their sexual feelings, and rather than confront this fact, they seek to find a way to classify other groups of people as irredeemably inferior to themselves.

|1.2.08 @ 12:44PM|#

Joe,

Your right of course. The media has no left wing bias, it is our imagination.

The fact that some of the more prominent ones were in democrat administrations, or were speachwriters of left wing presidents affects nothing.

The fact that they vote 80 to the left of the public at large shows that they are more intelligent than the rest of us and that they know what is best for us, not that they have any bias at all.

Michael Bloomberg for Presiden|1.9.08 @ 6:57PM|#

A site that may interest you is:

http://www.RunMikeRun.com

It is informational, and contains statements by politicians from both parties, notable business leaders and others regarding a possible third-party run by Mike Bloomberg. It also contains some videos of interviews and others of Mike speaking on issues.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements