Rush Is Right About Liberal Arrogance

vanity ^ | 9/15/06 | conservatism_IS_compassion

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is my suggestion to Rush Limbaugh on critiqueing the arrogance of liberalism:

Your 9/14/06 rant about liberal "arrogance" was of course dead on . . BUT.

Why can they be SO VERY arrogant? How can they get away with it? The DriveBy Media is "their willing accomplices," of course..But WHY?

Remember, Friedman pointed out a year or so ago that the media don't follow liberals but rather, LIBERALS FOLLOW THE MEDIA. Specifically, "objective" journalism - the DriveBy Media..

The DriveBy Media constitute an entity because although they are many organs - CBS, ABS, NBS, NYTimes BS, etc - it doesn't matter which one we see because they all say the same thing - as you have often said. BUT WHY?

ONE PARTICULAR BIAS THEY ALL SHARE. The DrivBy Media LUST after attention and respect. If they are listened to all over the country they can be more important than anything else.(in thier own minds at least). That's a self-fulfilling prophesy; if they are important they will be listened to, and if they are listened to they will be important.

THE PRESUMPTION THEY ALL SHARE IS THAT THEY ALL ARE IMPORTANT. But if THEY are to be important as mere talkers, the people in flyover country who make the country work - oil companies, Walmart, MacDonalds, Coca Cola, AND even POLICE AND THE MILITARY - are THE COMPETITION for importance (and for that matter YOU are, too).

The DriveBy Media is united in hostility and contempt for Flyowver Country because UNITED THEY STAND in competition with the people who actually DO things. It is the DriveBy Media and not liberal politicians who have motive and opportunity to trash everyone ELSE but the DriveBy Media and their sy! cophants.

DriveBy Media award their sycophants good PR, includi ng labels like "progressive" and "moderate" and (until they ran the word into the ground) "liberal." DriveBy Media assign only THEMSELVES the label "objective" - but then, any "liberal" can get a job in journalism and suddenly become "objective." A conservative, OTOH, can never do that.

That explains socialism - it is only second guessing of the people who DO things. And that is why Bill Clinton was such a quintessential liberal politician. He is wonderful at deflecting blame and second guessing others. But as president - as chief executive - he was a disaster BECAUSE HE COULDN'T TAKE RISK. Liberalism is all about stabbing those who take risk in the back, and all he knew how to do was to protect his own back. And leading - actually DOING instead of talking - exposes your back.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

So long as we and our spokesmen only rail about how journalists are "willing accomplices" to liberal politicians, we are missing the point.

Journalism - its arrogance and its demand to be taken seriously as the important thing in politics - is the driving force behind liberalism. It is the liberal politicians who are the "willing accomplices" to the DriveBy Media.

[piytar]

Never looked at it that way. There is a lot of truth and substance in what you are saying...

[griswold3]

narcassistic personnality disorder

[Froufrou]

Either way you choose to put it, they're despicable. Problem is, they don't even know it. Either that, or they're so hellbent on getting into office they simply don't care!

[syriacus]

Interesting take.

[MOgirl]

Hello,

Excellent point, thanks!

Glad to be here, MOgirl

[OKSooner]

That would be "narcisstic personality disorder".

[lormand]

"narcassistic personnality disorder"

Translation: Confidence

[CAWats]

I was just gonna say that but you beat me to it. OK, I wasn't. Excellent perspective.

[polymuser]

Basically, they haven't grown past the "LOOK AT ME!" stage, typically around thirteen.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Never looked at it that way. There is a lot of truth and substance in what you are saying...

Thanks, piytar.

Rush has pointed out that if he didn't have his call screener filter them, "bias in the media" calls would so predominate his program that the program would become predictable and boring. The subject is usually the lens through which I critique threads on FR.

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

That means that We are all more or less gullible; it is hard to be cautious enough when listening to tales about how people are looking out for your interest. So it's just plain silly to accept the teaching from high school that journalism is objective. Journalism says that journalism is objective. Wow! Isn't that wonderful of them! </sarcasm>

. . . and just when we hoped that we were being cautious enough, we read,

Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin

and we realize that we have to look even harder.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Ping.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Common Tator]

Have you ever heard of a sportscaster who dislikes baseball, basketball, football and golf? Can you imagine someone saying .. "I don't care much for sports... Therefore I am going to become a sports writer."

Doesn't happen ... does it?

What about a journalists? Can you imagine a someone who thinks govenrment is too large, has too many employees, and thinks govermnent is best that governs least, saying, "I don't care much about government... Therefore I am going to become a Journalist."

Not very damned likely is it.

Jeff Christee was a disk jockey when the disk jockey businees went to hell. So he became a talk show host. He did not set out to be a journalist.

But nearly every person who set out to be a journalist is a government fan... Just like Sportscasters are sports fans.

[Landru]

"Your 9/14/06 rant about liberal "arrogance" was of course dead on . . BUT. Why can they be SO VERY arrogant?"

Because they can, they do.

"How can they get away with it?"

Because they can, they do.
(i'm repeating myself, huh)

"The DriveBy Media is "their willing accomplices," of course..But WHY?"

According to their track record the question isn't "why", it's "why not".
Again, judging only by their behavior.

The "media" isn't anything, per se.
It's what those who compose it are and here in the United States that just so happens to be Liberal-Socialist.
And yes, the "No Conservatives Allowed" sign's out since it's a kind of *club*, so that's what the Republic gets.
So hows about ol' Rush use some of his quarter-billion to help change that little fact of life?
Questions, so many questions.

"Remember, Friedman pointed out a year or so ago that the media don't follow liberals but rather, LIBERALS FOLLOW THE MEDIA. Specifically, "objective" journalism - the DriveBy Media. The DriveBy Media constitute an entity because although they are many organs - CBS, ABS, NBS, NYTimes BS, etc - it doesn't matter which one we see because they all say the same thing - as you have often said. BUT WHY?"

They all say the same thing because they're all Liberal-Socialists. >doink!< {g}
What would any rational person expect to hear/see from [a] Liberal-Socialists?

"ONE PARTICULAR BIAS THEY ALL SHARE. The DrivBy Media LUST after attention and respect."

I disagree.
Whores couldn't care less about attaining "respect" from the "John", they want to be *paid*.

America's brand of Liberal-Socialist lusts after *power*, and power in the USA translates to money.
I know, I know Liberal-Socialists don't give a whit about money & certainly not their money. {g}
Right? { / sarc ~for those in Rio Linda}

"If they are listened to all over the country they can be more important than anything else.(in their own minds at least). That's a self-fulfilling prophesy; if they are important they will be listened to, and if they are listened to they will be important."

And therein lies the paradox, doesn't it.
It wouldn't matter what the Liberal-Socialists say IF "conservatives" didn't listen to 'em.
Would it?

As long as you've the lovable fuzzball's ear, perhaps you could ask him something I've wondered about for some time, now.
IF it weren't for Rush Limbaugh reading aloud on his nationally syndicated radio show reaching upwards of 20 million listeners the musings of Liberal-Socialist moon-bats -- be it a NYSlimes, SeeBS, whatever product -- would most of us ["conservatives"] ever know who they are, never mind care about what they had to say?
I don't think so.
Rush's listeners would be better served hearing what conservative pundits have to say.
And that's how it should be, don'tcha think?
I mean if the whole of the quisling media's controlled by Liberal-Socialists, which it most certainly is? ;^)

"Liberalism is all about stabbing those who take risk in the back..."

...period.

[Peter Libra]

Arrogance

Using my 1968 Websters New World Dictionary. The state of being arrogant ie.

full of or due to unwarranted pride and self importance;overbearing: haughty

I saw on NewsMax, "this just in".(laughs) The New York Times has advised that the Pope apologise for his recent remarks. Arrogant is one of the kinder epithets for the New York Times. Happily they must create the odd conservative or two after every edition. That is if any of their readers THINK for themselves.

[G Larry]

Lib's believe that any problem can be explianed on a bumper sticker and any solution fits on a bumper sticker.

They are not equipped to participate in detailed discussions that don't devolve into name calling.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Can you imagine someone saying .. "I don't care much for sports... Therefore I am going to become a sports writer."

Doesn't happen ... does it?

What about a journalists? Can you imagine a someone who thinks government is too large, has too many employees, and thinks govermnent is best that governs least, saying, "I don't care much about government... Therefore I am going to become a Journalist."

I give sportswriters a little more credit. Ronald Reagan was a sportscaster, for Pete's sake! And I think that sportswriters at least try to compete in athletics at least at the high school level before settling in to the niche of sports commentator.

My point about journalists is that the typical journalist never even tries to produce goods or services before going into journalism. And that going into journalism is going into the criticism business. Journalism promotes itself by tearing down those who do.

It's like the old "Them as can, does. Them as can't, teaches." Only worse, in that "Them as criticizes" - journalists - never even tried to learn the oil business (or the paint business or the hamburger business or the low-cost retailing business or the military business) before presuming to know what a gallon of gasoline is "worth."

You say that journalists love government, and that is the origin of their "liberalism." I point out the anomaly that where government's rubber meets the road, government finally is police and the military - yet journalists hold both in contempt. Journalists are just as hard on a general as they are on a businessman. As far as journalism is concerned, police and military people are either ineffective or they are brutal - and like as not, both things at once.

No, I think my analysis works better. Journalists love themselves and their own sense of their own importance. That doesn't cause them to love the government - hundreds of billions spent in Iraq is loads of government - it makes journalists want to denigrate all of society. Government not excluded - certainly when a conservative is in office.

But the reason that journalists are eager to promote "liberals" is quite simple - liberals criticize everyone that journalists criticize. Quite simply, liberals toady up to journalists. And are rewarded with favorable labeling and favorable PR.

Liberals decide that nothing matters except PR, and act accordingly. Notice that some of the biggest liberals going are wealthy people - particularly old money wealthy. They don't have to be practical people because they can afford to buy off their mistakes. They are used to being able to step on your toe without consequence as long as they have "objective journalism" on their side. And they pay the money and the obsequiousness required to assure that.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Lib's believe that any problem can be explianed on a bumper sticker and any solution fits on a bumper sticker.

Ronald Reagan used to say that it wasn't true that there were no simple answers. The answers may be simple (any problem, when solved, is simple). The answer just may not be easy.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It wouldn't matter what the Liberal-Socialists say IF "conservatives" didn't listen to 'em. Would it?

The trouble is that

It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Way too many credulous people out there are voters. Not as many, fortunately, as are legally qualified to vote.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Jeff Christee was a disk jockey when the disk jockey businees went to hell. So he became a talk show host. He did not set out to be a journalist.

True. But then, Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist.

Understand, he is legally qualified to be a journalist, and he reports to us daily - so if you wish to you could easily argue the point. And time was when I would have, but no more. I would rather have the word "journalist" as a target of derision and scorn, than to lump Rush in with them.

The difference is that "journalism" claims to be objective. Which is claiming a virtue, much as claiming to be wise is claiming to be virtuous. And if you argue from the assumption that you are wiser or more objective than mere mortals who are debating you, you are a sophist. And all mock-heroic bluster aside, Rush argues facts and logic rather than presumption. So unlike the journalist, Rush is a philosopher - a lover of wisdom - rather than a sophist who pretends to have wisdom.

[Landru]

>It wouldn't matter what the Liberal-Socialists say IF "conservatives" didn't listen to 'em. Would it?
"The trouble is that"

Indeed it 'tis, my friend.
Going back to what I said about Limbaugh reading [the] slime that dare I say, precious few might ever hear about, otherwise?
LOOK at who sponsors these Liberal-Socialist wannabe scribes, it's always the same old same old: NY*&*LA Slimes, the Compost piles et al, the alphabets & shake & bakes, and virtually all feature the "work" of the Associated Quislings, R(G)oiters & a few other news "machines".
Correct?

I've always said let the free market take care of the anti-American Liberal-Socialist crap. If you're in-tune (& I believe you are) you know as we speak the free market's doing exactly that.
All the quisling media's going down, slowly in some place & quickly in others.
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when they're all gone.

When the day comes it'll be because of the arrogance -- as you've asserted -- made them blind and corrupt to the very people paying their daily salt, who they aspired to *serve*.
Of this I am absolutely positive; although, they won't understand the seeds of their destruction, perceive the source. But until then they sure as hell aren't going under without a titanic struggle, an apocalyptic fight whereby they'll take the entire damned Republic down with 'em if they can, if we *let* 'em.
Of this I am absolutely certain.

Do either of us care *what* they do as they drown?
No, we have to by now KNOW what they're going to do.
We care not they drown, just as long as they drown.

"It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Wise ol' Adam Smith.
He knew inasmuch as wisdom *could* set one free, ignorance destroys.
Patience then is the order of the day as human nature will take care of everything else.

"Way too many credulous people out there are voters. Not as many, fortunately, as are legally qualified to vote."

I only look at the tallies following an election my friend, and over the past couple decades I've noticed a *pattern*.
Same pattern has resulted in the same outcome every year, year-in & year-out.
The pattern is the loudmouthed Liberal-Socialist dopes & stooges of which you allude, the "credulous people"?
Not nearly enough of 'em show-up on election day, if a'tall, to carry the day.
Don't know "why" just know that's what's consistently happened.
Lucky us, huh? :o)

As for the Liberal-Socialist dominated quisling media (& academia for that matter)?
I nor anyone else need do a thing more or different than what they've already done.
That's the sweetest part of it all, my friend. They're dieing by their own hand, sealed their own demise.

It cannot be stopped, not now.
In the simplest terms?

...it's too late. ;^)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

As for the Liberal-Socialist dominated quisling media (& academia for that matter)? I nor anyone else need do a thing more or different than what they've already done. That's the sweetest part of it all, my friend. They're dieing by their own hand, sealed their own demise.

It cannot be stopped, not now. In the simplest terms?

...it's too late. ;^)

Well, I don't exactly know . . .

But something tells me that journalism cannot just go away. There is always going to be the siren song of people offering to tell us all "what is going on" and then instead of objectivity giving us leftist spin as a way of grabbing attention.

I can see newspapers losing all market share to broadcasting, but I can't see all journalism vanishing.

Thing is, I can show (to my own satisfaction (and that of a few others) that it is precisely broadcast journalism which should go. Because broadcasting requires the justification of the public interest in order to rationalize the unconstitutional censorship which is the sine qua non of broadcasting - and that justification simply does not exist apart from tendentious, outright fraudulent, claims of objectivity. And because the Constitution was designed to be able to operate without broadcast journalism - and did so, from 1788 into the 20^th century.

But if print and broadcast journalism both went away, the niche could only be filled by internet journalism - including but not limited to FR.

[PGalt]

BTTT!

[ForGod'sSake]

Why can they be SO VERY arrogant?

I would submit it's a defense mechanism to shore up their own lack of self respect. Bluff and bluster followed by angry outbursts if necessary will generally carry the day. They will never be called to account for their actions by their comrades who also understand the game.

Remember, Friedman pointed out a year or so ago that the media don't follow liberals but rather, LIBERALS FOLLOW THE MEDIA. Specifically, "objective" journalism - the DriveBy Media..

Friedman is a little slow on the uptake. I've been saying it for years. "If it plays good in Peoria..."

Also, have you ever noticed what happens on those rare occasions when one of the "journalists" breaks from the pack to ask a bona fide question of a Dim? The hostility from the Dim is palpable. The "journalist" is quickly read the riot act and I'm sure afterwards the "journalist's" editor gets a call from the Dim's administrative assistant regarding said "journalists" manners. The incident is never made into an issue as it would have been if a Pubbie had become defensive. In any case, the journalist pool never ever does a follow up on the question..........ever!

The DriveBy Media constitute an entity because although they are many organs - CBS, ABS, NBS, NYTimes BS, etc - it doesn't matter which one we see because they all say the same thing - as you have often said. BUT WHY?

Well, the way I see it, once a journalist has made it to the beltway, or most state capitols for that matter, he/she is a known quantity. They don't make it to the big show without their kneepads already firmly in place. IOW, they are there by design.

ONE PARTICULAR BIAS THEY ALL SHARE. The DrivBy Media LUST after attention and respect.

I generally agree. Applying a little shadetree psychology to the situation, it would appear to me LUST for attention and respect is a cry for approval. My bet, they are mostly a bunch of very insecure daddy's girls and mama's boys who, at their core NEED to be somebody. They see themselves as nobodies til they stick that press pass in their hats.

The good news is, now that the MSM TITANIC in all its manifestations is taking on water, the prestige historically attached to the industry is becoming tarnished. None too soon IMO.

[Milhous]

The following excerpt seems to come from the Rush article cited in this thread:

Jane's Chick Radio Counters "Toxic" Rush

. . .

RUSH: Rita Cosby says, "What do you specifically think about Rush Limbaugh?"

FONDA: (laughs) You've gotta be kidding. They make me feel, um, worried about the future for my grandchildren. This is not -- these are not voices -- that I want to invite into my brain. I feel like they're toxic to myself -- to my soul and to other people's souls. Life shouldn't be like that. We women want thought-provoking, friendly, trustworthy, funny. They want a [sic] laugh, informative talk radio. And 75% of them, and we did a lot of research, said they would come back to women's talk radio if they could hear what they want to hear, and we hope to provide it for them. We know what they want and we think we can give it to them.

Liberals speaking of souls always puzzles me because the atheistic left leaves me with the impression that their dogma demandingly denies of the existence of souls. The Friedman article cited in this thread seems vaguely familiar but I could not find it.

Friedman is a little slow on the uptake.

How very diplomatic of you to euphemise Tom's peculiarity. LOL.

Flathead: The peculiar Genius of Thomas L. Friedman

. . .

The usual ratio of Friedman criticism is 2:1, i.e., two human words to make sense of each single word of Friedmanese. Friedman is such a genius of literary incompetence that even his most innocent passages invite feature-length essays. I'll give you an example, drawn at random from The World Is Flat. On page 174, Friedman is describing a flight he took on Southwest Airlines from Baltimore to Hartford, Connecticut. (Friedman never forgets to name the company or the brand name; if he had written The Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa would have awoken from uneasy dreams in a Sealy Posturepedic.) Here's what he says:

I stomped off, went through security, bought a Cinnabon, and glumly sat at the back of the B line, waiting to be herded on board so that I could hunt for space in the overhead bins

Forget the Cinnabon. Name me a herd animal that hunts. Name me one.

This would be a small thing were it not for the overall pattern. Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I found the reference, and the reason I had trouble finding it - the author was not Friedman but Fineman. My comments on it at the time:

The [American Mainstream Media Party], meanwhile, is regarded with ever growing suspicion by American voters, viewers and readers, who increasingly turn for information and analysis only to non-AMMP outlets that tend to reinforce the sectarian views of discrete slices of the electorate.

. . . as opposed to the MsM, which reinforces the sectarian views of - the MsM. Specifically, the view that nothing actually matters except PR.

Yes, I know: A purely objective viewpoint does not exist in the cosmos or in politics.

What's with the "purely?" Claiming to be objective is claiming to be wise, and claiming to be wise is arrogant, as only a journalist writing in his own paper or on his own radio station can be.

Yes, I know: Today's  media foodfights are mild compared with the viciousness of pamphleteers and partisan newspapers of old, from colonial times forward. Yes, I know: The notion of a neutral "mainstream" national media gained a dominant following only in World War II and in its aftermath, when what turned out to be a temporary moderate consensus came to govern the country.

When your opposition is politically crippled, you think you are moderate because nobody points out limitations in your thinking.

Still, the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it's pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things.

Story selection - what's the lead, and what's on page A13, and what's not even in the paper - is in the eye of the beholder. And there's nothing "neutral" about those decisions. That makes a mockery of "the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press."

36 posted on 01/12/2005 11:16:38 AM EST by conservatism_IS_compassion

The 'Media Party' is over (CBS' downfall is just the tip of the iceberg)
MSNBC ^ | Updated: 5:12 p.m. ET Jan. 11, 2005 | By Howard Fineman

I found the reference, and the reason I had trouble finding it - the author was not Friedman but Fineman. My comments on it at the time:

The [American Mainstream Media Party], meanwhile, is regarded with ever growing suspicion by American voters, viewers and readers, who increasingly turn for information and analysis only to non-AMMP outlets that tend to reinforce the sectarian views of discrete slices of the electorate.

. . . as opposed to the MsM, which reinforces the sectarian views of - the MsM. Specifically, the view that nothing actually matters except PR.

Yes, I know: A purely objective viewpoint does not exist in the cosmos or in politics.

What's with the "purely?" Claiming to be objective is claiming to be wise, and claiming to be wise is arrogant, as only a journalist writing in his own paper or on his own radio station can be.

Yes, I know: Today's  media foodfights are mild compared with the viciousness of pamphleteers and partisan newspapers of old, from colonial times forward. Yes, I know: The notion of a neutral "mainstream" national media gained a dominant following only in World War II and in its aftermath, when what turned out to be a temporary moderate consensus came to govern the country.

When your opposition is politically crippled, you think you are moderate because nobody points out limitations in your thinking.

Still, the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it's pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things.

Story selection - what's the lead, and what's on page A13, and what's not even in the paper - is in the eye of the beholder. And there's nothing "neutral" about those decisions. That makes a mockery of "the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press."

36 posted on 01/12/2005 11:16:38 AM EST by conservatism_IS_compassion

The 'Media Party' is over (CBS' downfall is just the tip of the iceberg)
MSNBC ^ | Updated: 5:12 p.m. ET Jan. 11, 2005 | By Howard Fineman

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

A political party is dying before our eyes — and I don't mean the Democrats. I'm talking about the "mainstream media," which is being destroyed by the opposition (or worse, the casual disdain) of George Bush's Republican Party; by competition from other news outlets (led by the internet and Fox's canny Roger Ailes); and by its own fraying journalistic standards.

Fineman calls the "mainstream media" a political party. He's right. Journalism is a political party - but then, it is normal for journalists to express political perspectives. Hamilton and Jefferson sponsored competing newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles.

What is severely out of balance is journalism's coalescence into one single party which was able to get itself sanctified in law - McCain-Feingold - as expressing objectivity. Journalism is in full go-along-and-get-along mode internally, and externally it is in full us-against-the-world mode. Only those who commit to following journalism's line and criticizing everthing that journalism criticizes get positive positioning and positive PR from journalism.

All others are mercilessly criticized, whether they are private citizens or in government or the police or military.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks for this snapshot of Thomas Friedman. I dont' believe I have ever heard of the guy, and have certainly never read any of his work or I would still be fighting a headache ;^)

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks for the clarification re Friedman/Fineman. I somehow missed that particular thread and its attendant "already been posted" link/thread. Good reads both.

I hope somehow, some way, someone with the talent and the wherewithal can dig out the reason(s) for the decline of conservative media and the commensurate rise of "progressive" media. There are a lot of things that would have had to work together for that to happen. Not the least of which would have been the support of advertisers. What part did "sensationalism" play in the rise/decline of circulation numbers? Was the more or less straight news outlets hamstrung by its dedication(if ever there was) to reporting just the news?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Thanks for the clarification re Friedman/Fineman. I somehow missed that particular thread and its attendant "already been posted" link/thread. Good reads both.

Thank you for pointing out the "already been posted" link/thread. It certainly is a good read - including reply #24, by someone impersonating ForGod'sSake. Couldn't have been you, of course, since you "somehow missed that" thread. :)

The 'Media' Party is Over - (Rare balanced column by liberal Howard Fineman!)
MSNBC.COM ^ | JANUARY 11, 2005 | HOWARD FINEMAN

[Milhous]

I found the reference

Thanks. Archived. :)

The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans.

That did it. :) Only a self righteous delusional megalomaniac could image that the overwhelming majority of Americans who elected Nixon in the first place wanted to see Nixon later resign for their own good.^[1]

Richard Nixon

... In 1972 Nixon was re-elected in one of the most massive landslide elections in U.S. political history, defeating George McGovern and garnering over 60% of the popular vote. He carried 49 of the 50 states, trailing only in Massachusetts.

A Guide to the Political Left

... The coup that overthrew President Nixon was largely orchestrated by Senator Edward Kennedy to reverse the left-repudiating 1972 election and serve Kennedy's presidential ambitions. This coup led to Communist victory in Vietnam, toppling dominoes in Southeast Asia, and encouragement to left revolutionary movements worldwide. It also allowed Kennedy and his liberal media allies to identify the tragic Vietnam War not with President John F. Kennedy, who committed the first 17,000 armed troops there, but with Republican President Nixon.

Watergate lessons. It took millions to get a Bakers Dozen votes.

... The lesson of Watergate is also clear. It was not the Republican Minority leader Howard Baker who was rewarded for helping take down Richard Nixon. It was Nixon's supporters like Reagan that inherited the party. Baker holds the record of spending the most dollars per vote in a New Hampshire primary. Bakers media fame translated into a primary backlash against Howard Baker.

---

[1] Cool Hand Luke

Captain, Road Prison 36: You gonna get used to wearin' them chains afer a while, Luke. Don't you never stop listenin' to them clinking. 'Cause they gonna remind you of what I been saying. For your own good.

Luke: Wish you'd stop bein' so good to me, cap'n.

Prometheus Unchained, a common symbol for the awakening and freedom of mankind.

[ForGod'sSake]

Couldn't have been you, of course, since you "somehow missed that" thread. :)

Heh. The first thing to go is the memory -- or is it??? No matter.

How odd it is to pore over some older threads and run across an old post/reply of mine and say to myself, "Hey that guy's pretty sharp"; only to discover they're my own words. GMTA I'm thinkin' ;^)