And the point is??? These people are all opinionist, they are not reporters.

The report found that 34 percent of national journalists identified themselves as liberal, 54 percent identified themselves as moderate and 7 percent identified themselves as conservative. In other words, 93 percent of national journalist do not identify themselves as conservative.

Twenty-three percent of local journalists identified themselves as liberal, 61 percent identified themselves as moderate and 12 percent identified themselves as conservative. In other words, 88 percent of local journalist do not identify themselves as conservative.

What I believe RUNuts is trying to say is that in the Black and White world of "You are either for us or against us", Liberal begins at NOT conservative. From there it encompasses the rest of the spectrum. Now, I realize I just said spectrum meaning a wide range of colors, a rainbow if you will. Maybe RUNuts believes I just outed myself as some kind of homosexual. I'm going to have to break the news to my girlfriend.

Zom-Bushes really are fascinating creatures. I do wonder if perhaps they can not see colors, like animals do. Because, as illustrated by RUNuts, it's all very black and white and trying to develop any alternative approach [<<<OH, there I go against suggesting a gay lifestyle] is inconceivable.

[Sorry, somehow the 3rd < deleted the rest of the text. Let me continue.] Within the brackets on the last post, "There I go again, with coded gay references, so I must be ....] is inconceivable.

This is reminiscent of the notion that Christians are downtrodden. As Jon Stewart pointed out, they've been in control since Constantine.

Yes, as I have said all along - Brit Hume is an opinionist. I'm glad RUNuts agrees.

One has to wonder, do not all these right to rabid right "opinionists" suggest something about the people who run the news media? Such as, perhaps, THEY ARE NOT LIBERALS!

I can’ think of a moniker I am more sick of than “liberal media”. It is not true, it never will be true, and repeating over and over and over and over and over will never make it true. I wish my mental capacity could be satiated by making up bullet points for the left, or could even be sated by arguing bullet points from the right, but it just isn’t the case.

Some day, when our country actually makes sense, we’ll have a festival similar to burning man where we will burn all of the Gingrich/Rove inspired political terms and strategies and never ever use them again. We can draw names from a very long list of who the actual “burning man” will be, but we’ll have to be sure it isn’t going to be anyone on George McClure’s list; I’m not sure any of us would be able to handle the smell.

Oooo....a burning! Me likes a good burning. I hate being confronted with ideas dissimilar to my own. It makes me angry that someone might have legitimate thoughts that run counter to the ones I belive are correct. I despise a good debate and the greater understanding and edification that result from passionate discourse. Only MY ideas should be available. I figure that since it was ok to burn people who had unique ideas, it's certainly ok to burn the ideas that inspire dialogue. Soooo...anyone got a voter registration card? I'm ready to switch over. God, I love this place. It's more fun than playing Whack-a-Mole at Chuck E. Cheese.

Dan Estes: I didn't think it was possible to have a satirical post taken so seriously by you, but since you seem confused, I will explain it to you:

Serious part of the post: The tactics that the right uses are some of the most brain-dead tactics the world could imagine and should eventually be done away with (you know, like repeating something untrue over and over in hopes that it will become true).

Satirical part of the post: Burning an actual person.

Thank you for bringing it up, however, so I could clarify my post to all of the other unfortunate trolls that don't have a sense of humor.

<h1></h1>

They are here to make you waste keystrokes. All there is to say is ... nothing.

They can address our points as they see them -- whether they don't or can't see doesn't matter, it is illegitimacy: NUTso said, "And your point is?"; and if they have to ask how to read, there can be no answer to write. For us, there is no point where they are that fits in what our discussion is addressing.

Lose the losers.

I read McClure's column recently, and didn't see what last ounce finally gave him enough to pound publicly on the Republicans' fascism of their leaders' lying propaganda, but so much the better whatever it was. I did like McClure's style, though, and maybe there is importance to appreciate seeing it published in Denver, Colorado, where awareness of being suckered by Coors-drunk Republican lies, is as thin as the air.

<h1></h1>

Why is Joe Klein on that list? The man worked for and biographed Clinton.

Glen, I have a great sense of humor and satire. I am confident you weren't seriously considering burning any person, item or idea. However, were I to suggest undertaking such an act of protest, the denizens of this site would have been all over me with magnificent fury and indignation. I am only pointing out that "like-minded" people are not the only ones who view or participate in this site. You can't assume you are only talking to those people who agree with you, nor can you wear one face to this group, but then wear another to the multitudes as you preach inclusion, acceptance and understanding. Sure, James Carville pisses me off. I don't like him personally. I don't agree with him politically. But there is a lot I can learn from him. Attacking him does nothing for me or the greater cause of my beliefs. It does EVERYTHING for him. It makes him more powerful. It makes the people who pay him think he is worth the price. Frustration is just weakness flavored with incompetence. Why give that power over to your adversaries? Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

I know I should have included this in my first post, but I didn't think of it then. We should be fair to the accusers (which is more than they deserve) and look at bias in reporting, as that is generally the direction of the attack.

However, even that doesn't look good. One can read Alterman's "What Liberal Media?", or just compare the pass the press gave Bush in the run-up to Iraq to the 24/7 Lewinskygate coverage we had during Clinton's presidency.

Where were the patriotic pro-military rallying cries and flag-waving during Kosovo? Somalia? It's not so much a media bias as a Republican hypocrasy. When a Democrat prosecutes a war, he's a shameless crook who will stop at nothing to get away with a hummer. (How dare he!) When a Republican prosecutes a war the dissenters become smeared as traitors. But I digress...

I don't know of any liberal who is "preach[ing] inclusion, acceptance and understanding" when it comes to the lie of the "liberal media" or the corrosive influence of the right-wing deathgrip on our society.

Of course, the Brooks, Coulters and the rest have a right to say what they want to say. And we have a right to fight back. We must support the liberal/progressive media where it does exist and speak up to the media asking for the voices we want to hear (Conason, Hartmann, Ivins, etc.)

Item in the paper today--Tomlinson of CPB is saying by adding blatantly conservative shows to public broadcasting, he is merely seeking "balance." When will we get "balance" in the regular media?

<h1></h1>

When CPB hires and supports liars as Tomlinson is, and The O. its Reinhard, and NY Times its Brooks, Friedman, and bundled cable tv its lying FOXNews and lying Christian Broadcasting News,

and those liars free-ride inside the bundle, hiding among 'good apples' who do not police themselves and remove the 'bad apples' from their midst,

then the only thing one person can do is keep away all money for the whole bundle -- BOYCOTT PBS pledge drives, BOYCOTT The O., BOYCOTT the Times, BOYCOTT Cable TV.

That's the only way 'they' get it. That's the only way 'they' get rid of their rotten liars.

Otherwise, if we go on giving 'them' our money for their poisoned product, then We pay the liars to lie and our criticisms and disgusts can only apply to ourself, meaning nothing and changing nothing about 'them.'

If you buy The Oregonian, you pay Reinhard, therefore you support the lying. If the restaurant serves your plate of food with a fly in only one small corner, do you only eat around it, only send back the bad part, only pay for the good percentage of the meal?

<h1></h1>

”You can't assume you are only talking to those people who agree with you, nor can you wear one face to this group, but then wear another to the multitudes as you preach inclusion, acceptance and understanding.”

So I should be worried about what a bunch of liars and scurrilous hypocrites from the right think about what I say? No. I don’t care what some people on the right think of what I say any more than Jon Stewart, Hunter Thompson or Greg Palast would. I have every right to use satire to address the people that are on my side while at the same time belittling the people that aren’t; that is the point of satire.

Let’s take a quick look at some of the pathetic political tactics of the right:

1. Make sure everyone gets their bullet points straight
2. Make the media fall all over themselves to prove they aren’t liberally biased, so they can’t actually be effective
3. Change the wording of negative points to make them positive points (and we can specifically thank Newt for that one). Anti Abortion became pro-life, and so on.
4. Lie so much that the truth is completely negated
5. Have an organized attack on your opponent

Are these effective tactics? It would seem so. Should they be? No. The only tactic I agree with is the last one, and I think it is slowly happening for the left. Thank god it’s happening by the more intelligent left actually following the news, rather than being told what to say, because it’s just a better tactic to know what is really happening in the world around you; It makes you so much less of a herd animal.

”Sure, James Carville pisses me off. I don't like him personally. I don't agree with him politically. But there is a lot I can learn from him. Attacking him does nothing for me or the greater cause of my beliefs. It does EVERYTHING for him. It makes him more powerful. It makes the people who pay him think he is worth the price. Frustration is just weakness flavored with incompetence. Why give that power over to your adversaries? Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.”

Thank you for the unnecessary lesson in the New Testament, but what would Sun Tzu say?

”Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.”

In this case I’m not referring to literally killing Newt Gingrich, but I think it’s necessary to get people angry that such childish political tactics has kept them down for so long. I want people to identify these tactics in the media every chance they have; to spread the truth about what the “liberal media” is…it is a political tactic.

Sun Tzu also said this: ”In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.”

In other words, stop pussy-footing around and fight to win. You don’t like James Carvill? Neither do I. He is a worthless little monkey that is more at home being paid to chat politics on right wing talk shows than he is showing just how badly these same people have degraded the political climate in our country. Jon Stewart did more good on one visit to Crossfire than Carville every will in his entire life. Video or text.

BTW: We are at war with the right, period. I’m not going to try to play grab-ass with people who want to eliminate higher thought, choice, ethics and morality. Read more Sun Tzu here.

…or don’t, but whatever you do, Dan, don’t tell me how to take out the trash.

Sun Tzu also said "It is best to thwart people by intelligent planning." Chapter 3 - "Planning the Attack".

Will you be scheduling some of THAT anytime soon? It takes more than quoting The Art of War to make anyone think you have a clue as to what you are doing. It's really a lifestyle and philosophy, rather than something you casually drop at a cocktail party to impress political neophytes.

Yes, yes...I wouldn't presume to tell you how to take back your own party/take out the trash, but I can guarantee it will take more that righteous indignation. Just so we are clear, you are not at war with just the "Right". You are at war with a plurality of this country. Like it or not, the Right has managed to convince a majority of this country to support it. You will argue that it was done through deception and lies. You will argue that the media opposes you. You will argue that if only the system were fair...then you would be the true victor and America would then see the folly of the Right and come to know the peace, prosperity and equality that only the Left could rightfully provide.

So what? Unless D's actually extricate themselves from this gut-wrenching spiral of blame and negativity, they won't win. Politics, especially American politics, isn't about noble ideas and principles. It is about winning. (And looking at the party registration numbers in Oregon...people like winners, even in a hard-core D state like Oregon) It's about pressing the advantage. It is about branding your opponent and eliminating their options. The Right can curse the Left, and the Left can curse the Right, but when the smoke clears, the tactics are the same and no party has a monopoly on ethics, morals, or the best interests of the citizens. The Right has just been doing a better job at selling it than you folks.

<h1></h1>

This is precious. The zerO is buying ads on progressive radio, KPOJ; a spot ran in the Ed Schultz Show.

It's a sign of late-waking desperation and profit panic.

I'm not employed in the P.R. biz anymore, but some of those lessons might be worth review. This: Don't spend money claiming who you are -- save money by firing Reinhard and proving who you are.

Progressives: BOYCOTT rightwing media like The zerO. While your money helps them, your complaints don't hurt them.

<h1></h1>

Tens...great analogy above about the fly on the plate. That was right on the money.

Does Reinhard really threaten you guys THAT much? I mean, he's one guy in a solidly liberal town. We always figured he was the token conservative in an otherwise pinko paper. Don't get me wrong, I think the whole "vote with your pocketbook" idea is something everyone should do, regardless of party affiliation, but Dave is only one person, and a fairly nice guy, all political commentary aside. Is he worthy of all this attention?

"Will you be scheduling some of THAT anytime soon? It takes more than quoting The Art of War to make anyone think you have a clue as to what you are doing. It's really a lifestyle and philosophy, rather than something you casually drop at a cocktail party to impress political neophytes."

Will you be hosting a cocktail party anytime soon? Because you know I would be there dropping quotes to impress you and your fellow neophytes.

Actually, I think I'd rather mow the lawn.

"Yes, yes...I wouldn't presume to tell you how to take back your own party/take out the trash, but I can guarantee it will take more that righteous indignation."

Take back my party? When I said "take out the trash", I was referring to how I prefer to address the right.

"Just so we are clear, you are not at war with just the "Right". You are at war with a plurality of this country."

Listen, stop trying to put words in my mouth and act as though you know anything about my beliefs. I'm starting to think you are one of the most ignorant people I have ever had an exchange with on the internet. I'm an independent that sometimes posts on this site, and I am at war with the right wing of this country.

"Like it or not, the Right has managed to convince a majority of this country to support it. You will argue that it was done through deception and lies. You will argue that the media opposes you. You will argue that if only the system were fair...then you would be the true victor and America would then see the folly of the Right and come to know the peace, prosperity and equality that only the Left could rightfully provide."

Only by showing where the system has failed can I hope to amend the situation. I don't think the media opposes the left, I think they are lazy, cowardly and unintelligent. Similarly, I don't thing this administration speaks to the majority of this country, and that becomes very evident when you look at this administrations poll numbers. Everything I quoted by you above is your rhetoric, not mine. You're so used to reading off of two scripts that you actually have forgotten about people that think for themselves.

"So what? Unless D's actually extricate themselves from this gut-wrenching spiral of blame and negativity, they won't win. Politics, especially American politics, isn't about noble ideas and principles. It is about winning. (And looking at the party registration numbers in Oregon...people like winners, even in a hard-core D state like Oregon) It's about pressing the advantage. It is about branding your opponent and eliminating their options. The Right can curse the Left, and the Left can curse the Right, but when the smoke clears, the tactics are the same and no party has a monopoly on ethics, morals, or the best interests of the citizens. The Right has just been doing a better job at selling it than you folks."

This is exactly why I am an independent; people like you.

"Politics, especially American politics, isn't about noble ideas and principles. It is about winning."

Bullet point number 22? I'm actually okay with someone feeling this way about politics, I'm just not okay with people feeling there is no truth, there are no ethics and there is no such thing as morality.

Calm down, take a Zanax or whatever you need. Claiming your simultaneous independence and loathing for the Right doesn't win you any credibility. The D's may kiss your butt by thinking they have one more ally, but they also need to ask themselves why you are equally uncomfortable in their camp. Frankly, I doubt Republicans care if you think you are at war or not. It is of little consequence to them. I hesitate to ask, but you said that you hope to ammend the situation by pointing out the system's failures. Take this with a grain of salt, but who is listening to you, and what possible influence do you have with the greater electorate? Or is that where the "independent" part comes in, hoping to convince a handful of people that only those that have not chosen a side or allignment could be capable of preaching the political truth? All combativness aside, I sincerely share your sentiment about the absence of truth and ethics (morality is a different matter and I'm not comfortable with a political party, government or religion telling me what is or is not moral - I'm more of a Natural Law kind of guy). Sadly, if one side tries to act ethical (yes, it's happened on the Right, too), the other will seize the advantage. There is no lasting benefit to taking the higher road, unless you want to be in the ineffectual category of martyr. Those types exist on both sides - the groups who take pride in losing because they feel it gives them more credibility and if you deliver a victory, you unintentionally raise expectations for future performance. I lost almost all my idealism a long time ago. Truth is not in politics, and it's not in religion. And truth doesn't come from a guy on the street corner screaming about this or that.

<h1></h1>

Tell truth. Suck a guckert or something. Reciting rightwing lies while simultaneously plugging your aural orifices doesn't gain you any credibility.

<h1></h1>