Last October, Patrick Ruffini wrote a piece for Hugh Hewitt's blog titled Information Gaps on the Right wherein Ruffini reminded us that most news outlets unsurprisingly lean leftward. He pointed out that this is one of the serious disabilities for the conservative viewpoint getting a wider hearing. Ruffini also highlighted the vast sea of paid-for bloggers that lefties like George Soros and the like are floating out there. It all amounts to the left having far longer reach than we do to set the agenda for the national debate.
And it isn't getting any better.
The Left also seems to be developing a lead in powerful feeders mechanisms that do little more than tee up information for other blogs. ThinkProgress provides a valuable service to the left by leveraging a full-time research staff to be the first to report and frame up news stories. Their content is rarely witty and original and isn’t meant to be. It’s just meant to provide context and a prod for others to cover these stories. The research backing also means they do the legwork to connect the dots in ways that bloggers rarely do. If John McCain says something today, they’re all about telling you what he said about the same thing in March, what he said in 2003, what he said in 1999, and so on.
Of course, there are a few places we can go as conservatives to get a more conservative take on the News. There is Michelle Malkin, Powerline blog, and a host of others. Not to mention the great work we do here at Newsbusters and I should remind people to make Newsbusters a daily visit for news on the liberal slant in the media. If you want a site that drives the agenda on that subject (liberal bias in the news) then Newsbusters is the place.
So, the general thought is that we are behind the left in getting our agenda talked about. As Matthew Sheffield of Newsbusters said:
Ruffini's point here is very well-taken and one I've been trying to get a lot of conservative groups to realize: the right is so far behind when it comes to original reporting and research online. Unfortunately, it's been a tough job trying to convince people of the great need we have on the right for focused, targeted blogs.
So, what do we do about it? We HAVE to do something, right?
Well, Ruffini, Soren Dayton, and Jon Henke have teamed up to do just that. With a new project called The Next Right. They intend to fulfill the role of furthering the agenda like so many liberal blogs already do for their side.
It’s no secret that the right operates at a severe disadvantage to the left when it comes to building online political infrastructure. People point to ActBlue and Obama’s massive fundraising advantage, but the problem cuts deeper: netroots activists on the left have built critical mass around an idea that regular people on the Internet can get their hands dirty and remix Democratic politics. They not only raise money. They recruit candidates. They fund full-time investigative journalism to ambush Republicans. They act as a party whip, creating consequences for Democrats who, in their view, don’t act like Democrats. They volunteer and flock to states with key races. The right can build all the tools it wants, but without a narrative and a rallying point for action, it will be for naught.
So, take a quick stop over at the placeholder page for The Next Right at http://thenextright.com/. Sign up for an email notification when they are ready to go live. This is something to keep our eyes on folks. We really need to address our IDD problems.... that would be information deficit disorder!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I Start My Day With NewsBusters
May 10, 2008 - 00:55 ET by zeestephenI find NewsBusters to be the most substantive Conservative blog on the Web.
Michelle Malkin runs a close second, but as a sole proprietor she lacks the resources to cover as many different issues as you do.
PowerLine and The Corner used to be daily must reads for me, but as both of them drift to the Center and cheer lead for McCain, I just don't have any passion for them anymore.
Also, Anne Coulter, George Will, Thomas Sowell, and Pat Buchanan (most of the time), and Robert Novak are must read Conservative columnists, and Free Republic is must reading for a general sense of the daily news.
How do we compete with the Dems?
Rule Number One...Do Not Imitate!
We are not the same kind of people.
We don't do street demonstrations and political rallies.
We are individuals first, political partners second.
In the secular world, we focus on facts and analysis, not emotion.
Besides talk radio, all we really need is one world class, daily, one hour TV news program (sorry, not Fox), and two or three world class blogs.
That's the easy part.
Most important, Conservatives need two or three world class political leaders with world class communication skills, and a dozen more world class youngsters sitting on the bench.
We have NO human leadership, and until we do, absolutely nothing we try is going to work.
You hit the nail on the head
May 10, 2008 - 03:36 ET by reasonsjester"We are individuals first, political partners second."
This is both an asset and a weakness. NB is great because it is an organization of individuals. We can all vary on our specific viewpoints, but we should have one rallying point (as "uncivil" as it sounds): Destroy the left. Not through violence, unless the Democrats try to pull something spectacularly idiotic - like shred the Constitution (they've wisely taken the slow road on that one). The point is that we are compromising our way to the left in this country - an incremental path to collapse, where the leftists, every damn one of them, think an "equitable" world order will magically appear like a Phoenix from the ashes. This misguided, inhumane, collectivist, intolerant, unrealistic, utopian vision needs to be crushed. Thus we need to innovate to seek new paths of communication and to challenge the MSM on all points possible.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Warner
May 10, 2008 - 01:48 ET by shawn228I am not saying there is no liberal bias but I would have to say I disagree with how bad you say it is for the right.
Yes NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN tilt left. "yes I admit it" but FOX news is the # 1 cable network. Conservatives also own talk radio. The only people that get as many listeners as conservative talk radio is Howard Stern or Jim Rome.
George Bush won the election in 2000 and he also got re-elected in 2004, because most of America thought he would make a better President than John Kerry. Plain and Simple. Had nothing to do with the media.
The people also were sick and tired of the President and congress in the GOP's hands, that is why they lost control of congress.
My point is no matter how many more conservative networks are out there, people can see what is going on, and the truth is no matter how much Newsbusters says the msm is bias about gas prices or the ecomomy. People can see, things are not so rosy right now, and if Barack Obama is sworn in as the next POTUS, it will be because people do not want to continue with how things are going right now and they are willing to risk giving him a chance to deliver change.
People voting...
May 10, 2008 - 02:20 ET by Warner Todd HustonFor Barack haven't any clue what he is, what he has done, what he wants to do.
Why do you think that is?
Because the liberal media won't focus on that. They only want to discuss the "thrill" that runs up their collective leg.
If Americans had any real knowledge of what a Marxist and liar Obama is they would never vote for him. But most of them will never know what Obama is because the MSM won't allow it out unless they are forced to by us.
You don't think they talked about the Racist Rev. Wright because they found it a good story, do you? They talked about it because the conservative bloggers and talk radio made it an issue the MSM finally could no longer ignore. But, without us, the story would have slumbered forever unheard.
We try to keep them honest, but they have FAR more power to reach people than do we.
I agree, Warner. To claim
May 10, 2008 - 06:08 ET by motherbeltI agree, Warner. To claim that talk radio is the equivalent of the reach of all the major news networks (including the cable CNN and MSNBC) is just ridiculous.
We wish!
And even at that, liberals can't stand it and keep trying to make inroads there too!
So far, the MSM have shown zero interest in the new Trinity pastor: man Obama has called "a wonderful young pastor" , a man who quotes Ice Cube from the pulpit and published an article by a Hamas leader on the "Pastor's Page" of the church bulletin.
It will only get worse when the general campaign starts. And unfortunately, John McCain won't care.
Another good source for consevatives
May 10, 2008 - 07:28 ET by celatorWarner, as a remedy to MSM's refusal to report about the real Obama, I've been reading Thomas Roeser's articles in a newspaper called The Wanderer. Roeser is a Chicago journalist who has known Omaba for years, has interviewed him many times. He knows where all Obama's political skeletons are hidden and isn't shy about exposing their locations.
The Wanderer is a weekly conservative Catholic newspaper (and completely loyal to the Magisterium) which has sometimes been banned or even mocked in liberal Catholic parishes (which is why many Catholics have never heard of it) because they take no prisoners when it comes to exposing the liberal trends in the Catholic Church and society in general. They've been published since 1867, so they are not newcomers to the debate.
They publish many of the nationally known conservative writers, (Novak, Buchanan etc), as well as an impressive roster of other excellent political analysts they have carried for years. It is the only MUST READ print medium I dare not ignore, and I read a lot of them. Yes, it has an orthodox Catholic view point (which resonates deeply with me), but the conservative political analysis is quite extraordinary and suitable for all. The motto on the masthead is a quote from Pius XI--"No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist". That says it all.
Warner
May 10, 2008 - 08:28 ET by shawn228People did not know much about Dubya in 2000 either until he won the GOP nomination.
It was not until afterwards we knew what his platforms would be. What were those again? Reponsible fiscal spending, giving back tax rebates for the projected surpluses we would have, and oh yes, bringing back dignity to to the White House.
What the Revenend said was disgusting, but Barack repudiated those comments right away. I am interested to see what his positions are after he secures the nomination, just like I'm interesed in hearing what McCain says and it does not matter what the msm says, I will make the ultimate decision.
but Barack repudiated those
May 10, 2008 - 08:44 ET by motherbeltbut Barack repudiated those comments right away.
He may have repudiated them, but he denied being aware of Wright's attitudes, in spite of a close relationship (Wright was like an "uncle" to him) for 20 years.
How likely is that?
probably not very likely motherbelt
May 10, 2008 - 09:00 ET by shawn228He is obviously trying to disance himself from the Reverend. This issue matters and I won't pretend it does not, but i am willing to hear his plans for if he is elected POTUS before giving final judgement.
I am also willing to listen McCains plans as well. I am willing to listen to both parties before making a final decision, can you say the same?
Shawn
May 10, 2008 - 12:47 ET by HumblepieJust a question, not meant to be bias or such. You state you are "willing to hear his plans for if he is elected." My question is why have we not heard any plans from him yet? For someone who's been in the race this long, shouldn't we have heard something by now? I'm tired of the "feel good" speeches and would like to hear what his plans are.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Your right Humblepie
May 10, 2008 - 13:03 ET by shawn228I want to see what his ideas are instead of just rhetoric. Now that he almost certainly got the nomination, I believe the ideas will start coming out.
IMO he has a very good chance on beating McCain, for the Presidency despite many on this site that say the Reverend Wright thing is going to bury him.
Are you kidding Shawn?
May 10, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Dee BunkYou want to wait and see what Obama's ideas are? You don't know what he stands for by now? You are just going to wait and see what centrist message he crafts to pull one over on the American people? Then you'll say - okay that sounds good to me? You won't pay any attention to how he's voted throughout his career (far left), who he's associated himself with (far left) and what he's said in the primaries (far left)?
That's not open minded Shawn - that's naive - pure and simple.
No i'm not Dee
May 10, 2008 - 14:32 ET by shawn228Even though I am a registered Democrat, I have said many times I am a independent voter.
An Independent looks at the issues on both sides of the table before he/she makes up their mind.
Why should I not listen to him?. Things are pretty shaky in the nation right now and i'm sure many people are not liking the direction the country is currently going. Lots of folks i'm sure are interested on what he has to say.
To me following a party blindly off the cliff without looking at all sides is naive.
you are following blindly by waiting for his revised message
May 10, 2008 - 14:58 ET by Dee Bunkeither that or you already like his far left positions. You can't just listen to what politicians say, you have to look at what they do.
People who don't pay attention are interested and those who agree with his far left potions are interested. I think you pay attention so I have no doubt that no matter what McCain or Obama has to say that you will vote for Obama.
You may want to rethink that
May 10, 2008 - 20:19 ET by CobraMan"IMO he has a very good chance on beating McCain, for the Presidency
despite many on this site that say the Reverend Wright thing is going
to bury him."
You may want to rethink that. Strenght of character is a very important trait for a President (or any other leader), and if Obama is seen as a man of low character, the American people won't want him as their leader. Frankly, I think Obama is doomed thanks to the Wright controversy as that relationship is a good indicator as to Obama's character. We are known by the company we keep, and for a good reason. Most Americans understand that.
As for “The Issues,” Obama's been doing nothing BUT talk about the "issues" for the last 5 months. I think his stand on these issues are well known by now.
Old Bambi
May 11, 2008 - 13:58 ET by HumblepieI believe Obama has no idea on how to run this country. His "feel good" speeches are just that, to make you feel good. I noticed back a few months he tried to float a bill that would in essence provide .01% of our GNP to the UN to help feed the hungry. Why is it that, at least to me, we are providing the bulk of the funds already? Don't the EC, with their interesting laws, believe in helping out more? What about Arab countries. Oh, thats right, there's nothing in it for them and they just don't make enough from oil revenue. Our constitution grants citizens the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No where does it say we need to set up a welfare state or provide universal health care. Welfare was a b**tard system, if memory serves me, created by FDR. Should not the people on welfare be expected to better themselves and therefore, be expected to be taken off welfare? As for universal health care, give me a break. My mother-in-law in Canada would have a few choice words about it for you.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
As for the "Young" voters
May 11, 2008 - 14:07 ET by HumblepieBack in the days, before I re-educated myself, I probably thought the same way. Especially being raised by hardcore Democratic parents. But one thing I learned, and its more true today, schools are being used to indoctrinate not teach. I's not what you learn and if its right, as now it's "how do you feel." Up until the end of high school, my best teachers were in grades 1-6. One thing I will always remember is every teacher asking me if my father was so-in-so. And when I stated he was, they would question me to ensure I wasn't like him. Not saying they were old, but, Christ was still a corporal when they started teaching. We learned to think for ourselves along with the three R's. Today we are teaching our kids to be idiots, actually thats insulting to idiots because they can't help it. They do not think for themselves and I doubt most could add without a calculator.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Governor Bush
May 10, 2008 - 09:21 ET by CobraMan"People did not know much about Dubya in 2000 either until he won the GOP nomination."
Someone could say the same about Bill Clinton, but someone would be just as wrong.
More people knew about then Governor Bush prior to 2000 than knew about Senator Obama prior to 2007.
Bush was the Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. This gave him valuable experience at running an administration. Thos also gave him exposure to national politics as you can’t administer a state without making contacts outside that state. The same is true with international politics, you can‘t administer a state without making international contacts as well. His presidential "platform" was the same as when he was a Governor, so there was a lot of information as to his goals, capabilities and political beliefs which was available to anyone who wished to do a little research on him.
Senator Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have much of a political background (one term as a State Senator and only part of a term as a US Senator) so not that much is known about him politically. He has very little experience in national politics, even less experience in international politics and absolutely no experience at all with running any type of administration.
Right away? No
May 10, 2008 - 09:32 ET by CobraMan"What the Revenend said was disgusting, but Barack repudiated those comments right away."
Right away? No, not by a long shot. Senator Obama didn’t repudiate him until several months after the Reverend's comments were made public and only after the Reverend repeated those comment in front of the national press. It was when that speech was made public, and the negative response that it caused in the general population, that Mr. Obama repudiated the Reverend.
Obama originally stated that he may not have agreed with everything the Reverend said, but he still stood behind him. He, and his campaign along with most of the MSM, kept insisting that the Reverend never made those remarks during any sermon that Mr. Obama attended and that most of those remarks were taken out of context, remember? In other words, Obama threw the Reverend under the bus when he was no longer able to duck away from the issue by claiming that the Reverend was just being beat up by the press who was misquoting him and using out of context sound bites in an attempt to make the Reverend look bad and to tarnish Obama through guilt by association.
yes he did CobraMan
May 10, 2008 - 09:44 ET by shawn228He repudiated those comments just a few days afterwards, but he refused to denounce the Reverand.
I agree with Chris Wallace, yes this is a major issue, but I am interested on what he has to offer American. I'm not interested in what Jerimiah Wright wants to America, I want to hear what Barack wants for America.
Day after?
May 10, 2008 - 10:09 ET by CobraMan"He repudiated those comments just a few days afterwards"
Days after? How can you justify that? I would hardly call referring to someone as "like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with" a repudiation, would you?
from his speech Cobraman
May 10, 2008 - 10:24 ET by shawn228"...Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American
domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make
remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?
Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?
Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your
pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply
controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak
out against perceived injustice.
Instead, they expressed a
profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white
racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above
all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts
in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart
allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful
ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Rev. Wright's comments
were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need
unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to
solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a
falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially
devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or
Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all."
He said the Reverends comments were not only wrong, but divisive. Sorry to me that is repudiating the comments.
That speech was months after
May 10, 2008 - 10:37 ET by CobraManThat speech was given several months after the videos of Mr. Wright's sermons was first posted on YouTube. The MSM ignored the statements for months after they were made public, just like Obama, until they became so well known through various blogs and talk radio that they were FORCED to cover them, and only then did Obama denounce them in his speech.
So, you see, it really wasn't days, but months after those remarks were released to the public that Obama said anything about them, let alone denounce them. Even after that speech, Obama continued to make excuses for the Reverend and his racist remarks.
He did that speech a few days
May 10, 2008 - 10:58 ET by shawn228after he was asked those questions. The video might have been posted by youtube months before, but I did not hear about them. "yes I know msm coverup right"
Why would he condem remarks, when no one even asked him the question?
Your main argument was Obama did not repudiate those comments until Revenend Wright went national and Obama denounced him This speech was made way before that.
These are your words are they not?
"Senator Obama didn’t repudiate him until several months after the
Reverend's comments were made public and only after the Reverend
repeated those comment in front of the national press "
So I proved you wrong and said Obama said those comments way before he went national, now you are changing your stance and saying it was few months after they were posted on youtube? Nice spin Cobraman.....bravo.
People DID ask
May 10, 2008 - 11:12 ET by CobraMan"Why would he condem remarks, when no one even asked him the question?"
It's not nitpicking. People DID ask, they were just ignored because they were the wrong people. You know right-wingers. It wasn't until the MSM asked, and Hillary brought up the subject during her campaigning, that he grew concerned about the negative effect they were having and he finally said something.
"Your main argument was Obama did not repudiate those comments until Reverend Wright went national and Obama denounced him This speech was made way before that."
You're wrong, my argument was that the Reverend's remarks were publicly known months before Obama said anything about them, and that he only reputed them because he realized that those statements were going to become a problem for him as they became more and more widely known.
In other words, as long as Obama didn't think a lot of people knew about those statements and that the MSM wasn’t questioning him about them, he didn't feel they were a problem. It wasn't the statements that bothered Obama; it was the negative effect they were having on his campaign. Since they WERE beginning to a negative effect, he denounced them in his speech but he still supported the Reverend.
After he made that speech, the MSM said that the issue was resolved and the pressure began to die off. When the Reverend went public and re-ignited the issue, Obama once again grew concerned about the negative effect it was having on his campaign and he threw Mr. Wright under the bus, just like Grandma. Now he's hoping that everyone will just forget the whole issue once again.
okay Cobraman
May 10, 2008 - 11:25 ET by shawn228"You're wrong, my argument was that the Reverend's remarks were publicly
known months before Obama said anything about them, and that he only
reputed them because he realized that those statements were going to
become a problem for him as they became more and more widely known."
Perhaps you can clarify this sentence then?
"......and only after the Reverend
repeated those comment in front of the national press"
The speech was made way before the Revenend went in front of a national press weren't they?
Let me clarify it for you then
May 10, 2008 - 11:52 ET by CobraManLet me clarify it for you then.
The Reverend's speech was after Obama's, but the original statements were made several years ago, that's what "repeated" means.
Mr. Wrights statements were publicly available on YouTube LONG before he went "public" and gave a speech or appeared on news interviews. Obama KNEW about those statements shortly after they were posted. He never even mentioned them until the MSM started asking questions about them.
Mr. Obama said in his speach that the statements were wrong yet he still supported the Reverend and even tried to minimize the racist aspect by comparing the Reverend to some type of crazy uncle or something. He still didn't denounce the Reverend and the Reverend still continued making additional raciest statements even after Obama refuted the original statements. The Reverend himself declared his displeasure at Mr. Obama for denoucing those original statements, yet Obama did NOTHING to further himself from the Reverend or refute his additional statements. Obama was hoping that the whole issue would die away.
After the Reverend gave that speech, Obama finally realized that his relationship with the Reverend was having a huge negative effect on his campaign. Then, and ONLY then, did Obama officially and irrevocably denounce the Reverend himself.
Just because those statements were not repeated by the MSM until moths after they were posted on YouTube, it doesn't mean that the public didn't know about them, right? So, your claim that he refuted them within days is WRONG!
Cobraman
May 10, 2008 - 12:02 ET by shawn228I suggest you look back and try to find where I said he denounced the Reverend a few days later. I said he repudiated those comments a few days later.
He answered the questions , when questioned by the msm.
I still believe you are trying to spin this, but if you don't agree, life goes on.
I am looking forward to how this race will play out in the next few days, because it looks like Obama will certainly be the Democratic nominee, it will be interesting to see if liberals will be united.
"Repudiated right away"
May 10, 2008 - 12:19 ET by CobraMan"What the Revenend said was disgusting, but Barack repudiated those comments right away."
The point I'm trying to make is that Obama DID NOT repute those comments "right away" as they were publicly known MONTHS before he repudiated them in his speech.
My mistake in explaining this was to link together that repudiation with Mr. Wright’s speech instead of Mr. Obama's. I had the two speeches mixed up. That was a mistake on my part. But that doesn't change the fact that those statements were made years ago or that they were publicly know months before Obama made his speech. The rest of my postings relates to my understanding as to why Obama waited so long before he repudiated those statements and why he waited even longer to denounce the Reverend.
The statement themselves don’t bother Obama one bit. He's only bothered by the negative effect they, and his relationship with the Reverend himself, are having on his campaign and his chances of becoming President.
Cobraman
May 10, 2008 - 12:31 ET by shawn228We are both guilty of carrying on a game of "he said, she said" way too far. truce okay?
I just want to move on from what Revenend Wright said and see what Barack is all about. Conservatives on this site keep critisizing him, because he claims change, but will not get into specifics.
I'm not saying what the Reverend said is not important, but im more interested in Obama's specifics that something has been covered day in and day out.
He said, she said?
May 10, 2008 - 12:48 ET by CobraMan"We are both guilty of carrying on a game of "he said, she said" way too far. truce okay?"
I'm not guilty of anything, Obama is. That was his Reverend who made those disgusting statements during church services, statements which reflects that Church's stated goals and beliefs. Obama has embraced both that Church and that Reverend for 20 years.
This isn't a game. Obama knew what the Reverend was preaching long before he denounced ether the message or the man. It never bothered him until it started to become a negative issue for his national campaign. Ether Obama agrees with the Reverend and his message and is hiding that fact from the public, or he just was using him and the Church to further his civic and political goals. There's no moving beyond that as it speaks volumes about Obama and his character. I don't want a President that ether believes what the Reverend was preaching or who thinks it’s ok to use people and their religion merely as a tool to further his career.
FoxNews is substandard,
May 10, 2008 - 08:40 ET by jpm100FoxNews is substandard, imho. They can get away with it because they're the only Right leaning cable news station. If there was a second, they'd be hurting for ratings in a heartbeat.
I find their stories are predominantly Reactionary to liberal media stories or meme. They Defend while the others Attack and Defend.
They also are not Network News which has more people than we tend to think.
Left thinking is in other TV media as well. Even Discovery & History Channel were pretty good at staying outside of politics, but they've had a few stories over the past year or so which are downright Leftie propaganda pieces.
The reason talk radio is Conservative is simply because how deficient other news & general media sources are in a Conservative viewpoint.
Does anyone get the sneaking suspicion...
May 10, 2008 - 03:27 ET by reasonsjesterThat the liberals in the media feel like Louis XVIs and that conservatives are being forced into Jacobins?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Ok, I'll start the "strategic discussion and debate"
May 10, 2008 - 03:48 ET by sarcasmoHow will these people treat libertarians like me? The answer to that question, IMO, will determine their chances of success or failure, even though conservatives obviously aren't all libertarians. Ideally, all three founders can spend about 5 minutes taking this quiz, and then report honestly on how they scored. If we're not treated fairly, things probably won't change (see humor, where libertarians often tend to dominate in the marketplace IF we're ever allowed a voice).
Whatever you think of Ron Paul, we all saw a huge online political infrastructure form spontaneously when he ran. Why? Well, libertarian conservatives saw what we thought would be a chance to be left the hell alone for once in our lives, and non-libertarian conservatives can learn from the excitement generated by that. Whether or not they will get the clue isn't up to me -- it's up to them.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Well enough considering
May 10, 2008 - 07:28 ET by Matthew Sheffieldthat one of them (not saying which) identifies with lower-case libertarianism more than conservatism.
That's a good sign...
May 10, 2008 - 07:34 ET by sarcasmoAs one's association with "Red State" didn't bode too well for open debate (which has of late been an issue around here too, IMO, as some sensible newcomer comments were cluelessly deleted IMO in the Stephen King debate) given "Red State's" shoddy recent history WRT letting us debate others on an equal footing.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I know the writtings &
May 10, 2008 - 08:53 ET by jpm100I know the writtings & sentiments of one of these three gentlemen relatively well.
Although he is Right-leaning, I would say barely. If he is typical of the other three, this is about as Conservative as John McCain is Conservative.
Take that for FWIW.
Warner, what about Education?
May 10, 2008 - 10:15 ET by iveseenitallDon't forget perhaps the largest left-wing propaganda machine, the educational system. Its influence has been greater than anyone, except those directly involved, even knows. And, for at least three decades, there has been but a whimper of protest and hardly any attempt to change what has been happening. We've simply thrown up our hands and shrugged our shoulders. In the meantime, conservative thought and ideas have been ignored and even disavowed by the system. Like the MSM, education has been a shill for the Socialist/Communist Party in America. Sad. One of the next "right wing" prjects should be in the edcational system, one of America's most shameful failures.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"