Neal Gabler called Media Research Center "liars" on this evening's Fox News Watch. The accusation against NewsBusters' parent organization came in the course of a discussion of media coverage of Mitt Romney's announcement of his presidential candidacy.View video here.
Conservative columnist Jim Pinkerton observed: "I don't think [the media] like Romney. I don't think they really want a Republican to win, and they're using his Mormonism as one way to get at him."Gabler: "Who's this 'they' you're talking about? This strange 'they' that doesn't want Romney to win?"
Pinkerton: "I can answer that question for Neal. Thank you for asking. Media Research Center counted up the minutes and seconds . . . "Gabler, interrupting: "A conservative organization?"
Pinkerton: "Yes. They counted up the minutes that CBS News had devoted to Barack Obama's announcement and to Romney's. And the ratio was 54:1. Fifty-four Obama. One Romney."
Gabler: "Figures don't lie, as my father used to say. Liars do figure."
Pinkerton was referring to this MRC CyberAlert which in turn cited this NewsBusters item by Michael Rule. As per the MRC item, the CBS Early show gave Romney's candidacy:
"exactly ten seconds worth of coverage Tuesday, following stories on a Utah mall shooting, winter storms, and the ongoing soap opera of Anna Nicole Smith's demise. However, on Saturday, when Illinois Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy as a Democrat, CBS's Saturday Early Show previewed it by devoting 9 minutes and 9 seconds (549 seconds) to his decision -- a greater than 54:1 advantage."
Gabler should retract and apologize for his baseless slur.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
54:1
February 17, 2007 - 20:35 ET by BlondeWow, Mark.
54:1.
That is sublime.
Not to mention, indefensible.
No media bias here...move on.
Sheesh!
It Gets Worse
February 17, 2007 - 22:12 ET by Junk Science SkepticAt least Romney gets the occasional mention. If Romney vs. Obama is 54:1, then Hillary vs. Hunter must be somewhere around 1,000,000:1.
Of course if you go by accomplisments rather than MSM publicity, Hunter has a 1,000,000:1 lead over the entire Dem field of losers.
Hunter/Giuliani 2008
I'd be willing to bet this
February 17, 2007 - 22:59 ET by JPninerI'd be willing to bet this idiot has cited mediamatters as a source before.
Am I the only one who doesn't
February 17, 2007 - 23:35 ET by Scout FinchAm I the only one who doesn't get Gabler's meaning about "figures don't lie, and liars figure"? Gabby, if the "figures" that don't lie are 54:1 Obama, I guess they're true, huh? And just how does that make MRC liars? I seem to be experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance with his statement. No surprise. Happens regularly with Gabler.
I'm reminded of the quote from Mark Twain: Remain silent and be thought the fool, or open your mouth and remove all doubt.
(Apologies to Twain for any inaccuracies)
Since a conservative stopwa
February 18, 2007 - 11:16 ET by Tom PaineSince a conservative stopwatch was used to measure the comparative airtimes there is obvious conservative bias at work here
Obviously their stopwatch w
February 19, 2007 - 14:38 ET by steviep831Obviously their stopwatch works much better than the Democrat congress'...
figures
February 18, 2007 - 18:28 ET by m1xramSimply put, Gabler is saying that the people who determined the 54:1 ratio lied. It's a verbal attack.
I like the Mark Twain quote but I think he got it from Solomon
Gabler gets his hat handed to
February 18, 2007 - 07:36 ET by Andrew H.Gabler gets his hat handed to him every week and doesn't know it. I wonder when truth will occur to people like him but that idea quickly fades.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Them's fightin' words Gablerg
February 17, 2007 - 20:40 ET by NeoConfirmedThem's fightin' words Gablergook!
He refuses to believe figures from the MRC because it's conservative but swallows butloads of info from the NYT as if it's the word of God.
What a jackass...
One other point,How come when
February 17, 2007 - 20:46 ET by NeoConfirmedOne other point,
How come whenever someone from the MRC/Newsbusters goes on TV and provides clear examples of obvious bias, the liberal counterpart never addresses it? I guess the silence tells us everything that we need to know.
what we need is a cable TV
February 17, 2007 - 23:13 ET by JPninerwhat we need is a cable TV version of Newsbusters, with a similar format to CNN Headline News
NeoC...You are forgetting the
February 17, 2007 - 23:24 ET by Clear thinkerNeoC...
You are forgetting the liberal MSM mantra... liberal good, conservative bad.
Kinda like the war against terrorism. Throat slitting barbarians, good! Caring Christians, bad!
The NYT--the paper of liberal
February 18, 2007 - 07:39 ET by Andrew H.The NYT--the paper of liberal made-up record.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
I know you are...
February 17, 2007 - 20:45 ET by Uncle JohnIt's amazing how liberals project their own motives and behavior onto their enemies. It's classic denial and abdication of their own personal responsibility.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Gabler: "Figures don't l
February 17, 2007 - 20:47 ET by NewsbusterbrownGabler: "Figures don't lie, as my father used to say. Liars do figure."
Golly! That's a super-duper response, by cracky! I'm going to try that every time I hear a liberal say anything from now on!
Doofus.
what would Tim "Let's lo
February 17, 2007 - 21:55 ET by Conservative in the Artswhat would Tim "Let's look at the numbers" Russert have to say to Gabler?
What would every Dem say about how they've been touting Bush's poll numbers?
What about the body count that the media was doing daily? There are plenty of people doing "figures" for the dems, but come across a figure you don't like and.......you get this wackjob answer.
CITA,It might help if these l
February 17, 2007 - 22:00 ET by BlondeCITA,
It might help if these lib commentators actually knew how to do some basic math...a la 101.
It is very sad.
They always rely on "some say" or what not.
That's how I know they're totally fake.
Real people cite real numbers.
Blonde,I'd love to see an ele
February 17, 2007 - 22:15 ET by Conservative in the ArtsBlonde,
I'd love to see an election night where Tim Russert added up wrong the number of "points" his person needed to win. Why can't we have him be "honest" about his type of math he's using:
"If the Dems win Ohio, New Jersey and New York, that will give them 52 points, but if we also count in every dead person that voted (cause they all vote Democratic, universal heath care issue) and for every black person (cause there is no way in *ell that a black would vote Republican), plus thorw in a few extra for all the blacks that couldn't vote because of evil Republicans standing by the doors wearing white sheets,and don't forget the votes that are for Republicans, but we know they really meant to vote Democratic, so we get to count them too, that gives us....let's see......um....2 million, trillion points.....we win by a land slide!, I mean...They win....
Quite, CITA....If we had four
February 17, 2007 - 22:19 ET by BlondeQuite, CITA....
If we had fourteen hurricanes, our EBIT would be over the top....earning us an annual yeild that would make Wall Street absolutely have an orgasm. Stock prices would soar...we'd all get huge bonuses.
New math.
Liberal math.
LIke less than 60 votes in the Senate today.
I posted an interesting quote from Joe Lieberman earlier. But no one here quite comprehended it.
We have much work to do before the Presidential Elections in 2008.
Like find a decent candidate.
Gablerygook
February 17, 2007 - 21:39 ET by acumenOne would think if baby Gabler has remembered daddy Gabler's words all these years he would have applied the lesson on lying to himself by now.
(Borrowing from Carville) I mean c'mon Neal- who needs figures anyway? Except to the lamest denier it is glaringly obvious to most people that watch/read the news that Jim's assertion is accurate.
It doesn't speak well for Neal that a professional political observer/commenter such as himself hasn't picked up on CBS political bias by now. Maybe Dan Rather or Madam Mapes could give him a clue.
An apology from Neal? Hah, hah, that's hilarious.....
The arrogance of misters Ga
February 17, 2007 - 21:40 ET by CarpareusThe arrogance of misters Gabler and Pinkerton is exceeded at least by their asininity and ignorance, or vice versa. What a couple of tools.
Why are you criticizing Jim
February 17, 2007 - 22:16 ET by Mark FinkelsteinWhy are you criticizing Jim Pinkerton? He was criticizing CBS for its meager coverage of Romney compared to Obama.
Having viewed the video aga
February 17, 2007 - 23:05 ET by CarpareusHaving viewed the video again I stand corrected Mark- please subtract one tool. I have been quite distracted today. My apologies to Mr. Pinkerton.
Thanks, Carpareus. At one
February 17, 2007 - 23:24 ET by Mark FinkelsteinThanks, Carpareus. At one time or another, I'm sure all of us, certainly including myself, have posted a comment before thoroughly digesting the article.
Hey Jim's okay. I emailed h
February 18, 2007 - 06:25 ET by Jack BauerHey Jim's okay. I emailed him last year and he responded very quickly with great civility, clarity and wit.
And he answered my media based observation with his opinion. What more can you ask?
The Issue of the Non-issue
February 17, 2007 - 22:17 ET by HyunchbackI've been listening to conservative radio. Reading conservative bloggers (not pundits) and looking at forums with a conservative base. The ONLY time I hear Romney's faith brought up is in the mainstream media.
Is it so far beyond the MSM's mindset that true conservatives would have a problem with Romney based on (gasp!) issues?
I don't want him because of his record on core issues. I don't care if he's a Mormon, a Catholic or an atheist. His votes and public positions do not match what I want in a candidate.
It is only the MSM I hear bringing his faith into play. It could be that they can't actually see issues but I sense something darker. I believe that the MSM is using this non-existent wedge issue to sour conservatives of the Mormon faith on any other candidate the Republicans might have.
Unlike a MSM talking head I don't believe that conservatives who happen to be Mormon are decieved by this.
Gabler is an idiot. I'd rathe
February 17, 2007 - 22:41 ET by PhiloGabler is an idiot. I'd rather remove parasites from my puffer fish than watch him on tv.
Hyunchback, if the LibMedia
February 18, 2007 - 00:59 ET by MikeBHyunchback, if the LibMedia questioned Romney on the issues, they would have to question others, maybe even Democratics on issues. Now, we couldn't have that, could we? The LibMedia doesn't want to discuss issues with Obama, they only want to write stories about his race. They don't want to discuss issues with the Hildebeest, they only want to write stories about her gender (ditto with The First Woman Speaker of the House). On the other hand, perhaps, with Romney's voting record, the LibMedia doesn't really have anything to gripe about, they just don't like the fact there is an (R) after his name.
Sorry about the italics all the way through. This only happens when I use Firefox, not when I'm using IE.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."
Ronald Reagan
Italics
February 18, 2007 - 12:02 ET by saurusTools/Options/Content/Fonts/Advanced ... set preferred font and style as default.
Religion
February 18, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Jerry MackMaybe I am dating myself but I remember when being religious was an asset for a candidate. Now the only time that a democrat uses it is to get out of a bad situation. I will never forget the pictures of Jackson and the others praying and going to church with Clinton. Oh how the msm fawned. Down right sickening to me!
MSM & Religion
February 18, 2007 - 16:56 ET by Free StinkerAnd whenever a Republican has religious beliefs, the MSM makes is sound as if we will be electing a Priest/Rabbi/Preacher/Pundit/Inmam/etc . . . which we are not doing.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley
Free,Well, for the dems, if t
February 18, 2007 - 17:03 ET by BlondeFree,
Well, for the dems, if they're in Hillary's camp, they're voting for their mom.
You know, Hillary's a mother. (And I type that with a straight face).
Not just a mom -- more like a
February 18, 2007 - 17:06 ET by ThisnThatNot just a mom -- more like a whole village, don't you know.
"It takes a village to
February 18, 2007 - 17:10 ET by lnthomp"It takes a village to ruin a country". Or was that supposed to be "...run a country"?
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
A village of Libs. What a pic
February 18, 2007 - 17:15 ET by ThisnThatA village of Libs. What a picture of whinny, greedy idiots!
I can't wait.
ThisnThat, did I tell you I got one of those William Jefferson
February 18, 2007 - 17:51 ET by acaiguanaThisnThat, did I tell you I got one of those William Jefferson Freezers?
:-)
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
I hope it came loaded and sto
February 18, 2007 - 17:53 ET by ThisnThatI hope it came loaded and stocked.
It's been kicking out $90K bundles of cash every 30 minutes.
February 18, 2007 - 17:59 ET by acaiguanaIt's been kicking out $90K bundles of cash every 30 minutes.
Been a real pain too. Had to hire a forklift; bailer; armed guards and the neighbors rioted and burned down their own houses.
Not quite sure what that was all about though?
Ah well, looking for a big warehouse and a small Island.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Here's some advice, should yo
February 18, 2007 - 18:20 ET by ThisnThatHere's some advice, should you choose to accept it:
I could give you more advice, but I'm being watched. And, I'm not a Dem, which puts me in jeapordy.
"First, issue vehement
February 18, 2007 - 18:26 ET by Eric Turner"First, issue vehement denials of wrongdoing."
In the Army we'd always say, "Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations."
(We'd also say, "It's always easer to apologize then ask permission.")
In a segment after this one w
February 17, 2007 - 22:54 ET by RW_the originalIn a segment after this one we found out from Jane Hall that we're all a bunch of closet bigots if we don't vote for Hillary and/or Obama. Oddly she was jumping Gabler for quoting some poll numbers about how few people said they wouldn't vote for someone based on race or gender. Her comment was that we would really see when the voting took place because "people" don't want to talk about their bias.
Nice setup for the antique media, we can't decide based on our issues or beliefs and if we don't vote for their annointed ones it's because secretly we're racists/sexists/bigots/.......
"...antique media"
February 17, 2007 - 23:24 ET by Carpareus"...antique media"- exactly right RW.
Antique media is being much t
February 17, 2007 - 23:32 ET by Clear thinkerAntique media is being much too kind!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA!
Carpareus, I get really tired
February 17, 2007 - 23:35 ET by RW_the originalCarpareus, I get really tired of the "MSM" designation because those dinosaurs really want to think they're mainstream so I've adopted "antique media." It isn't an original, but I don't remember who to credit.
You can credit Rush Limbaugh,
February 18, 2007 - 11:32 ET by fosstenYou can credit Rush Limbaugh, as he's the one who coined it. However, Rush has moved on to using the term "Driveby Media."
Liberal debate tactic
February 17, 2007 - 23:24 ET by nkviking75Pinkerton: "I can answer that question for Neal. Thank you for asking. Media Research Center counted up the minutes and seconds . . . "
Gabler, interrupting: "A conservative organization?"
Liberal debate tactic: Any assertion from a conservative source, no matter how thoroughly documented and reasoned, is false.
I guess he should have said,
February 17, 2007 - 23:36 ET by gfrrmanI guess he should have said, "our sources say", "some say" or "there are those who say".
Unnamed source
February 17, 2007 - 23:38 ET by nkviking75You're right, of course. There's nothing more authoratative than an unnamed source, except perhaps an unnamed government source.
Or 'un-named high ranking off
February 17, 2007 - 23:40 ET by Clear thinkerOr 'un-named high ranking officials'.
I automatically stop reading anything that has these words in it.
Or "experts say" that David G
February 17, 2007 - 23:44 ET by gfrrmanOr "experts say" that David Gregory is a pedophile?
Or the fave of the day &quo
February 18, 2007 - 12:04 ET by saurusOr the fave of the day "polls indicate", or "the American people say"....
Gabler is in the running with
February 18, 2007 - 00:39 ET by TEGabler is in the running with Howard Kurtz for chief dupe of America's leftist press corps.
Screw Gabler! And I am so si
February 18, 2007 - 01:40 ET by mostlymoderateScrew Gabler! And I am so sick and tired of hearing about Osama, ahem...I mean Obama. Call me a bigot or whatever, but I am not going to vote for somebody named 'Barack Obama' to run my beloved nation (esp. during a time of war). ROMNEY now officially has my vote until something better comes along. God I wish Pat Buchanan wasn't so MASSACRED in the media more than a decade ago when he was running. I want someone that thinks like HE does when it comes to immigration!
Okay ... how about Tancredo
February 18, 2007 - 12:05 ET by saurusOkay ... how about Tancredo or Huckabee?
Well, Gabler's definitely a
February 18, 2007 - 05:14 ET by sarcasmoWell, Gabler's definitely aware of us, so he could respond right here if he wants. (I wonder how he'd respond to the ratio of everyone-else-running to Dr. Ron Paul, since by comparison Mitt got very-fair TV coverage just by getting-mentioned -- whether or not the MRC has bothered to devote a study to this obvious-to-the-point-of-PALPABLE antilibertarian mediabias!).
JMR
Well sarc, if your candidat
February 18, 2007 - 06:04 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWell sarc, if your candidate Dr. Ron Paul really wanted to get noticed by the MSM he could try changing his name to something like 'Jello Biafra'.
D
Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to Congress.org, it's real easy.
You can also send faxes to your reps for free from NumbersUSA.
Or not talking about the el
February 18, 2007 - 06:14 ET by sarcasmoOr not talking about the elephant in the living-room (monetary policy & the Constitution). I'm not doing this because I think Dr. Paul will win, I'm doing this because of the palpable unfairness of a biased media keeping his (and therefore my) ideas out of the political "debate," once-again. Not everyone feels the way I do, and many who do feel this way understandably refuse to get involved in the political process and take-on a duopoly that's rigged against them, but bias is bias, and for me this is easy. Just because this guy has made burgers with sacred cows from both "major" political parties is no reason for journalists -- or media research outfits like the MRC for that matter -- to quit-doing their jobs & start ignoring obvious bias. Question to consider for everyone here: If not for me-and-me-alone ranting on NB, would you even know that Dr. Paul's running?
JMR
sarcasmo Says:
February 18, 2007 - 06:46 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsIf not for me-and-me-alone ranting on NB, would you even know that Dr. Paul's running?
You would if you looked here every couple of months. Don't know how many do (how could I) but I like to check out these names I am not familiar with. At least they show a bigger spread than the MSM.
D
Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to Congress.org, it's real easy.
You can also send faxes to your reps for free from NumbersUSA.
Was "palpable" one
February 18, 2007 - 10:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberWas "palpable" one of the tough words you remembered from doing "Enrich Your Word Power" in this month's Reader's Digest? Two posts in a row, Sarc?
Sorry, this is what happens
February 18, 2007 - 10:53 ET by sarcasmoSorry, this is what happens when I post pre-caffeine, and I still need coffee. What alternate word would you suggest to describe the bias? Is "obvious" too-obvious? But anyway, the point is/was, how many times have you heard about Paul on the TeeVee vs Dennis Kucinich (who inconveniently for the media, is as an individual about as close to an anti-Ron-Paul bias control-group as I could have ever prayed-for, so I keep-on picking on him) since all this started? Goose-egg vs "some," right?? I know this is "my" issue, but do you think the bias I've pointed-out in this case deserves scrutiny by the MRC? Since Lee Atwater himself described the Republicans as "a big tent," and since allegedly small-l-now libertarians are ostensibly welcome in that tent even if they've shish-kabobed various sacred-cows in their pasts, can I assume you'll agree?
JMR
Just jagging you there, Sarc.
February 18, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Roger the ShrubberJust jagging you there, Sarc. There more I read about Paul, the more I like the guy. Plus he's a hometown guy, and that doesn't hurt!
Now, if only he was such an utter failure like Kucinich, THEN the MSM would be propping him up on the news all the time. Because we all know that nobody rewards failure like Liberals.
Thx for introducing Paul to me.
sarcasmoYou are absolutely
February 18, 2007 - 19:38 ET by ScottyDogsarcasmo
You are absolutely right about the media selecting our candidates. I am a Tancredo supporter and have been watching for the media to cover anything about him since he announced. Except for Foxnews and Lou Dobbs, most of the media has not even told the American people he is running. He has been totally excluded from any coverage since he announced that he is running.
What is illuminating, is that in online republican straw polls, Tancredo has out scored most of the other Republicans like Newt, Romney and Giulliani before the formal Presidential announcements.
Many MSM network polls do not ask people if they would vote for Tancredo, Paul, or Hunter. That they can simply exclude these candidates from the question shows the bias that exists to manipulate our elections.
He has consistently come in 2nd or 3rd in many online polls before the onslaught of the MSM forcing Romney or Giulliani down our throats. The RNC does not want conservatives like Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo or even Duncan Hunter to run for President because they have not sold out to the Rockefeller Republicans.
Conservatives that are thinking of voting for Romney or Giulliani should know both of them are CFR members which is important if you care about American Sovereignty and Illegal Immigration. Their backup candidate if they have a blow out is Newt Gingrich another CFR member.
They both support the NAU or SPP and will vote for Amnesty. Rudy Giulliani gave a speech honoring David Rockefeller and said that his work on advancing the New World Order should be applauded and he supported it as well.
What the RNC is afraid of is that if Ron Paul or Tancredo get into the debates, their Golden Boys will crash and burn. I just hope they do not twist and manipulate the election rules again to prevent these guys from debating the issues with the American people.
I for one would love to hear Dr. Ron Paul debate Rudy Giullaini on the Federal Reserve or why we are in the United Nations.
IMHO-He would completely undress him just like he has Greenspan on may occasions.
Is this Mexico or the USA
I'd like to see a link to where Alan Greenspan was 'undressed'.
February 18, 2007 - 19:41 ET by acaiguanaI'd like to see a link to where Alan Greenspan was 'undressed'.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
C'MON, Aca! That is as bad
February 18, 2007 - 19:53 ET by MikeBC'MON, Aca! That is as bad a visual as Helen Thomas in a string bikini. <barf!>
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
You are aware of my Helan Thomas Negligie and Mouse Pad line?
February 18, 2007 - 19:55 ET by acaiguanaYou are aware of my Helan Thomas Negligie and Mouse Pad line?
It's doing great, especially since the 'chair' incident.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
That's sick! Funny, but sic
February 18, 2007 - 22:19 ET by MikeBThat's sick! Funny, but sick. And Dave High thinks you have no sense of humor. Ah, let me rephrase that: Dave High is of the opinion that you have no sense of humor. I doubt seriously that Mr. High is capable of rational thought.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
"I'd like to see a lin
February 19, 2007 - 12:19 ET by sarcasmo"I'd like to see a link to where Alan Greenspan was 'undressed'."
Okey-dokey. But nobody ever seems to want to actually think about (or even fully-read) these things whenever people like me say 'em about fiat money, despite the vital importance of real money to those old-fools, the framers of the US Constitution...
JMR
Well, thanks for the link Sarc.
February 19, 2007 - 12:35 ET by acaiguanaWell, thanks for the link Sarc.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Hay Sarc,It seems some serio
February 18, 2007 - 10:29 ET by Roger the ShrubberHay Sarc,
It seems some serious proponents of free speech were visiting the Wiki entry for Ron Paul.
Gabby
February 18, 2007 - 05:42 ET by jaywlAfter watching this idiot since Fox first aired the show, I can assure you that you should not be all that upset. You see, nobody could possibly say the things he says week after week and believe even a small bit of it. So when Gabby says something so perposterous that you immediately think that he couldn't really believe it, he doesn't. Trust me, FOX is paying for a plant, a shill, a blithering idiot named Gabler!
I don't want Romney because h
February 18, 2007 - 05:57 ET bydeleted double post
I don't want Romney because h
February 18, 2007 - 05:58 ET byI don't want Romney because he is a Mormon. Sorry, but a man who follows a religion that says men get to be 'gods' of their own planets some day--sort of bugs me. (This is not to mention the other things with that religion.)
And I don't want him because he broke the law in Massachusetts by ordering homosexual marriages to 'be.'
I do not blindly follow a party or someone in a party. I don't care what Romney calls himself--he is NOT a true Republican or a true conservative. I want a TRUE conservative in the white house, and I don't want a George Jetson god wanna-be who has already begun flexing his fe fi fo orders here--despite the law!
This has got to be the oddest primaries ever. Let's just pray that it does not come down to an election that is between a Muslim and a Mormon. Gosh, if that is the case, I will just have one question: Who is running Independent?
Debra,If you really feel that
February 18, 2007 - 11:37 ET by fosstenDebra,
If you really feel that strongly about voting your conscience, you can do one of two things:
Vote for this ticket, or pray that Newt decides to run.
Constitution Party
February 18, 2007 - 15:03 ET by saurusOn every issue but one they might lure me onboard - that being no exceptions to the abortion issue. can't abide by that. Otherwise ... good to go.
Who are their candidates?
Thanks for the great link. An
February 18, 2007 - 21:24 ET byfossten,
Thanks for the great link. And I look forward to learning more about Newt. Someone else on NewsBusters was saying that Newt would be a good one, too.
:)
Debra, when you first started
February 18, 2007 - 13:49 ET by MikeBDebra, when you first started posting here, you usually made sense. Now, you are the right wing version of j frank wilson. What do you care what the Mormon's belief in the afterlife is? You should only be concerned with what a politician's voting record is. The Mormon Church's teachings on homosexuality is it's a sin, which seems to be more in line with the Bible than the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians are now. The Mormon Church also teaches that abortion is wrong. The fact is that Mitt went against his Church's teaching, teachings with which you apparently agree. If you won't vote for Mitt Romney because he, by fiat, allowed homosexual "marriage", or because he has voted or advocated for abortion on demand, fine. But, not to vote for someone because his religious teachings don't agree with your religious teachings is asinine.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Debra is a 'one-issue' person.
February 18, 2007 - 13:56 ET by acaiguanaDebra is a 'one-issue' person.
That's pretty difficult to discuss with or to change.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
ordinarily, I oppose her
February 18, 2007 - 14:18 ET by tumbler_2007Debra is certainly entitled as an American to her own opinions of the candidates. She hasn't cursed you or usurped your votes. Let her do as she pleases, for whatever reason. She and I disagree vehemently on scripture, historical origins of Christ's Church, and many Christian truths. I believe she holds firmly to false doctrines.
But not so much as Romney may or may not. In truth, he may be the most lukewarm Mormon in the world. He may not hold his church's doctrine seriously at all. After all, he's a politician in the mold of most other self-serving pols. How could I seriously believe the usual Democrat is devoutly Catholic? Not in a million years.
However, assuming Romney is a true Mormon by conviction, (a dubious circumstance) I wouldn't vote for him myself. Why? My vote is precious to me, that's why. It's just as stupid to vote for Romney as it would be to vote for a committed Muslim. To me, each has to be living in darkness. Debra lives in error, but not yet in darkness.
I take umbridge at your implicaton I am opposing Debraj.
February 18, 2007 - 14:23 ET by acaiguanaI take umbridge at your implicaton I am opposing Debraj.
That would be a totally incorrect assumption to make from my comment.
Thanks, anyway.
Agree with her or disagree with her as it may be, I find no future in arguing with her POV.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
You ... you mean Ted and Pat
February 18, 2007 - 19:58 ET by dahliatraversYou ... you mean Ted and Patrick Kennedy are not devout Catholics??
:o)
February 18, 2007 - 22:59 ET by:o)
What is that supposed to be D
February 18, 2007 - 23:03 ET by BlondeWhat is that supposed to be Debra?
Cute?
:o) <----It is a smiley fa
February 18, 2007 - 23:16 ET by:o) <----It is a smiley face. Have you never seen these before, Blonde?
Yes, Debra, I have seen a smi
February 18, 2007 - 23:34 ET by BlondeYes, Debra, I have seen a smiley face.
I was just wondering what you're so smiley about here after having insulted so many of our fellow posters with your nasty attacks upon their personal beliefs.
Just wondering why you were so chipper.
Personally, I find your attacks rude and vulgar. Happy faces notwithstanding.
Don't worry, Blonde, my smile
February 19, 2007 - 00:01 ET byDon't worry, Blonde, my smiley face was not directed at you.
And I do not expect you to feel any other way about my postings than you feel. You have a right to your beliefs of my posts and I have no need to seek to change your mind.
Thank God!
February 19, 2007 - 00:07 ET by BlondeThank God!
deleted double post
February 18, 2007 - 22:43 ET bydeleted double post
MikeB,We were taught in baseb
February 18, 2007 - 22:44 ET byMikeB,
We were taught in baseball to keep our eyes on the ball. --The body has a natural ability to connect with what its eyes are stayed on.
When raising children, if we raise them telling them that they will achieve great things, they will. People naturally follow that which they have in their mind they will do.
Our mind greatly influences what we do. Hence, what is put into our mind greatly influences what we do.
Nothing is more mind altering than one's faith-beliefs. This is actually what faith-beliefs are all about (what one believes in one's mind about life and the effects that one's beliefs have on one's way of living).
So, to know what someone will do, all I have to do is learn about his faith-beliefs. Once I know what his faith-beliefs are, I have tremendous insight into his over-all life.
If I know that a person running for president is following a faith-belief that puts things into the person's mind that will cause that person to not be of good Statesmanship quality, I will not vote for him.
You could sum this up with a simple 'cause and effect' saying, "Garbage in, garbage out."
I am quite practical in my ways of thinking things through.
Apparently you took your eyes
February 19, 2007 - 00:39 ET by MikeBApparently you took your eyes off the ball, because that was a big steeeerike! Once again, Romney's record on abortion and same-sex "marriage" are contrary to the teachings of his church. I won't vote for Romney because of his record, not because of he exercises his first amendment rights by espousing a faith that is not mine.
You claim to be quite practical in your ways of thinking things through. Okay, so what? It is pretty much a null statement. Olbermann also believes he is quite practical in his ways of thinking things through. So does, I am sure, kafka, j frank wilson, blarsen, Al Franken, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Rosie O'Donnell, and others. I am certain that Karl Marx, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot felt the same way. No, I am not comparing you to any of the above.
Your statement that you wouldn't vote for Romney because he is a Mormon belies any claim of thought, but does show unthinking prejudice. Mormons, as a general rule have one of the strongest work ethics of any group I know in the U.S. The Mormon Church teaches homosexuality is sin and abortion is wrong. As to their belief in the afterlife, prove to me they are wrong. I don't think they are right about that, but no one can prove a bloody thing about the afterlife, or even if there is one.
The only thing that should concern you about any candidate is their record: how have they voted on different bills, what is their stated position on issues, not whether their church is approved in your tiny little mind.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
MikeB,I ask this with all due
February 19, 2007 - 03:10 ET byMikeB,
I ask this with all due respect: Who are you to tell me what I should concern myself with?
Debra, I must ask this with a
February 19, 2007 - 11:39 ET by MikeBDebra, I must ask this with all due respect: who are you to tell anyone they are in error about religion? You apparently think that tumbler is in error and going to Hell because he is a Catholic. He apparently thinks you are in error and going to Hell because you are not a Catholic. What, because a candidate does not belong to the Church of Debra, that makes them unqualified to hold office? I am glad you have faith. But your faith is not my faith, not tumbler's faith, not Acaiguana's faith, not Blonde's or Dyne's or ConservativeVoice's. What makes you right and everyone else wrong? Because you believe it? Crap! Karl Marx believed Communism was the way of the future. Some people believe, still, that the earth is flat. 30% of Americans think that 9/11 was an inside job, planned and carried out by Bush. Just because they believe it does not make it true.
So Romney has a different belief as to what happens in the afterlife. Prove him wrong. And, Debra, quoting the Bible does not constitute proof, any more than my quoting the Bagavad Gita or the Koran or other Bible verses or Mein Kampf or Das Kapital would constitute proof.
As many other posters have pointed out, and you refuse to comprehend, this is a political blog concerning liberal bias in the news media, not a religious blog. So, if you have problems with a politician because of his or her positions on issues, tell us about it and your reasons for it. But, if your argument is he or she does not share your faith, take it somewhere else, please. Whether you are aware of it or not, Mitt Romney enjoys the same first amendment rights you do.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
MikeB,The day that I tell you
February 19, 2007 - 20:09 ET byMikeB,
The day that I tell you or anyone else to vote my conscience, is the day you have a right to tell me off for it.
And yes, people keep yelling that this is a political blog, not a religious one--most of those who are yelling this, are posting religious posts as they yell for others not to.
I realize this is a political blog. However, I thought that Conservatives did not tell people to leave their faith-beliefs on the door-step in order to publicly talk politics. I thought such was the behavior of the bias liberal left--and that such behavior is part of that which this site exposes the liberal left of.
And stop spreading your blasted Gospel all over this site.
February 19, 2007 - 11:42 ET by acaiguanaAnd stop spreading your blasted Gospel all over this site.
Was that plain enough?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
"I don't want Romney b
February 18, 2007 - 14:51 ET by Guy Arthur Thomas"I don't want Romney because he is a Mormon" Debra, your statement is par for the course for a CHARISMATIC poli-christ. Your line of thinking represents just what is wrong with the poli-christ evangelicals. You obviously don't know a thing about government and for that matter sound bible doctrine.
I am not here to argue with you (you don't debate but like a cookie cutter charismaniac you simply preach and indulged in heavy narcissistic self-aggrandizement posting your image at every turn at your website...at least act like a journalist and not a 7th grader at MySpace), my response is for those either on the fence of your brand of insanity or being pushed towards it by idiots like Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and so on.
Government is not a Christian institutuion, it is not duty bound to be headed by believers in Jesus Christ. There is no doctrinal commission, no gospel commission, no safeguard of the Bible that God have given to the role of government. But sadly through your ignorant and untrained teachers like jackass T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyers, John Hagee, TBN, and Rod Parsley you have accepted to stupidity that government and Christianity are one in the same. That Christianity should run government. You, Debra, are the kind of plague that caused the Crusades.
Government is for all people, born again Christian and not born again Christian because government isn't about religion. Government is about maintaining and securing CIVIL order. God has given all men the capacity to recognize and employ good sense to govern themselves and their communities. It doesn't require being born again to understand that a strong military helps insure domestic tranqui