Gabler Slurs MRC as 'Liars' Over Report on Media Coverage of Romney vs. Obama

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
  • Bookmark and Share

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

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

54:1

Wow, Mark.

54:1.

That is sublime.

Not to mention, indefensible.

No media bias here...move on.

Sheesh!

It Gets Worse

At 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

I'd be willing to bet this idiot has cited mediamatters as a source before.

Am I the only one who doesn't

Am 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

Since a conservative stopwatch was used to measure the comparative airtimes there is obvious conservative bias at work here

Obviously their stopwatch w

Obviously their stopwatch works much better than the Democrat congress'...

figures

Simply 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

Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent,
and discerning if he holds his tongue. Proverbs 17:28

Gabler gets his hat handed to

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

Them'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

One 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

what we need is a cable TV version of Newsbusters, with a similar format to CNN Headline News

NeoC...You are forgetting the

NeoC...

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

The NYT--the paper of liberal made-up record.

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

I know you are...

It'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

Gabler: "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

what 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

CITA,

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

Blonde,

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

Quite, 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

One 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

The 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

Why are you criticizing Jim Pinkerton? He was criticizing CBS for its meager coverage of Romney compared to Obama.

Having viewed the video aga

Having 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

Thanks, 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

Hey 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?

"Our readers don't give a rat's ass about what you think. They want facts."

Elmore Leonard, 'The Hot Kid'.

The Issue of the Non-issue

I'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

Gabler is an idiot. I'd rather remove parasites from my puffer fish than watch him on tv.

Hyunchback, if the LibMedia

Hyunchback, 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

Tools/Options/Content/Fonts/Advanced ... set preferred font and style as default.

Religion

Maybe 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

And 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

Free,

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

Not just a mom -- more like a whole village, don't you know.

"It takes a village to

"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

A village of Libs. What a picture of whinny, greedy idiots!

    • I want a bigger plane.
    • I need a bigger freezer.

I can't wait.

ThisnThat, did I tell you I got one of those William Jefferson

ThisnThat, 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

I hope it came loaded and stocked.

It's been kicking out $90K bundles of cash every 30 minutes.

It'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

Here's some advice, should you choose to accept it:

  • First, issue vehement denials of wrongdoing.
  • Second, call any future raids outrageous; say that they are disclosure "part of a public relations agenda and an attempt to embarrass" you.
  • Third, refrain from using the word "money" and point only to the word "cash" written on a piece of paper whenever you discuss your "business" deals.
  • Fourth, go buy a reddish-brown colored leather briefcase -- these have proven to be ideal for most business deals.
  • Fifth, seek re-election immediately -- your neighbors sound like they could use some extra cash, just in case.

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

"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

In 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&quot

"...antique media"- exactly right RW.

Antique media is being much t

Antique media is being much too kind!

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA!

Carpareus, I get really tired

Carpareus, 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,

You 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

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?"

Liberal debate tactic:  Any assertion from a conservative source, no matter how thoroughly documented and reasoned, is false.

I guess he should have said,

I guess he should have said, "our sources say", "some say" or "there are those who say".

Unnamed source

You'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

Or 'un-named high ranking officials'.

I automatically stop reading anything that has these words in it.

Or "experts say" that David G

Or "experts say" that David Gregory is a pedophile?

Or the fave of the day &quo

Or the fave of the day "polls indicate", or "the American people say"....

Gabler is in the running with

Gabler is in the running with Howard Kurtz for chief dupe of America's leftist press corps.

Screw Gabler! And I am so si

Screw 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

Okay ... how about Tancredo or Huckabee?

Well, Gabler's definitely a

Well, 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

Well 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

Or 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:

If 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

Was "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

Sorry, 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.

Just 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

sarcasmo

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'.

I'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

C'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?

You 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

That'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

&quot;I'd like to see a lin

"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.

Well, thanks for the link Sarc.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."

Hay Sarc,It seems some serio

Hay Sarc,

It seems some serious proponents of free speech were visiting the Wiki entry for Ron Paul.

Gabby

After 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

deleted double post

I don't want Romney because h

I 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

Debra,

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

On 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

fossten,

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

Debra, 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.

Debra 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

Debra 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.

I 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

You ... you mean Ted and Patrick Kennedy are not devout Catholics??

:o)

:o)

What is that supposed to be D

What is that supposed to be Debra?

Cute?

:o) &lt;----It is a smiley fa

:o) <----It is a smiley face. Have you never seen these before, Blonde?

Yes, Debra, I have seen a smi

Yes, 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

Don'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!

Thank God!

deleted double post

deleted double post

MikeB,We were taught in baseb

MikeB,

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

Apparently 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

MikeB,

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

Debra, 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

MikeB,

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.

And stop spreading  your blasted Gospel all over this site.

Was that plain enough?

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."

&quot;I don't want Romney b

"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 tranquility. It doesn't require being born again to understand the mathematics of taxes and revenue and so on. It requires someone with capacity to govern. It requires men and women with real answers that work to keep a nation free.

Yes, I know...you and your type come from the school of great arrogance that teaches each other God talks to you and gives you special messages...a bizzare doctrine that even the President unfortunately seems to have bought into. You people couldn't be further from sound Bible doctrine. You are nutcases and unfortunately have the same freedoms as everyone else and use the Word of God to teach the erroneous idea and anti-christian doctrine that a theocracy is good and right for America, it isn't.

If anyone is listening or has ears listen up. No....no...no to these bizzare poli-christ ideas! America is a Constitutional Repubic with Democratically Elected Representation. It is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT A Christian Nation. There is no such thing. It is a FREE nation where Christian and unbeliever of all types are free as AMERICANS.

Not liking Romney because he is a Mormon is about as ignorant as it gets but folks, ya know what, there are a WHOLE WHOLE WHOLE Lot of EVANGELICALS taught this ignorant way of thinking that disregards even the fundamentals of government and political science. They are fools turning their listeners into mass fools.

What we need is a leader that can lead and understand principles of the Constitutional Republic which we are...plain and simple. I might add...R.B.Thieme the well known Theologian and Bible teacher that Dan Quayle's father-in-law listened to for years and influenced Quayle to some extent still has an extensive library of sound bible teaching available at NO COST and you can of course discover a great deal of excellent material here...R.B. Thieme. He goes into detail in some of the material about the corruption by Charismatic Christians in government.

If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!

Agree!

I agree 100% with your well reasoned analysis. The Founders knew full well what a government sponsored religion would result in - they fled that and suffered for it. The fact that our nation was founded on Christian principles is not the same as a Christian government!

Well done.

Well Done Guy

Well done Guy.  I've been anticipating this sort of response to this self-agrandizing, humility-lacking, self-styled proclaimer of the true truth.  Hopefully, little miss better-than-the-rest now has a clue and will stop using this site for her proselytizing (in love).  Thanks for saving me the trouble Guy........

Guy Arthur Thomas

Maybe you think people around here need your ponderous and prolonged documents, but MEGO. What's more, you're here promoting R.B.Thieme the " . . . well known theologian and Bible teacher " --who's no more authorized to teach correct biblical doctrine than is Debra or her fundie cohort Fossteen. Thieme is the run-of-the-mill scriptural fulminator succeeding from your heretical reformers and bashers of the Catholic Church. His authority doesn't come down to him from Christ's apostles. His web page is no beacon of truth, any more than Debra's. Why are you foisting him off on us?

As to his political acumen, nobody rightly cares. You are free to vote any way it pleases you. I myself don't care what R.B. thinks; he is no more American than I. --If he thinks Christians are corrupting influences on our government he's obviously crazy. Be comforted that Debra (and I,) do not vote for any liberal. Give her credit for that.

tumbler...

Look bumbler...the Crusades were your time...it has passed. I realize as a zealot you have no capacity for a rational perspective most of the time (maybe all the time). Now, take your papal bull and run along and when you can come up with something OTHER than the rants of a 13th century Crusader...well...you might be worth a look. I might add....a singular but ROBUST reference to R.B. Thieme doesn't warrant me being here promoting him...but the excesses of a Crusader are many and this is obviously one more of yours.

If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!

Good post Guy A. Thomas.

Good post Guy A. Thomas.

"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."

While it is true that the founders of America were believers in God, of the Protestants, there was a deliberate effort to promote real religous freedom in America.

I am not in the middle of the Christian wars, so I don't connect with all of your references, but I see your point clearly.

We have a number of posters here who seem to think that bible thumping makes good argument.  And if questioned, they retort, "Well, if you can cite Jefferson, then I can cite the bible."

Well, of course one can cite the bible.  But there is a fine line between citing the bible and preaching.

I'm way tired of being preached to on this site.  I'd suggest that Debraj and others who feel so strongly that this site is giving them a forum to prosthelyze should rethink the purpose of this site.

To Matt, Mark and Tim;  I think this stuff has gone far enough.  I think the site is beginning to sound like a far right Christian bastion of crushing any discourse at the level I'd appreciate the site achieve.  I'm intellectually oriented.  That woud mean, theology has its place; but not in every darn topic and not in every opinion with long cites from the bible or any other tomb.

For example, if I come here and start citing the Koran for my opinions over and over and over and over and over again; would not someone object?

I'm not a Christian and these theads degenerate into a discussion of the 'morality' of Mormanism, the 'morality' of homosexuality; the 'morality' of a political position from the standpoint of whether the 'Bible' says this or that.

Hey, guys?  Frankly, I've read the Bible quite a bit.  Keep one in my library.  Actually know what it says.  I don't run around and use it to descern some 'devine' knowledge of the 'truth' to spew all over these pages.

Thanks very much.

I'm really tired of this Bible thumping I see.  If you want to quote the Bible, use the standard references or a link and let us decide whether we want to be exposed once again to the 'thee' and 'thou' of your brain.

I'm feeling 'smothered' by this Bible stuff on this site.  What if I decided to cite the T'ao as a source with endless quotes?

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."

I gotta add, I'm a member of a couple of sites that prohibit

I gotta add, I'm a member of a couple of sites that prohibit any prosthelyzing.  Period, no holds barrred.  Just do not allow it.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."

ACA,I'm with you all the way

ACA,

I'm with you all the way on your post.

I'm way tired of being preached to on this site.  I'd suggest that Debraj and others who feel so strongly that this site is giving them a forum to prosthelyze should rethink the purpose of this site.

To Matt, Mark and Tim;  I think this stuff has gone far enough.  I think the site is beginning to sound like a far right Christian bastion of crushing any discourse at the level I'd appreciate the site achieve.  I'm intellectually oriented.  That woud mean, theology has its place; but not in every darn topic and not in every opinion with long cites from the bible or any other tomb.

While I don't at all mind that posters bring their religious attitudes into the discussion, the preaching has gotten to be way over the top.  That and the blatant attacks.  I'm mortified that people are so intolerant of others' religious views that they come off sounding ignorant and down-right stupid.  (And give ammunition to the liberals that conservatives are a bunch of lock-step hyper-religious automatons).

Dyne did a nice job.  He defended Romney's position and linked a site where he urged others to go to learn more. That works just fine for me.  But the continual attacking of others, and quoting bible verses in lieu of a cogent argument, has become exceedingly tiresome.

So once again, I'm with you all the way, here, and I'd also urge the Masthead to deal with this issue.

Thanks Blonde, I've been sorta raging about this for a couple da

Thanks Blonde, I've been sorta raging about this for a couple days now.

I'm so tired of this stuff.  If I want this type of discussion I'll log onto patrobertson.com.  Or some other site similar to this stuff.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."

Amen.  Quoting scripture to

Amen.  Quoting scripture to educate, fine...using scripture as a means of "winning" a debate serves no purpose because you can not prove faith.

...

...

Well, G.A.T., you sure told m

Well, G.A.T., you sure told me! And all the little anti-Christs said, "Amen!"

......

......

debra

thank you it was very well written.  She of course ignored you, but never-the-less you have earned my respect.

---

---

MRC to air NewsBusters Talk Soup!

Can you imagine?  What a riot!

Gabler: &quot;Figures don't

Gabler: "Figures don't lie, as my father used to say. Liars do figure."

What pity young Master Gabler's dad didn't say things like,

"Do your homework on why communism, socialism and all the warped leftist ideologies have failed for the past 150 years."

"George McGovern is an idiot who couldn't knock the skin of a rice pudding. Read this Milton Friedman book instead."

"Stop playing with yourself Neal, you'll go blind, become embittered, die alone at home, and be eaten by your cats.."

"Our readers don't give a rat's ass about what you think. They want facts."

Elmore Leonard, 'The Hot Kid'.

I just figured out who I'm re

I just figured out who I'm reminded of when Gabler opens his mouth. Does anybody remember the Smothers Brothers? Think about Tommy Smothers' character in their act. Talk about your cognitive dissonance! In this exchange with Pinkerton, Gabler might as well have said, as Tommy would have said, "Oh Yeah? (All bug-eyed, lower jaw jutted out), Well, figures never lie and liars always.. er.. (hyperventilating) figure." (Big smile.. proud that he actually said it correctly).

Well, ok, Gabler is certainly smarter than the Tommy Smothers character.. I think, anyway.

Interrupt

Pinkerton was on O'Reilly one night regarding Gabler. O'Reilly wanted to know why Pinkerton and the rest don't call him on his lies. Pinkerton said the panelist were told not to interrupt. Like a typical liberal, Gabler ignores the rules and constantly interrupts. So much for playing by the rules, Jim.  Never be a gentleman when dealing with a liberal; he won't return the favor.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

Gabler

If you want to teach someone about modern liberalism, tell them to watch Gabler--constantly aggitated and nasty, never listens carefully before running his mouth, uses wild generalities, assigns motives which are nothing but conjecture to those with whom he disagrees, hears things that were never said and then lies with certainty about them --to name a few characteristics. Please...

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

Is it surprising that Tommy

Is it surprising that Tommy Smothers was in reality as much a lefty as Gabler is?

Gabler the Flack.

Cheers for Mr. Pinkerton for pointing out the disparity in the coverage and for citing the parent organization of Newsbusters as the source for same.

Jeers for that pencil-necked flack for the DimLib Media Gabler for accusing the MRC of lying, which is exactly what he did.

I think Mr Gabler should be required to either produce evidence that supports his claim, or apologize to the MRC.

I won't hold my breath.

I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman