Democrats: the Persons, the Myths

[Randy Bosch]

Interesting to look at the space given to the candidates (both Rep and Dem) in those two NYT articles.  Obviously, they support Hillary - the lost email and "non-secure US secrets and throw Benghazi employees under the bus" candidate.  Do you smell bias?   

... F

Well, I smell partisan preference, at least.

Just in the USA, partisan preference in newspapers has always existed. 
The Jefferson vs. Adams contest in 1800 might still be considered the biggest newspaper mudslinging battle in history. 
Every following election had broadsheets and major city newspapers trying to top the previous one with amazingly salacious and slanderous offerings.

Anyone who thinks any newspaper does not have a partisan preference is naive, delusional, or mastering their favorite fishwrapper's fodder for future flinging.
 
Best advice: Know or find out the preference before you read a publication; then, read it prepared to know the civil kindness or lack thereof of your alleged friends and alleged enemies.

[RevG]

This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.

I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.

Funny because Hillary talks a lot like a Republican, at least of the neocon variety, but hey what do I know?

Can't answer your question with any degree of certainty, but I'd be interested to know the names of Republicans you think sound like Hillary.

All of them, with the exception of Donald Trump I suppose.  Take social issues like whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice off the table and there really is no difference.  One great example of this is approach to foreign policy.  All of the Republican candidates with the exception of Rand Paul are war hawks just like Hillary.  Whether you agree with him or not, this is why it's great that Bernie is running because his being in the race brings to light just how liberal Hillary isn't.  It also reveals how even renowned papers like the NYTimes may not be as liberal or open-minded or progressive as they purport to be.  Instead they are beholden to a particular way of doing things, a particular framework that is rather unimaginative and, imo, quite cynical. 

[Charles Austin]

Speaking of "partisan preference," NPR's "On the Media" program today was about talk radio (which means conservative radio) and the campaign, noting how the mouths of Limbaugh, Beck, and cohorts spew support for Cruz, Rubio, the Tea Party and Trump; and belch out hatred of anything Clinton or Democratic.
As long as we're bashing "mainstream media," let's acknowledge that talk-radio is that; and that it is overwhelmingly hard-line conservative.

[Steven Tibbetts]

As long as we're bashing "mainstream media," let's acknowledge that talk-radio is that; and that it is overwhelmingly hard-line conservative.

That's because even progressives won't listen to progressive talk radio.

[peter_speckhard]

This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.

I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.

Funny because Hillary talks a lot like a Republican, at least of the neocon variety, but hey what do I know?

Can't answer your question with any degree of certainty, but I'd be interested to know the names of Republicans you think sound like Hillary.

All of them, with the exception of Donald Trump I suppose.  Take social issues like whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice off the table and there really is no difference.  One great example of this is approach to foreign policy.  All of the Republican candidates with the exception of Rand Paul are war hawks just like Hillary.  Whether you agree with him or not, this is why it's great that Bernie is running because his being in the race brings to light just how liberal Hillary isn't.  It also reveals how even renowned papers like the NYTimes may not be as liberal or open-minded or progressive as they purport to be.  Instead they are beholden to a particular way of doing things, a particular framework that is rather unimaginative and, imo, quite cynical.

Really? Cruz and Hillary sound the same to you? Carson? Fiorina? You think they sound like Hillary Clinton? If you divide everying into A) dovish isolationist candidates, and B) everyone else, I guess you could arrive at that conclusion. But even given that distinction, I don't think there are any Republicans who wouldn't utterly repudiate Hillary's handling of foreign affairs as Secretary of State.

"Social issues" is a pretty broad swath of things to arbitrarily take off the table. Unless taxation, government services, health care, preferred Supreme Court justices, and a bunch of other things are all lumped under "social issues" I don't think the idea that Hillary and the non-Trump Republicans sound basically the same holds any water at all. 

[George Erdner]

As long as we're bashing "mainstream media," let's acknowledge that talk-radio is that; and that it is overwhelmingly hard-line conservative.

That's because even progressives won't listen to progressive talk radio.

It's even hard to get liberals to listen to liberal talk radio. To be a liberal it is almost a requirement to ignore politics and listen to music radio instead.

[Charles Austin]

Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.

[Fletch]

Interesting indeed that Scripture says to HEAR the Word.  Now I understand why liberals/progressives READ to get their information and why they go so far astray from the Word. 

... F

[John Mundinger]

Interesting indeed that Scripture says to HEAR the Word.  Now I understand why liberals/progressives READ to get their information and why they go so far astray from the Word. 

... F

...except, what you are hearing on conservative talk radio is anything but the WORD.

edited because I forgot to include the emoticon.

[David Garner]

Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.

Sirius XM Progress, for one.

They're rare, but they exist.  We used to have Mike Malloy in Atlanta.  There are others.

[Fletch]

Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.

Sirius XM Progress, for one.

They're rare, but they exist.  We used to have Mike Malloy in Atlanta.  There are others.

You are certainly correct, David.  A quick Google search shows the following.  I guess progressive liberal humble correspondents don't bother to fact check - just go with their personal views.   

The following is a list of United States radio stations that air talk programming with a liberal or progressive viewpoint. All are listed in alphabetical order by state.

See individual station articles for specifics, background and history.

http://ltradio.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_progressive_talk_radio_stations


... F

[John_Hannah]

All news media reflect some bias in varying degrees.

Clearly the New York Times reflects a moderate Democratic bias. Other papers, radio or TV shows, magazines, et. al. may reflect a far left, far right, or moderate Republican bias. When one reads any of it, the bias should be kept clearly in mind.

Of course, these are businesses and they would not remain profitable were it not for the people who buy their products. Most of those buyers also vote.   

Peace, JOHN

[James S. Rustad]

Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.

Air America?  Oh, that's right.  It went off the air because almost no one listened to it.

Just for the record, I've known many conservatives that read extensively.  I don't always agree with them, but they exist.

[James_Gale]

Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.

I do know liberals (some related to me) who can read.  Not all can read very well.  Among this group are those who get their guidance -- not from talk radio -- but from hip comedy shows, such as the Daily Show (at least in the Jon Stewart era), Colbert Report (until the host left for a better gig), and the John Oliver f&*k-this-and-f*%k-that fest on HBO.  Here's an all-time gem from a comedy web site illustrating the point by showing interviews with attendees at the 2010 Stewart/Colbert "Rally for Sanity" on the National Mall.   

[Dan Fienen]

Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.

And it is this kind of attitude, adopting a smug superiority over those with whom one disagrees (liberals read, conservatives - those redneck yahoos - won't or can't read) that has made government increasing dysfunctional and continues to polarize not only our politics but our society.  I don't really believe that Pr. Austin considers all, or even most, conservatives functionally illiterate.  It was just a throw away line thrown in to express his biting, acrid whimsy (when was the last time he delivered such a whimsical snark at liberals?) but the point is that he considers such attempts at whimsical humor not only funny but acceptable.  All we need is the follow-up, "What's the matter with you conservatives have you no sense of humor?"  Is the ultimate judge of humor the ability to accept derogatory jokes at your own expense?  That "humor" really needs to be in the same category of anti-Semitic, anti-Black and Polack jokes.  But of course, when Pr. Austin makes put-down jokes about others, we all are supposed to bow to his superior intellect (he can actually read) and humble ourselves to accept his anti-Conservative jokes because being the butt of his whimsy is our proper place.

We have Hillary Clinton joking about making it a matter of pride that she has made and considers Republicans her enemies.  Republican candidates seem eager to out do each other in considering those who cross our southern boarder our enemies worthy of no consideration, and those who are here, no matter the circumstances as trash to be taken out as expeditiously as possible.  What has happened to America that our political rhetoric needs to be expressed in the starkest and most polarizing way in order to be heard.  Voices of reason and moderation get lost in the din.  This not just from the unwashed masses of conservative, but also from the effete liberal elite.  Whatever else may be said about Donald Trump (and a lot can and should be said) he has dialed into the unrest of a great many people who feel themselves disenfranchised and alienated the political process in which they feel nobody speaks for them, their concerns and their needs.

This has become a problems on all hues of the political spectrum and extends back for decades.  Politics in America has always been a rough and tumble sport.  But after the campaigning, we need to come together to hammer out laws, policies, agencies and programs that advance our nation and for the good of the people, in one way or another, all the people, not just those like me.  Perhaps the current venom harks back to the Presidency of Reagan where it was considered by many a sine qua non to establish one's credentials as part of the intelligentsia to consider him a Hollywood lightweight and intellectual nonentity.  Most if not all presidents since, Republican and Democrat, have faced such scathing and loathing.  Neither Donald Trump, nor Hillary Clinton, nor for that matter Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, nor Bernie Sanders are the second coming of Christ, nor is any of them the second coming of Satan.