SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tsigprofit who wrote (124)11/18/2003 6:08:39 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Ah, absolutes spoken that have no basis in fact or reality.

Perhaps you need to look objectively at what is really
happening in the war on terror, including Iraq. Your
version of the truth & stone cold reality stand in stark
contrast with each other.

You claim Bush Administration policies are "evil", while
your party regularly commits acts of treachery.

You claim Bush is responsible for deaths of thousands of
Iraqi citizens when there is no reliable proof of such
despicable utterances & while your party intentionally
puts our troops at greater risk with their lies, deceit &
treachery.

And you blame Bush for the deaths of some 400 US troops
when we are fighting a global war on terror that has
resulted in the death & capture of many thousands of
terrorists & nearly as many former Iraqi leaders who
murdered, tortured, imprisoned, raped & pillaged hundreds
of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens (let's not forget
what Saddam did to the Kurds, Iran & Kuwait either). And
now we are beginning to see that Iraq did have numerous
ties to Al Qaeda, among other terrorist groups.

War is hell. The price of freedom is always high.It is a
price we must pay if we are going to continue to live free
from terrorism & rouge nations that pursue WMD's & have
ties to terrorist groups.

To do nothing or be an apologist for terrorists as Clinton
did only emboldens terrorists to strike again & rouge
leaders to thumb their nose at us. History clearly
supports this.

Yet I do not doubt you will continue to continue, to
pretend that your completely inflexible POV & your deep
denial of reality, somehow is the gospel truth......
regardless of the facts.



To: tsigprofit who wrote (124)11/18/2003 6:30:10 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A surprising jog to the right
By John Leo
US News and World Report

"We're not losing" isn't much of a battle cry, but an article in the policy magazine City Journal with that modest message is attracting a lot of attention. The article, "We're Not Losing the Culture Wars Anymore" by senior editor Brian Anderson, argues that the left's near monopoly in the entertainment and news media is "skidding to a startlingly swift halt."

Much of Anderson's evidence--the rise of Fox News, talk radio, and conservative bloggers--is familiar, but the article argues that a corner has been turned and the culture war is a far more even struggle now. This news may come as a shock to conservatives. It's certainly a shock to Tim Noah, a liberal commentator at Slate. Noah read Anderson's article, watched as the Reagan miniseries was pulled, then wrote glumly that the right has won the culture wars.

Hardly. The liberal worldview still dominates the news business, the arts, the entertainment world, publishing, the campuses, and all levels of schooling. It's the media and educational status quo. But five years ago, CBS probably could have gotten away with a cheap-shot miniseries on the Reagans. Now it can't.
This is partly because of market forces, as conservative columnist Robert Bartley and liberal columnist Richard Reeves both pointed out. Reeves called the miniseries "commercially insane." Large conservative audiences no longer accept many liberal products, so those products are adapted or abandoned. The other reason for the ditching of the Reagan miniseries is that the conservative media world is now good at gang tackling. From Matt Drudge's Drudge Report (which framed the issue of the miniseries) to Fox, the bloggers, talk radio hosts, and the columnists, everybody piled on. New York Times columnist David Brooks touched on this point some time ago, writing that the new conservative media have "cohered to form a dazzlingly efficient ideology delivery system that swamps liberal efforts to get their ideas out." For liberals, this is an ominous development.

The unfamiliar part of Anderson's article is the rising conservative impact on pop culture. In comedy, it's not just Dennis Miller, the first major comedian fully identified with the right. On cable, conservative humor--or at least, antiliberal humor--pops up all the time. Colin Quinn, like Miller a veteran of Saturday Night Live, skewers liberal pieties regularly on Comedy Central's popular Tough Crowd. I once asked a thoughtful liberal friend: "Why does the message of the left seem to penetrate the whole of pop culture?" His answer--"We make the culture; you don't"--doesn't seem so obvious now.

New paradigm. The showpiece of antiliberal humor is one that appalls a good many conservatives: South Park, Comedy Central's wildly popular cartoon saga of four crude and incredibly foul-mouthed little boys. The show mocks mindless lefty celebrities and takes swipes at the gay lobby and the abortion lobby. Some examples: Getting Gay With Kids is a homosexual choir that descends on the school. And the mother of one South Parker decides she wants to abort him ("It's my body"), despite the fact that he's 8 years old. The weekly disclaimer on the show says it is so offensive "it should not be viewed by anyone." This is a new paradigm in pop culture: Conventional liberalism is the old, rigid establishment. The antiliberals are brash, funny, and cool. Who would have thought?

Some of the new conservative success is due to the rise of a large crop of commentators the left has not been able to match. Mostly young and often very funny, they include Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin, and Jeff Jacoby. But most of the conservative gains have been in new media. Fox News's large audience skews young, and half its viewers are either liberal or centrist. So Fox isn't just preaching to the choir. It's exposing nonconservatives to conservative ideas.

As mentioned here several times, the "blogosphere"--the world of Internet commentators--tilts strongly to the right. Bloggers like Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus, and Glenn Reynolds of instaPundit have a heavy impact. No excess of the liberal media seems to escape their attention. Among other things, they have mercilessly attacked Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and idol of America's angriest liberals. It has been an amazing and, I think, largely successful campaign of informed detraction.

It was obvious that the democratization of the media would bring new voices into the field, but who knew that so many of those voices would be conservative, libertarian, or just cantankerously opposed to entrenched liberal doctrine? The conservative side is far from winning the culture wars, but the debate is broader and fairer now.

The near monopoly is over.


usnews.com



To: tsigprofit who wrote (124)11/18/2003 6:41:01 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Why the Dems Are Losing

They're waging a permanent campaign by seeking temporary advantage.

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. WSJ.com

When are Democrats going realize that campaigning may be what's costing them elections?

It's not the normal electioneering that precedes Election Day that's the problem. Rather it's "The Permanent Campaign," a term future Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal coined in his 1980 book of the same name. President Clinton was a master at this form of retail politics. He raised enormous sums of money at grip-and-grin fund-raisers throughout his presidency. His poll tests and focus groups were legendary. And despite repeated scandals and impeachment, he managed to stay ahead of the public's mood.

That, however, was a more tranquil time. Since Sept. 11, events have been moving too fast to lead by following polls. The times now call for real leadership, not political gimmickry. Those tricks can work during the short duration of a campaign. But they aren't tactics that will work for a party out of power facing a party with real governing accomplishments during wartime. The Democrats have tried to seize every apparent advantage only to find that they can't keep up with events.

That's what happened with the economy. Democratic presidential candidates have been taking cheap shots at President Bush almost since he took office. Instead of offering real plans to get out of the mess and acknowledging the realities of the Sept. 11 attacks, they blast away on tax cuts for "the wealthy" and yelled about three million lost jobs. That was fun while it lasted, but the economy is turning around. Sure, they'll chant the mantra of a "jobless recovery" for awhile, but only until hiring picks up again.

The Democrats have seen even more ups and downs on the war in Iraq and against global terrorism. The party has jumped at every perceived momentary opening, winning some short-term gains even as it now finds itself shaken up and on the floor. Missing pre-Sept. 11 intelligence, abusing detainees in Cuba, and overreaching with the Patriot were all supposed to weaken the Bush administration.

But in each case things turned against the Democrats. Missing pre-Sept. 11 intelligence isn't as important as preventing the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil. They detainees, it turns out, are being treated very well, just kept under close guard. And the story about those poor librarians disappeared as soon as Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department has never used Patriot Act provision in question. No one was throwing the book at librarians.


Last year the Democrats tried to buy union support by insisting on civil service protections in the Department of Homeland Security. That move cost them control of the Senate when Max Cleland went down to defeat in Georgia last year. His conservative constituents were more interested in national security than union job security.
<font size=5>
There's also that internal Senate Democratic memo that reveals the politicization of pre-Iraq war intelligence hearings. Everyone now knows the Democrats planned to drag hearings out just to damage the president, not for national-security reasons. Barking about prewar intelligence is now seen for what it always was, partisan politics.
<font size=3>
The permanent campaign is causing the most damage to the Democratic presidential candidates. Sen. John Kerry voted to oust Saddam Hussein when it seemed like the popular thing to do. He then hit the ground hard among Democratic primary voters and has since been struggling to explain how he favored authorizing war but opposed waging it. To lesser degrees, Dick Gephardt and John Edwards have also tried to distance themselves from the war they backed. For his part, Wesley Clark is just standing off to the side looking dazed. He can't decide where he stands on the war because he's not really sure which position will put him on top.

Howard Dean is the only Democrat to negotiate the war issue successfully. (Mr. Gephardt may yet give Dr. Dean a run for his money, thanks to his strong private-sector union support from years of carrying water for organized labor.) He did that by doggedly staking out a principled position and sticking to it despite the news. But he will have a chance of winning the general election only if Iraq is a disaster a year from now. If by next November Saddam is in custody and Iraq is stable and sovereign, there will be no serious antiwar resentment for Dr. Dean to tap into.

It didn't have to be this way for the Democrats. The party was fully capable of staking out a principled opposition without riding the ups and downs of news events. The one "candidate" who seems to have understood this is Hillary Clinton. She's remained popular not only because of her celebrity, but because somehow she's kept herself out of the spotlight. Instead of yammering away at President Bush every time he seemed weak on the issue du jour, she's earned a reputation for governing as a senator. That's a better electoral strategy than playing cheap politics.

Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.

opinionjournal.com