As I always say, if we’ve got a liberal media, they’re doing a horrible job at it. But in fact, the media is not liberal, and while the mainstream press isn’t quite yet a Rush Limbaugh hatefest, it is clearly hostile to Democrats.
Quite a few of us have argued that the Democratic party needs to not cede the national security issue to the Republicans. Especially considering their horrible record on it, and past success under Democratic presidents, it was just dumb — and in a post-9/11 world, the recipe for political failure.
So they finally got their stuff in gear and released a detailed document on national security. Whether the Republican party gives it their blessing or not is immaterial, they’re too busy explaining away the failure to capture/kill Bin Laden as now being a good thing. But at the very least it should get covered in the press.
Instead the Washington Post buried it, and the New York Times, supposedly the bulwark of liberalism (from Howard Dean’s lips to their keyboards, they say) didn’t even cover the story at all.
The Democratic party’s failings in the national security conversation are very real and are instrumental to the party’s long term viability, but it is simply clear the press has decided to dispense with actually covering Democratic iniatives in that policy sector. I seriously can’t tell you anymore the difference between the RNC propaganda mill or the mainstream press.
Related
Why Aren’t Dems On TV?
Can’t Help If You Ain’t Listening
CNN: Democrats Have Time Machine
While I do agree with you, Oliver, it is now up to the politicians to carry this PR campaign forward. Hillary and Chuck Shumer should be on the phone to the editor of the New York Times. Mark Warner should be calling the Washington Post. Every Democratic politician with a newpaper editor or reporter in their rolodex needs to contact them and start making it clear that this is an important difference from the Republicans. Otherwise, it is the classic philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound.”
Once my comment gets “moderated” you can see that AnalogKid and me are on the same page of music…
Amazing, it is almost as if it were a logical answer or something…
Hey Ollie maybe, just maybe it is because the “plan” is pure gibberish? Maybe it is because it is full of mind-numbing platitudes and unfounded statements that remain to be proven?
In a word, it’s not news. It is the vapid hot-air of a room full of desperate liberal politicians who have been speaking with the same people you have been…”stay on message”, “just keep repeating stuff and people will believe you…” , “keep it simple, don’t try to actually explain HOW you are going to accomplish all these wonderful things…”.
Please run on this dreck, please…Oh, and can you get the GoreBot to run as a presidential candidate….pretty please?
The media buried it because they’ve already printed this Democrat National Security Wishlist back when Kerry was running for President.
Maybe if the Dems come up with an actual plan instead of talking points, they’ll get some coverage. ‘Get Osama’ and ‘Retreat from Iraq’ are not plans, no matter what kind of hyperbole you use to spin them.
Maybe it s because Bush is actually DOING something, whereas the Democrats are simply regurgitating the same old tired pablum.
I missed the part where we run all three branches of the government. And frankly, if the DOING something looks like this, I’d rather your president stop now before any more people die.
Again, this is not about the merits of the plan, Republicans would deride any Democratic national security position that didn’t sound exactly like George Bush wrote it, this is whether the media should have simply covered the story. I’ll remember this thread when you guys come up with the latest made-up outrage about the “liberal media”.
I guess it would be asking too much…
…for our teachers to at least be proficient in English?
Jay;
Why would you have a hgher standard for elementary school
teachers than you do the Prez
Holy keerist. For the love of god could one of you explain to all of us here just what George Bush’s “plan” consists of?
And don’t you dare link to the “Strategy for Victory in Iraq” which wasn’t released until November 2005, THREE PLUS YEARS AFTER the invasion.
I think it’s funny that when the media covers the 2,343th iteration of Bush’s we’re winning the war in Iraq speech it’s news, but Democrats releasing a policy initiative isn’t (and the media is biased too, except when it’s not). Here’s the thing, the merits of the plan are immaterial. They could have xeroxed Michael Dukakis’ high school diploma, frankly.
But the story should have been reported.
(Yeah, nobody is covering the McKinney story)
“…DOING something”
attended with distant ironic laughter of non-sociopaths.
You’d also think that a US Representative slugging a cop might garner a few headlines.
What? She’s a Dem? Then Radio Silence it is!!!
“Maybe it s because Bush is actually DOING something, whereas the Democrats are simply regurgitating the same old tired pablum.”
It’s too much. Simply too much. Repeating tired old pablum? I could recite Bush’s stump speech on the war in my fucking sleep I’ve heard it so many times. But has anything changed at all in Iraq since it first dribbled over his lips? Tell me Jay, what are your thoughts on what we should do in Iraq? No wait, let me guess, does it rhyme with “Stay the course”? Fantastic. We haven’t heard that before. Yup, fresh as a daisy that one is. It’s unbelievable how astonishingly stupid and dishonest you dipshits are.
Big Lizard writes:
“I have waited and waited, with breathless breath, for the Democrats finally to release their long promised “plan” for governance”
Really? And when did Bush finally put into writing his plan? As noted above, November 2005. I can’t wait til pedro spews back that the president didn’t tell the American people his plan until THREE YEARS AFTER THE INVASION because he was just so darn busy leading. Yes, leading without a plan for three whole years. Truly, truly amazing.
Maybe it’s because Bush is actually DOING something, whereas the Democrats are simply regurgitating the same old tired pablum.
On the other hand, if it got the attention it really deserves, we might see insightful analysis of it, like that proferred by Dafydd Ab Hugh over at Big Lizards — http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/03/democrats_real.html and http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/03/democrats_real_1.html.
Actually, the more I think of it, the media’s ignoring the Democrats’ plan is just one more favor they’ve done for them.
J.
Well, today Bush expressed his “frustration” with Iraq’s inability to form its government.
This is the same Bush that asks us all to be “patient.”
You just can’t make this stuff up.
In other great news. Apparently, (I heard on Imus today)…some U.S. troops leaving Iraq are being charged for “damaged” equipment, like sleeping bags, and armor.
All is well, Pedro.
JK
JK
“Again, this is not about the merits of the plan…” Oliver, on that you are correct, as there were no merits to the plan. It was simple, superficial, and devoid of anything approaching a “plan”.
JD,
Sounds like Bush’s “Strategy for Victory.” So why did the media cover it? Bush has no plan for success in Iraq. Neither do the Democrats. Why? Because the situation has spiraled out of control to the point where all those quaint 2005-era talking points about “training the Iraqi army” or “standing down when they stand up” - or even Murtha’s comments about fueling the insurgency - are obselete in the face of an Iraqi civil war. So if the media is going to give the Administration the time of day to release propaganda, surely it should give the Democrats their own chance. ESPECIALLY when the big media talking point is that the Dems have “no” plan of their own. If the media thinks the Democratic plan is vapid, then say so. Put an “analysis” column at the top of the NYT and tear it to shreds. But it shouldn’t be ignored.
Get Osama and Retreat from Iraq are not plans, no matter what kind of hyperbole you use to spin them.
AnalogKid
Although I don’t think your word choice is accurate, I do think that get out of Iraq and get Osama are two very good plans.
Bush and Republicans have done almost nothing to get Osama and they behave as if they intend to keep the US military in Iraq indefinitely. The Democrats disagree on both points.
Moreover, we have not had several years of the policies of Bush & the Republicans, i.e., let Osama alone, military occupation of Iraq, and those policies have quite clearly failed.
Time for new policies, time for new leadership.
Other than repeating the bullshit that got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t know what else Bush & the Republicans have to offer.
Damn me for poor editing:
“Moreover, we have NOW had several years of the policies of Bush & the Republicans . . . “
The media is covering Bush because he is the President of the United States of America. In such, he makes DECISIONS that for good, and bad, DO SOMETHING. When he makes a bad one, everyone will know.
But, he MUST make DECISIONS. Unlike the dhimocrats and their ranting simple slogans…without backing them up with any sort of actionable plan.
Get back and tell the dopey democrats to get back to the drawing board, the ‘06 election is drawing nigh upon us…(oh, and be sure to tell the GoreBot that we PROMISE he will win this time… and not be made to look like a rube by the dumb ‘ole Bush, who every one said was SO stupid…)
There seem to be two criticisms of this plan.
1) It is not full of policy specifics: Are some of points “mind numbing platitudes”? Probably. But then again if we had laid out in fine detail what we intended to do about Russian loose nukes, they would accuse us of missing the forest for the trees. It fits very nicely into the formula of blaming it for what it’s not rather than talking about it’s merits and demerits.
2) It has all been said before: Quite true. And our ports and chemical plants still represent our most critical vulnerability. And we still do nothing about it.
How can anything the Democrats say be able to knock the news of Bush’s unpopularity and incompetence from the front pages? The real news that is weighing on the American people is the deepening quagmire in Iraq, the ongoing investigations, indictments, resignations, convictions of GOP politicians and insiders, and the high cost of health insurance. Face it: It takes a lot to knock that news off the top, unless you’re young, blonde and missing, or young, blonde and screwing your 14 year old student.
You do know that more people voted for Al Gore, right? The line of argument that Gore didn’t convince enough people doesn’t hold any water when you realize he had more votes. Sadly for us, the distribution of those votes were in the wrong states, but more people voted for him.
Now, back to the point. Yes, Bush is the president and what he says should be covered. And the Democratic party represents the other 49% of us and what they say should also be covered. You guys are always championing Fox News, so let’s put their motto to work. Tell the media to actually REPORT so that we can DECIDE.
–George W. Bush, 3/29/2006
Please. Don’t any of your wingnuts ever, ever again bring up “I feel your pain.”
Oliver, you prove my point magnificently. NONE of you can even sustain a conversation on this Democratic alleged “plan” without veering off into attacking Bush.
Oh, and I owe you an apology for not spotting your earlier statement on immigration policy. You actually did take a firm stand, and even more astonishing, you took the sane, reasonable one. For a moment, I thought your page had been hijacked and someone was impersonating you, but then you went off and slammed those who share your position on the other side. After all, YOU oppose it as a matter of principle, while those others are simple racists and bigots.
J.
Powell, if you think ‘Get Osama’ and ‘Retreat from Iraq’ are actually plans, than I would suggest you get therapy.
A plan consists of how you are going to do something, not just saying you are going to do it. Just how are the Dems planning on getting Osama? No one knows because they can’t tell us. That is not a plan, it is wishful thinking.
The Dems are wishing in one hand and slapping the American people with the other in trying to pass this pap off as something substantive.
Like I said before, this is the same spiel they tried to sell in 04 and it sounds just as ignorant now as it did then, if not more so.
The wingnuts are attacking the Democrats plan because, well, Number 1 they are wingnuts, and Number 2, they feel a little threatened that the plan goes right to the biggest failure of the Bush administration: Finding OBL.
Americans want OBL brought to justice, but instead they got a war with an uninvolved country. It has been almost FIVE YEARS, and no OBL. And this administration has no plan and seemingly no interest in finding his whereabouts.
Your are right about one thing. The press covers Bush more, because he is Actually doing something. SCREWING EVERYTHING UP!
Katrina?
Bush’s appears to be suffering from “attention deficit disorder” during the first Michael Brown briefing. Really acted like he gave a rat’s ass, didn t he?
Ports?
Bush, or at least they have claimed, was completely unaware of the Dubai port operations sale approval by his administration Mr. Security on the job!
Iraq?
Where do I begin? From initial claims of WMDs that didn’t exist, using a discredited story regarding yellowcake from Africa in his SOTU address, not enough troops, not securing the ammunition dumps, no planning for what to do after Saddam was toppled, lack of equipment (including body armor). The list goes on and on and on.
Terry Schiavo?
Social Security Reform?
That s why your party is in deep shit, not to mention the scandals surrounding Congress. Or the demagogue by many in your party regarding illegal immigrants, that they are threatening our national security, draining the federal treasury. That s Hispanic people, most of whom are busting their ass to provide for their families and only want an opportunity to be successful.
Stay in Iraq til hell freezes over and deport 11 million people, none of whom have been proven or even accused of plotting to kill Americans. But if you want to support that kind of plan for America in 2006- go ahead - Make my day!
Between 1991 and 1995, how and why has the number of illegal aliens entering the criminal justice system changed?
USSC
The number of illegal aliens sentenced in federal courts increased by 167 percent , compared with 13 percent for citizens. The number of legal aliens declined by 18 percent over this period.
The share of defendants in federal courts who were illegal aliens rose from 4 percent to 11 percent while the share who were legal aliens declined from 12 percent to 9 percent.
The number of illegal aliens sentenced increased for 89 of the 94 federal district courts, for all major offense categories, and for all major country of citizenship groups.
The increase in the number of illegal aliens appears to be partially attributable to improved border enforcement on the Southwest border where increases were largest; growth in the resident illegal alien population; and improved identification of illegal aliens in the USSC data and by law enforcement officials.
The sharp increase in the number of illegal aliens sentenced is responsible for more than half of the overall increase in the number of defendants sentenced in federal courts and 44 percent in the growth in costs of federal post-sentencing incarceration and supervision.
I have decided to slap down just one of the many leftist lies and talking points with these extended posts. The above data is 10 years old, so expect this to be a very generous view of the situation today.
Wanna bet SOME of these aliens were proven to be “plotting to kill americans”?
By the way, if the republican party is in deep shit, and we control all the branches of government, what sort of shape must the democrats be in?
Pedro, please provide a link or cite because no one should take you at your word since you made up shit about us finding WMD and have not corrected yourself.
Oh MJB you disagree? Do you think that these facts are untrue?
“Oh, and I owe you an apology for not spotting your earlier statement on immigration policy.”
What a fucking idiot.
Why don’t you post a cite so mjb and the rest of us can see what you left out of the report? And while you are at it, tell us what point there is to this passage?
Actually, never mind, I found it:
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410366_alien_justice_sum.pdf
Sorry fact, if you are too lazy to actually read the posts, I can’t help you out. In fact, if you are too lazy to read, why not just keep your uneducated opinions to yourself?
Actually, how about some actual numbers to go with those percentages? If there wee 50 illegal immigrant cases and it jumped to 133, that would be 167%, but it would hardly constitute an explosion of cases. What about social and economic unrest in Mexico increasing the number of illegal immigrants entering the country. Wasn’t the Mexican Peso Crisis in 1994? What about the passage of NAFTA in 1993? Are the increases in convictions due to more zealous prosecution(i.e. the increases in drug convictions thanks to the “war” on drugs and passage of tougher sentencing laws)? What are they being sentenced for, being illegal?
Actually, having followed the link helpfully provided by factcheck, I have a lot of my answers, and it seems nearly half of those illegal immigrants were convicted of being illegal (47%) or some variation thereof (11%). The most dangerous offenders would be the drug traffickers (27%) who appear to be predominantly the Dominicans and Colombians. A paltry 5% were convicted of “fraud,” which is a bit vague.
How this proves terrorists sneak in with illegal aliens is…obscure…to be kind.
Somehow I don’t think that if a clerk gets shot in a liquor store holdup by an illegal alien is the same thing as an al-Qaeda “plot to kill Americans.” Or is there no distinction, Dr.?
Here’s the study, mjb. Read it and see just how much of a lunatic pedro really is.
http://www.urban.org/publications/410366.html
The report finds that “The major offenses for which illegal aliens were convicted in federal court in 1995 were unlawfully entering the United States (47 percent of the total), drug trafficking (27 percent), other immigration offenses (11 percent) and fraud (5 percent).”
From this pedro concludes that some of them must have been plotting against Americans. I mean, you know, it stands to reason. Idiot.
Shorter Peedro: I just got called on my nonsense again, so I’m going to flail wildly and call intelligent people names.
Pedro,
You are special. Why did you leave out the very next part of the study? Could it be that it directly contradicts your assertion that illegals are plotting to kill Americans?
Here it is:
3. What types of offenses have illegal aliens been convicted of? How do the types of offenses compare with the general population?
USSC
The major offenses for which illegal aliens were convicted in federal court in 1995 were unlawfully entering the United States (47 percent of the total), drug trafficking (27 percent), other immigration offenses (11 percent) and fraud (5 percent).
iv
Illegal aliens sentenced in federal courts were more likely than legal aliens or U.S. citizens to have at least one prior conviction resulting in a sentence of at least 60 days.
For U.S. citizens and legal aliens, drug trafficking and fraud were the most common major federal offense conviction.
If you read even further, you’ll see that Florida is the only state where you see murder as the primary crime if illegals, and the study mentions also that this is true among legal and illegal aliens.
“Oh MJB you disagree? Do you think that these facts are untrue?”
Pedro, to be honest I didn’t even read beyond the first paragraph after I saw you didn’t provide a link or cite. You can’t be trusted so I’d like the link to check it myself.
So let’s recap Peedro, Bushwacked said that the Republicans say that undocumented workers threaten National Security.
You reply with a completely irrelevant passage from a long report, which says that some of the 11 million aliens commit crimes while in the US. You then go on to assume that some of them are “plotting to kill Americans”.
Is that about right? What is your point again, if not that?
Pedro,
You are special. Why did you leave out the very next part of the study? Could it be that it directly contradicts your assertion that illegals are plotting to kill Americans?
Here it is:
3. What types of offenses have illegal aliens been convicted of? How do the types of offenses compare with the general population?
USSC
The major offenses for which illegal aliens were convicted in federal court in 1995 were unlawfully entering the United States (47 percent of the total), drug trafficking (27 percent), other immigration offenses (11 percent) and fraud (5 percent).
iv
Illegal aliens sentenced in federal courts were more likely than legal aliens or U.S. citizens to have at least one prior conviction resulting in a sentence of at least 60 days.
For U.S. citizens and legal aliens, drug trafficking and fraud were the most common major federal offense conviction.
If you read even further, you ll see that Florida is the only state where you see murder as the primary crime if illegals, and the study mentions also that this is true among legal and illegal aliens.
How many times have we seen this script:
1. Pee-dro cuts/pastes (without attribution, btw) a couple of paragraphs from an article that he churned up from the Internets.
2. Pee-dro misinterprets the article to make his “point”.
3. Other posters challenge the points, ask for attribution.
4. Helpful OW commenter finds article, provides link.
5. The context of the article clearly disproves Pee-dro’s thesis, Pee-dro is challenged to defend.
6. Pee-dro comes back, whines that he doesn’t have time to refute their points, reiterates his flawed statements, and calls the liberal commentors names.
7. Pee-dro disappears from the thread. In some circumstances, he disappears from OW.com alltogether (crossing fingers).
Lather, rinse, repeat.
{sigh} I truly don’t have time to give this the thorough Fisking it deserves so I don’t know why I let “Fact”check drag me into these things…
“Or the demagogue by many in your party regarding illegal immigrants, that they are threatening our national security, draining the federal treasury”.
I gave a very cogent example of how the federal treasury is being drained by illegal alien criminals….
There, did I connect the dots close enough for you to see the picture yet “Fact”?
And Duros, no one mentioned an “al qaeda” plot to kill americans. Just kill americans. And as you guys seem to believe, there is no difference if you die by the hand of an illegal alien felon or a member of al qaeda, so who cares?
Fact,
but it’s still fun. In a pornographic way, but still fun nonetheless. Part of me hopes he never goes away, but the price we pay is that we all get a little dumber.
mjb
Oh, I know mjb, it is kind of a perverse pleasure handing him his ass on a weekly basis. I’m wondering how many times that someone can get served in one lifetime without giving up.
I wonder where Pee-dro is, he must be in surgery this afternoon and unable to respond -snort
“Nothing you presented changes a thing about my point of illegal aliens costing us money, nothing.”
They cost us money?
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14216395.htm
“fact” your comprehension level is at about a 6th grade level…I tire of constantly having to deflate your strange interpretations, only to have you change the subject again, off on another rant.
Nothing you presented changes a thing about my point of illegal aliens costing us money, nothing.
I have come to realize you have a personality disorder, which is sad for you, cause you can’t fix those….
good luck.
Buh bye peedro. See you in a couple of weeks when your ass heals.
Pedro, you are the bestest clinical projector I’ve ever seen. Brava!
Do you even care that we showed you to be wrong and dishonest again?! Please help us understand what the significance of your post was.