Tête-à-Tête-Tête

Isn’t the term “big government libertarian” an oxymoron? I thought libertarians were fanatical about laissez faire, and small government.

Yes, Z… Neal Boortz is an oxymoron in exactly the same way that “big government libertarian” is an oxymoron.

Buck, I truly think that you and a thousand others like you really mean well. Please believe that I do not mean to insult you or Smijen when I say that sometimes you seem to miss things. Here is what you missed;

FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was to blame for not putting more safeguards into place.

“I am to be held accountable,” Mueller said. He told reporters he would correct the problems and did not plan to resign.

“The inspector general went and did the audit that I should have put in place many years ago,” Mueller said.

Who will be blamed for this invasion of privacy? Who else? Surely Dubya and Republicans… right?

Would you consider this before assigned blame? I have to notice the difference in how things have been handled since Bush took office. He took office without pointing fingers or calling names of former administration employees and appointees and mistakes, serious ones, that they made. He is truly despised by you guys, but, he doesn’t make excuses or lie about what goes on. (He is accused of lying, but the facts show a different picture.) He allows the system to work. He never bad-mouthed those who preceded him and he takes the flack even now. As a Yale graduate who had a higher grade point average than John Kerry, he took the name calling of those who say he is dumber than Kerry. He has been called Idiot, Imbecile, and other derogatory names without retaliation. He may be unpopular, but he does not veer from his course. If I were Bush and/or Cheney I would probably resign and let the country have what many want and others deserve…Nancy P. Bush stays with the stuff and takes the heat. I have noticed that the hate mongers have backed off a lot since the election, but the damage has been done at home and abroad. Is America better off because of the left’s hate war against the president and every move he has made? Do you think we are better off because of what you and others have written? I know that most Democrats believed that the only way to get back into office was destroy Bush and defeat him however it could be done. But is America better off world wide and as a people? I am not asking are we better off if Democrats got back in power. I am asking are we better off if we go to any means to accomplish an end result?

Snooks… who nominated Mueller to his post? What organization does the FBI directly serve, - and to whom does that organization report?

I know you don’t like it because we hate Bush a fraction of the amount you guys hated Clinton, with roughly 50000% the justification. I’m sorry. You ask what if our goals are accomplished? Well, surprise - my goals are to get us out of Iraq and get some respect for the rule of law at home. If those things are accomplished, some lives will be saved, some areas of the world will be able to start the long tortuous process of returning to normal, and the U.S. will become more respectable than now. Would all that be so terrible?

No, I did not ask if your goals are accomplished would we be better off. I asked:

“Is America better off because of the left’s hate war against the president and every move he has made? Do you think we are better off because of what you and others have written?” and “I am asking are we better off if we go to any means to accomplish an end result?”

Hatred is something that cannot be measured by human scales, but actions and words can and are recorded. Here is where I question the tactics of the ultra left. I am not accusing you so much as I think you have just been a follower. I do question referring to our president as a psycopath, imbecile, idiot, greedy liar, & insane maniac, to name only a few that I pulled off web blogs similar to yours. I question what this has done to our country and to our efforts around the world. I do question constant reporting of everything that makes our country look weak and vulnerable and leaving off anything that would indicate strength and unity to accomplish the political goal of undermining a political party or person. I question bias reporting, incorrect conclusions and headlines that would midlead.

Yes, I believe that because Clinton got into trouble with Monica and all that ensued was made public. I realize that people of his party were crushed and felt they took a beating. I know that this was the beginning of the office of the president not being respected as it should have been. Many decided that it no longer matters how much the person or office is disrespected. Does this mean that is true? That 50,000% figure you use is a part of the “new media” reports that you and so many others buy into. I am not defending everything Bush or Clinton did. The truth is they both made major blunders and they both did some things right. When it comes to under estimating the terrorist threat and what it really is going to take to keep us safe or if it can even be done, history will judge. One thing is certain, the terrorist are on the side of hatred. As long as Americans are fighting against everything a conservative in this country does or says, there will not be much attention paid to what he is doing.

Snooks …

I’m not trying to defend Clinton. What he did was very wrong. I’m just saying you guys got a lot more excercised over him & his foibles than we do about Bush… and the fact is Clinton’s actions had very narrow consequences, while Bush’s are impacting the country deeply and in many many negative ways.

That’s not even a partisan statement. There is no rule that conservatives have to start stupid wars. There is no rule that conservatives have to undermine civil liberties. There is no rule that conservatives have to put partisanship and ideology ahead of the public good.

That’s just what they have been doing in the last few years. They *need* a wake-up call. I hope it comes in the form of a big electoral loss. But, you know, things can be better. There could be collegial debate between two parties, both more hopeful of the common good than of ideological purity or partisan advantage. But, before that can happen, the Bush’s, the Cheney’s, the Gingrich’s, the O’Reilly’s, the Boortz’s, the Hannity’s, the Coulters - and a few on “our side”, too - will have to ride off into the sunset.

Well, you know what they say about opinions, “Everybody’s got one.” Hindsight will help a lot of people in the future to understand what political prejudices blinded them to at the time.

Snooks I really was not trying to “blame Bush”. It is for sure that he does not have a sign on his desk saying, “The Buck Stops Here.”

I was just amazed at the fact that Neal Boortz is just now catching on to what millions of people in this country have known for years. There is absolutely nothing this administration could do now that would surprise me. Nothing.

Hindsight will help a lot of people in the future to understand what political prejudices blinded them to at the time.

No truer words could ever be spoken. When I reflect back on how much I opposed Bill Clinton I realize that I only thought I was experiencing a bad President. Now that I actually have experienced a bad President at least I know now how to identify one.

I thought libertarians were fanatical about laissez faire, and small government.

That is true Z. But Neal calls himself a libertarian while advocating the United States as the world’s policmen and spreaders of democracy via gunpoint. Regime toppler, etc. Until we go interplanetary it is impossible to get a bigger government than we already have.

The only thing Neal thinks government should stay out of is welfare. So other than big government libertarian I have no idea how best to label Boortz.

Buck, I wondered what happened to you. Are you and Smijer one and the same?

Boortz is a lot of things including an entertainer. I agree with some of what he says and disagree with a lot of it.

I strongly disagree with the movement in this country to believe every crazy idea that is posted on the net as if it is automatically the gospel truth. There is a lot that we do not know about what and why our government does some of the things that we hear about. In times past, a lot of things did not come to light. Times have changed. We have an enemy within our country who would sell out our safety for political gain. Everything you read is not accurate and I am sure that there are some details that cannot be revealed without giving out classified information. There was a time when a person was considered innocent until proven guilty. That is no longer true in the liberal media. I admire President Bush for not getting in the dirt with his political enemies. (I have not forgotten the files that were stolen during the Clinton years and the cover-up that ensued.) I am grateful that those who break the law now go to trial even if it means some politicians in the current party have to take the heat or lose votes. I know that we may not be told the entire story just as we have not been for years. The difference is there are enemies within whose tactics have changed. The best weapon to use against a person is political opinion. This is what has been used and used effectively against our president and everything he has tried to do. Half truths can hurt as much as total lies. I think that liberals were so wounded by White-water, Lewinski, and some serious allegations that they hired a full time crew to dig for anything that could be used to sway political opinion. The war effort had to fail in order for the president to lose his popularity rating, sooooo…. the rest is history. The enemy from within emboldened the enemy from without. I think that is the sad but true facts. I am not saying that everything would have been perfect if our nation had rallied behind what President Bush and the U.S. Congress did, but I do believe that a nation divided cannot and will not stand. I do know when reporting is bias. I do know when commentators are deliberately negative. I do know when politicians are malicious. I find the hate campaign that has been waged very dangerous and those who have been taken in by it will lose just as much as those of us who see what is happening.

Neither you nor Smijer answered the questions I asked.

The enemy from within emboldened the enemy from without. I think that is the sad but true facts. I am not saying that everything would have been perfect if our nation had rallied behind what President Bush and the U.S. Congress did, but I do believe that a nation divided cannot and will not stand. I do know when reporting is bias. I do know when commentators are deliberately negative. I do know when politicians are malicious. I find the hate campaign that has been waged very dangerous and those who have been taken in by it will lose just as much as those of us who see what is happening.

Sounds like somebody has been watching just a little too much Fox News.

Neither you nor Smijer answered the questions I asked.

Those that I could answer without first adopting the paranoid view of the world that you have expressed, I tried to answer. The others - maybe if you reformulated them in neutral terms, I’d have a go of it.

By the way, Buck & I are two different people. In fact, we have quite a few differences, albeit small ones. We have more in common in musical taste than in political inclinations. I think (and you would have to ask him to verifty) that Buck would have characterized himself as a conservative and/or libertarian through much of his adult life. I’ve been more or less liberal, with a libertarian streak where it concerns civil liberties, social issues & guns for most of my adult life.

Paranoia is described as mental insanity that is marked by systematic delusions of persecution. Have you seen the names our president has been called written out in black and white? Have you heard certain parties expressing pleaure that VP Cheney’s health is declining?. Have you heard those who agreed with the president and made almost identical remarks to his concerning Iraq now call him a liar and deceiver? And these examples just scratch the surface. Have you been in a box lately? I guess I should just show you a few of the links, but don’t really want to advertise for these guys. Google “anti-Bush” and see what you pull up. I am not only referring to the internet. Main stream media has been almost totally biased in their reporting. It is truly not a paranoid view of the world. I am talking about the good ole US of A. And the “news” sources are about as far from Fox News as Alpha is from Omega. Truly, I could give you enough examples that could prove the term paranoia inappropriate if not ridiculous. So I do not think that is your reason for not answering the questions. If you don’t want to answer, that is your right and privilege, but please don’t insult the person asking just because you prefer not to answer.

Sorry Snooks. I usually disappear during the weekends. That is why the delay in my response to you.

Smijer has much more confidence in government than I do. I see government more as a necessary evil than a possible answer to the ills of society. My philosophy when it comes to government is that the government that governs least governs best.

I think your question is “Does dissent make the country better or worse?”

I am all for dissent. I am a firm believer in it. As it has been said, “when all think alike somebody is not thinking”.

When a population decides to follow their leader no matter where he or she is taking them I think they do the leader and the country a great disservice.

Much of what is bothering you is simply politics as usual. It has never been a clean and honorable business. Force yourself to think back on Bill Clinton and ask yourself why you hated him so badly. Vince Foster? Monica Lewinsky? Whitewater?

Back then the Republicans had CDS. They took every mole hill they could find and immediately turned it into a mountain. I know because I was one of them.

The only difference now is that the tables have turned. But I do agree with Smijer. There are valid reasons to have BDS. But CDS in comparison was for the most part conjured up by the loyal opposition.

Bush is an extremely unpopular President. There are reasons for that. Look closely and I am sure you will see them yourself. Just pretend there is a “D” beside his name and I believe that the truth will be revealed to you. It has been revealed to a huge amount of Republicans already.

They know he has been a disaster. And they realize that if his policies go unchecked the Republican party may be in the minority for a generation after the 2008 elections.

There is no “enemy” in this country Snooks. As the song says, “there is only you and me and we just disagree.”

Snooks, I’m sorry - I didn’t mean to imply that you are paranoid. Or that anyone was clinically paranoid. But the conspiracy theories of Hannity & Coulter & the like have a strong paranoid ring to them. Probably, they don’t even believe them. Their business, however, is to sell them. And they are good enough at their jobs to get some takers - even among ordinary, sane people. So, I’m not criticizing you - just the theories you buy into. I don’t mean to offend.

Thanks for the apology. I’m not offended. I appreciate people who care enough to get involved even if I don’t agree with their viewpoint.

I’m just saying you guys got a lot more excercised over him & his foibles than we do about Bush

I don’t recall the fringe right (including conservative celebrities) putting forth the notion that Clinton was behind the WTC bombing of ‘93 or the attack on the US Cole. Trust me, there is a LARGE contingent of folks on the fringe left who think that Bush was behind 9/11 and even more who think that Bush made-up the case to go to Iraq so that his oil buddies could get richer. Along those lines, my wife just filled up her Expedition for a cool $50….sure would be nice to finally get that oil we’re supposedly setting up that empire to rape.

In summation: neither side is worse than the other, in the grand scheme. They just get louder when they’re out of power. Trust me, you guys are just as - if not more - exercised. The GOP didn’t pull out of any CNN sponsored debates during the Kaplan years, after all.

The GOP didn’t pull out of any CNN sponsored debates during the Kaplan years, after all.

Let’s go apples to apples.. the GOP was never dumb enough to sign up one of their own primary debates on Daily Kos, and therefore never needed to pull it.

CNN at its worst, Eason Jordon notwithstanding, has never whored itself out to the Democratic Party and its attack dogs the way Fox News has whored itself out to the GOP and its attack dogs.

That’s a matter of interpretation. I would say “yes, they most certainly did” and compound that by saying that the GOP backers on Fox are straightforward with their biases & present their cases during commentary segments where everything is above board, while CNN passed along their bias as “news” (see: Peter Arnett, the Population bomb, Bernard Shaw fawning over Jesse Jackson, Judy Woodruff’s questions, etc.). It’s no coincidence that most righties admit that Fox leans right while you’ll likely find zero lefties who’ll admit that CNN was in the tank for Clinton and only a few who’ll say that MSNBC is on the left (they’ll say “yeah, maybe Olbermann, but definitely not Chris Matthews).

The Democratic party was glad to have the debate on Fox….until the nutroots kicked into gear. I can get the atual quotes, if necesssary. Trying to remove the cred of the #1 news channel is a cheap ploy being undertaken by the far left.

I’m not talking about ideological slant. I’m talking about political activism. Fox has undermined its own credibility with its antics. I’ll freely admit CNN & others have some leftward slant in their newsrooms, but they at least *attempt* to produce honest reporting. Fox’s mission is not to produce news - it’s to serve the party interest… the “news outlet” format is just a veneer. They have done pretty well promoting themselves and getting (not earning) credibility… but that is starting to wain as people see them continuing to toady to the Murdoch/GOP agenda at the expense of journalistic integrity.

Actually, I agree with you on the activism part. I don’t particularly care for it, myself, but one thing is for certain is that the folks who are participating in it are up front. You know Hannity is shilling for the GOP because he admits it. O’Reilly admits that he’s a populist/traditionalist and he admits where he differs with the parties (he certainly leans right). You know where Greta and Geraldo stand when it comes to politics as they don’t hide it. John Gibson labels his commentary (as does Olbermann, although his is no different than his entire broadcast).

Which JOURNALIST on the network is a toady for the GOP? Steve Centanni? Carl Cameron? Megan Kendall? I’m being serious. I know that Brit Hume is on the right & when he leads the panel or in his grapevine segments that he’s playing the role of commentarian, but the news segments are just that: news. There could be an argument over the choices of what stories are covered, sure, that goes for every channel, but their news is pretty nonpartisan, IMO. And, I’ll add, so has CNNs in recent years (or at least more so than it used to be).

It’s obvious that the Democratic party has decided to use this as a political ploy. It’s politics….this isn’t an actual instance of “news”, this is political strategy. Trust me, Fox covered Mark Foley just like everyone else did. It’s just that Fox was the network that asked Clinton about terrorism BEFORE 9/11 (gasp!) because history did happen. Kos & co. are just carrying the water for the party.

BTW, one of the leading news analyst groups out there (don’t recall the name, I can look it up) had as one of the reporters who presented the most POSITIVE questions during the Clinton years was…..ABC’s Brit Hume.

I think it was this one (none of their archives are active). http://www.cmpa.com/studies/index.htm

I remember a buddy who is a right-winger who used to hate Hume & who thought he was a liberal prior to him going to FNC. I actually thought he leaned left, too, but barely. Go figure.

Trust me, Fox covered Mark Foley just like everyone else did.

Everyone else captioned the story with “Mark Foley, (D - FL)”? Everyone else lead the story as the latest “Democratic Scandal”? I don’t remember it that way.

Re: Hume & Clinton - I think that goes to show that treatment of Clinton isn’t necessarily a litmus test. Most news organizations suck up to the President… Bush got a very long honeymoon in the press, not just FN. The only person, on the other hand, who went after Clinton more savagely than the “liberal” New York Times was Kenneth Starr.

Which reporters are slanted? I’ll dodge that one, but mention that it was a guy from their news room who took Scotty McClellan’s place.

Yes, the FN editorialists don’t make bones about their biases, while some the CNN editorialists try to portray themselves as “above the fray”. I see that as self-importance more than dishonesty. Actually, O’Reilly has a bit of the same schtick. He does ask his viewers to believe the unbelievable - that he is fair & open-minded. And Hannity is paired with Holmes in hopes of getting viewers to believe there is “balance” at the network… But the real reason that they don’t go to lengths to “hide” their bias is that it would interfere with their function as political activists.

The only person, on the other hand, who went after Clinton more savagely than the “liberal” New York Times was Kenneth Starr.

A. Please tell me those scare-quotes were a joke. Please tell me that - while I’m being straightforward & saying that FNC most definitely leans righward - you’re not claiming that the NYT is a flaming bastion of liberalism.
B. Er, he was guilty. Starr was appointed by the Clinton admin to investigate. You see me complaining about Fitzgerald “going after” Libby? Nope, I said “if he’s guilty, burn him” (not literally, of course). Clinton was GUILTY. Remember the golden quote I culled? It applies. It wasn’t Ken Starr’s fault that Clinton was guilty. It’s not Fitzgerald’s fault that Libby was guilty.

Which reporters are slanted? I’ll dodge that one, but mention that it was a guy from their news room who took Scotty McClellan’s place.

Again, the divergence between news and anchors/commentary. Tony Snow’s job was the anchor of Fox News Sunday & he led the panel during the discussions (in a non-partisan fashion, I might add, only asking questions & not giving commentary). Tony Snow’s commentary was clearly labeled when it was presented.

However, if we’re going to have that as a baseline, then the GOP should boycott ABC (Steffy - lord, has there ever been a bigger case of politics being disguised as journalism? What, did Carville fail the audition?). Or NBC (Russert), MSNBC (Matthews), both former DNC staffers. And since Walter Cronkite’s come out as a socialist & we all finally know where Dan ‘memo’ Rather’s intentions lie, that gives us….zero…networks with former GOP ties while they’re all replete with Dem staffers or sympathizers. I can go further. PBS had Bill Moyers. ABC had the late Art Schlesinger. They all present/presented the DNC talking points and gave stories angled against the conservative point of view.

One other thing: every one of them claims or claimed that they were non-partisan.

I’m not trying to convince you that FNC is middle of the road. It isn’t. But, if FNC were nothing but 24/7 Rush Limbaugh commentary, it’d still have a long ways to go to make up for the leftward tilt of the major networks. And the GOP didn’t run away from them. They could’ve. Heck, Gwen Ifill moderated a debate! Jim Lehrer - good guy - led a debate, IIRC, recently. Go look up the questions he asked. From the left.

BTW, how’d I steer this from a discussion of the gov’t & a post on Boortz to media bias? Sorry, old habit.

Sorry, “anything but a flaming bastion…”

NYT - no… the scare quotes were intentional qualifiers to their traditional leftward orientation. It has to be qualified, because of the Whitewater thing, and because of Judy Miller. I will acknoweldge that the paper is generally has a leftward ideological slant.

Clinton? Yes, I think he was guilty of obstruction & perjury, but he wasn’t guilty of anything to do with Whitewater, which is what the NYT and Ken Starr made a circus out of for 4 years until they figured out they needed another angle of attack.

Again - I’m not talking about ideological slant - I’m talking about everything up to and including deliberate lies, directly in the service of a political party. When they go that far, there is no point in helping them fight you. Can you think of any good reason why a democrat would want to appear on fox news, unless they are a lieberman/miller type democrat who wants to trash real democrats and thereby build up their “moderate” creds?

And, yeah - what are comment threads for, except to get derailed in favor of our favorite pet peeves?

Again - I’m not talking about ideological slant - I’m talking about everything up to and including deliberate lies, directly in the service of a political party.

Hopefully you’re not under the assumption that those of us on the right haven’t felt exactly the same way about the network news, for 30 years (at least). Brit Hume didn’t put up some forged documents in an effort to derail John Kerry’s campaign & then get an award for courage from his peers after getting caught.

Are you guys REALLY of the mindset of “yeah, those other networks may be full of liberals, but they don’t let it affect their jobs like Fox conservatives do”?

Can you think of any good reason why a democrat would want to appear on fox news

The same reason a Republican would show up on This Week with Steffy or Meet the Press with Russert. Getting out their message to the masses.

Guys, Fox is #1, which means that there are more than just a bunch of dittoheads watching. You’re cutting off your noses to spite your faces, primarily because the leading advocates on ‘your side’ have decided that this strategy is the way to go. Well, Kos & co. are political ignoramouses. You guys wasted millions on the Dean campaign. You guys wasted millions on the Lamont campaign.

Get your message to the people & convince them that you are better than the other guy. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be? What, the moderator at the debate is going to turn out to be Sean Hannity in disguise? It’s a debate, not a hit piece a-la 60 Minutes (another show that GOPers still go on, btw)! They’re willing to tell the nation that they’ll stand up to Al Qaeda but not Fox News? They won’t give Fox News credibility but they’re willing to sit down & negotiate with Hamas? Makes no sense.

Be smart….choosing the echo chamber isn’t smart.