I'd just love to have a news show put Victor Davis Hansen on against a blathering Murtha type. He'd eat their lunch and kick their asses, too.

I'm sorry, but Murtha is an idiot. Yeah, he's a Marine Corps veteran. So am I. But even though I rose no higher than sergeant, I know that, tactically speaking, a force that has been "redeployed" to Okinawa (some 10,000 miles from Iraq) is going to have zero ability to affect events there, yet Murtha seems to pretend that they will.

Elephantman, I was asking you a question. And you have answered me, in the negative. So I will ask you again--you used the term "Great" in your previous post. I am simply asking you--who, in your opinion, is a--or the--great conservative voice, currently.

It is a very simple question. If you don't want to answer it, fine! Simply say so, and we're done.

Why are you so evasive on this? For God's sake, I'm just politely asking for your answer.

To the degree that would make Mussolini cry with joy are now running around looking for someone else to blame for everything. It's the media, it's the Clintons, its sunspots, it's this it's that. blah blah blah

If any of them had 10% of the balls they claim to have they'd have 50% of self critical honesty necessary for anyone to take them seriously. But they're basically a bunch of fat lazy craven cowardly pussies. So don't hold your breath.

And Dan D., Fox puts far leftists on all the time: Al Sharpton, spokespeople for various Democratic campaigns (why do some many of them tend to be blond women, by the way?), Hennigan or Hannigan (gray-haired guy who sits in for Alan Colmes sometimes), a heavy-set guy who speaks for the DNC often (sorry on my lack of specific names--I tend to just listen for a few minutes before I get tired of all the shouting--from both sides), and so forth.

I see far more representatives of the Left on Fox News than I see of conservatives on so-called MSM news and opinion shows.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Michael Moore appeared on O'Reilly once too, but am I supposed to infer that makes Fox's choice of panels and guests fair? Or that O'Reilly isn't a conservative?

Fox's trick is not to never give the Democratic side of things, but to do so less often, and less forcefully and with a high degree of skepticism or scorn. Fox tries to cover its ass a little bit by throwing on Sharpton or having a hostile interview with some liberal every so often, but contrasted against that are the softball interviews with conservatives, the higher percentage of last-words given to conservative guests, the leading questions and so on and so forth.

And then there are plenty of times when the supposed representative of the left is a quisling or actually overtly hostile to Democrats. Dick Morris and Joe Lieberman being prime examples of this.

Even aside from Fox a study of the main Sunday talk shows showed a distinct Conservative and Republican bias to the guests:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607200006

So even your last paragraph would appear to be objectively untrue. The other networks were still, as of last year putting Republicans and Conservatives on more often than Democrats and liberals.

As to the blond comment: It's possible, but you'd better find some way of objectively backing that claim. In any case, since a strong majority of women vote Democratic it should be no surprise they comprise a higher percentage of spokespeople for Democratic campaigns. Good looking people tend to do well in their careers anyway as a matter of human reality.

tommy boy, if I was breastfeeding at 12 that would have been a good year. At least I'm not still sucking my daddy's cock like you are.

So, you use to suck your daddy's cock but not anymore? Is that what you're saying?

really. can anyone find a single example where he said something complementary about a dem or negative about bush, etc.

joe wrote: " At least I'm not still sucking my daddy's cock like you are."

I, for one, am pleased to see the level of discourse continually on the rise. Just the other day, there were numerous letters criticizing Amanda Marcotte for her use of "crude" language. I'm just thankful that sort of thing doesn't happen here.

No kings,

Robert

Let's please stop listing Media Matters as an authoritative source on anything. Speaking of biases. That study someone posted in a link is laughable because it fails to take into account one important point: at the time of the study Repubulicans/Conservatives held the White House and both Houses of congress. Those in power tend to get asked onto such shows.

Now if they did a comparison during a similar period of the Clinton administration, I bet you'd find the ratio the same in the opposite direction.

Remember, David Brock is a liar no matter which way you parse his life.

The person you quote is a well-known Salon troll who says outrageous, ugly things in order to see his name on the page as others react. First rule: don't name trolls when you react to them -- or better yet, don't react to them at all.

You seem so sure of yourself regarding your opinion of Media Matters. Care to give us some examples of their inaccuracy? Don't bore us with tales of Brock's past before Media Matters. His story is well-known. What I want is clear, substantiated examples proving that any their claims are patently false. This exercise for our benefit shouldn't waste too much of your time, given how sure you are of yourself.

John Stossel is a libertarian, not a conservative. And he's said he isn't interested in working for Fox and was happy to stay at ABC (which also seems happy to keep him, having made him co-anchor of 20/20 in '03) -- a few steps above NPR. If he has ever written anything good about Bush's foreign policy, neoconservatives, or Bush's theories of Executive power I've not run across them.

But does write things like this:

"The will of the people can mean tyranny of the majority.

Too bad neither liberals nor conservatives have scruples against forcing people to do things they don't wish to do."

And this:

The Patriot Act was supposed to provide federal funding to states to equip the fire, police, and EMS officers who serve at the front lines of a terrorist attack. But the congressmen who wrote the law apparently believed that patriotism starts at home. Money was allocated under a complicated formula where each state, regardless of its size or location, got an equal slice of the pie before risk was even considered.

One result is that the police and fire departments in Casper, Wyo., (population 49,644), can talk to one another, and to their hospitals and EMS units, on a brand-new communications system. New York City (population 8,000,000) is still waiting for a similar system. Colchester, Vt., got $58,000 for a rescue vehicle capable of boring through concrete to search for victims in collapsed buildings. Colchester has a population of 18,000 souls and a severe shortage of big buildings.

Or this, which identifies why so very few Fortune 500 CEOs are actually small govt conservatives or libertarians:

I keep reading that big business wants government off its back. But that's a myth. Here's the truth:

"[B]ig business and big government prosper from the perception that they are rivals instead of partners (in plunder). The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government."

That's Timothy Carney writing in a recent Cato Policy Report. He's the author of a new book, "The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money." Carney's book shows that government and business are not antagonists but allies. They've always been allies. Politicians like it that way because they get power and prestige, and businessmen like it because they get protection from competition.

And on the obscenity and insanity of criminalizing drugs, and the hypocrisy of politicians, Stossel writes:

Likely 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, R-Ariz., has advocated tougher drug laws, but in the early 1990s, his wife, Cindy, stole Percocet and Vicodin from a charity. She was not prosecuted. Percocet and Vicodin are Schedule II drugs, in the same legal category as opium. Each pill theft carries a penalty of one year in prison and a monetary fine. But Mrs. McCain entered a pretrial diversion program and escaped without a criminal record.

The son of Duke "Death Penalty for Drug Kingpins" Cunningham, R-Calif., was convicted for possession of 400 pounds of marijuana. Mother Jones reported that in court, the congressman cried and pleaded for mercy, explaining that his son "has a good heart. He works hard." The congressman -- who denounced "soft-on-crime liberal judges" and railed against "reduced mandatory-minimum sentences for drug trafficking" (and who himself is now in prison for taking bribes) -- won for his son the mercy he fought to deny others: half the federal "mandatory" minimum sentence.

So Elephantman, let Fox News start sounding like John Stossel, not NPR like Fox News, and maybe I'll watch Fox again.