wrote:

Somebody who just wrote finds it obvious that Liasson is lying about Obama’s base. This person claims that she said his base is “left wing”. Did Mara say this? Does it mean this person is lying about Mara? It just becomes kind of silly when we “know” so much about lying.

Well, I looked at the transcript that Glenn referred to, and it is as he quoted. I think she meant to say "That might not be what his left-wing base wants" rather than "That might not be what his left-wing base does." "He" refers to Obama, as the sentence that follows indicates. So she has said that Obama's base is left wing, and implied that his base is not part of the American people, who want their "commander-in-chief" (not their president) to look at the facts on the ground. I think we have a president, and might have a better one in the future. I think that this passage is right wing propaganda, not a discussion with two sides. Yes, she lied as I said.

There is no way that Liasson is unaware of the polling data on this issue. It has been out there and discussed for YEARS!! What is happening is that she and other 'conservative' pundits are enacting a carefully scripted strategy. They will repeat this long enough until one poll shows them right. Then they will say "See, we've been right all along".

This is obvious, because they are doing it in other areas. As the Iraq quagmire got worse and worse, these same liars kept saying "Iraq is showing tremendous progress, how can you traitors be calling for withdrawal?". They lied and lied and lied ... until $897,249,107 was spent to paint one school or $2,358,003 was spent on opening up a public swimming pool. Now these idiots can point to these as evidence of progress and claim they were right all along. It is totally maddening.

GG:

Given how clear and definitive polling data on this question is, someone who says what she says is either consciously lying or is just completely indifferent to whether their statements are true.

It's cool, Glenn. It's far from the first time she's done it:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710120012?f=h_latest

Besides, Mara doesn't tell just regular lies-- she prefers Zombie Lies:

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/07/mara-liasson-implicates-democrats-in-abramoff-scandal/

She knows what she's doing.

Glenn,

In your post, you wrote that "This (i.e., members of the establishment media falsely asserting that their own actually fringe view is the one embraced by 'the American people' and thus defines the 'Center) is how they manipulate public opinion and coerce political officials to disregard the views of most Americans in favor of the fringe, establishment view."

Regarding "manipulate public opinion" -- in what way? In a way that actually affects the results of the types of polls you cite? If so, the polls are still showing majority support for bringing the troops home sooner rather later, so perhaps the manipulation actually isn't having that much impact, at least not enough to change the majority view. Or do you believe that some of those in the majority are being manipulated into believing that they actually hold a minority view, and that they are therefore more willing to accept policies consistent with the opposing view? Or did you mean something else?

Regarding "coerce political officials" -- Do you believe that most (a. congressmen, b. administration officials) are more influenced by these false pronouncements by establishment media types than by the polls you cite? My sense is that administration officials' war policies -- while they may be influenced by the arguments of some pundits, such as Bill Kristol -- aren't influenced much by the polls or the pundits' mischaracterization of public opinion. And even if they did care, don't you think they would rely on the actual data, rather than Mara Liasson's (or Bill Kristol's) pronouncements about what the public wants?

David Goldstein

Alexandria, Virginia

An important part of the scripted strategy is getting fake liberals to repeat the party line, so they can say that 'liberals' like Mara Liasson from NPR and Michael O'Hanlon from Brookings and famous lefty pundit Joe Klein agree with the neocon line.

"As for Rufus’ THOUSANDS of years… huh? Muhammad died in 632 and it took about 200 years for the Sunni/Shi’a split to germinate into distinct factions, leaving about 1150 years of occasional violence and frequent harmony. Or are you talking about Christians… I guess that’s 2,000 years. I suppose Jews have fighting with various people for about 5,000 years. What the hell is your point? Are you really saying that Europeans only have “a hundred or hundreds of years of history”? Wow… ever heard of Rome?

- Noah

-- ngard1035 "

Ok then.

1. since mohammad they have been killing each other. better?

Have "christians" been killing each other nonstop since Jesus? Does Jesus advocate killing, like Muhammad?

People who claim christianity have done horrible things in christianities name. I would argue anyone killing others in teh name of god are not chrsitians. Many muslims argue the same about their religon. But the teachings of the two prophets is what sets them apart.

How is it that the killers of Jesus get to speak for him? How is it that people who once worshipped a she-wolf and mars can then go and represent the chrsit and his message of peace?

I can say I can fly all day. When I'm asked to do it I may look like a fool. People can claim to be christians all day. Doesn't make it a fact. You are by yoru words and actions.

I'm not sayign wars are never justified. I'm not saying defence is not justified. I signed up as an army infantry 11b in my younger days, for pete's sake. I have since found the true chrsit. not the pope's christ. Not pat robertson and the "religous right'S" Jesus. The true Jesus.

In regards to the europeans. fighting over resources, power/control, growth and such is a far cry for killing each other for nothing. Not saying the euro's didn't int heir past. but the year is 2008.

Understand doctor? Now continue with the histroy lesson :)