I don't doubt that many are knowingly lying, just saying that some probably believe this crap. And I heard that same liar that you mentioned, and agree with everything you said. He was clearly and egregiously lying, and the host did nothing to challenge or correct him. I understand their policy of not disputing opinions, but this was a clear case of factual wrongness. They just let it slide. But, while I can't prove it, I'm convinced that CSPAN has a bias towards the far right, in terms of how many crazyass far-right loonies and liars it has on its shows. They'd probably call it being "fair and balanced", but Boehlert, Alterman, Glenn and others have pretty much put the lie to that nonsense. Putting on a dishonest shill from the Moonie Times or Heritage does not balance out someone from the NY Times or Brookings (and we all know how bad Brookings has gotten in recent years). I don't know if this is because Brian Lamb is a closeted wingnut, they're forced to do this by their cable industry owners, or it's just fear of the RWNM, but they clearly do this. And they're far more indulgent with crazy and dishonest far-right callers than they are with angry and mostly factually correct left-leaning callers.

So pervasive has been the RWNM's seepage into the media and national consciousness, that this happens on autopilot at this point, and is going to take years to reverse, both systemically and consciously. As discredited as their policies are, a lot of people still automatically give more credit to the right than to the left. That needs to change.

I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs or their personal desires and cultural preferences, certainly. But when they sacrifice their economic well being and their civil rights--or mine--in order to preserve or elimnate one 'right', that's just not very clear thinking.

So you think that it's unclear-thinking for someone to sacrifice their economic interests for some moral principle or to protect others?

They think abortion is the murder of unborn babies. They think it's as immoral and intolerable to allow that as it would be to legalize rape and homicide. Why is it objectively unclear thinking for them to prioritize that issue over greater economic prosperity?

Some of the most admirable and important acts come from sacrificing one's economic interest in order to pursue some non-economic principle. I don't agree at all that anyone who prioritizes that way is inherently irrational.

The thinking RWAs are getting pretty despondent on their chances to win judging from these comments after the Repug bloggers took a look on Oct 1st at RealClearPolitics latest polling. While Dems shouldn’t get complacent, McSayWhat doesn’t have a course he can pick no matter what he and his tactical goons come up with. (see sig)

When voters get hit where it actually hurts, all of a sudden, their one emotional issue or "he/she’s like me" vote doesn’t seem as important. I will grant that 30% are just too scared to vote for the other side that they have demonized and slandered for so long, but there are sufficient voters who know who is to blame who want change and will make it a landslide electoral college win that no amount of ballot cheating can overturn.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2095352/posts

the Republican Party has some potent weapons at its disposal. They have the serious-sounding writers like Brooks whose reporting always seems to lean right. They have a whole news organ, Fox, which can be counted on to spread the propaganda messages every day. News radio is littered with Limbaughs and Medveds who are popular. Many citizens let these right-wing radio and TV schmucks do their thinking for them. And none of these media liars need tell the whole truth. They just need to skim a shred of fact that proves their attacks have merit. And when they shout it loud enough and often enough, people listen and remember. Example, 'Ayers is a Weatherman bomber.' Let's remember the election machinery is under the control of Republicans, and they have shown they are not above using chicanery to tip an election. Of course, Barack Obama is black and has a name that sounds Muslim. Some more votes there. All in all, McCain-Palin have a fighting chance to win this sucker, God help us all.

and suddenly there are voices in my family, who tell me that McCain and Palin should inherit the depression and not Obama!

I'd have to agree and it scares me to death that Obama and the Democrats will inherit all the GOP messes. I can only imagine the haranguing and finger-pointing that will go on. I don't think anyone will be able to turn any of the Bush messes around in one term, but surely the Republicans will want Obama's head in 2012.

Still, a McCain victory? I'd rather gouge my eye with a spoon.

Best,

Ethnic Professor

What a great word DCLaw1.

I have friends and relatives living in the California farm belt and most of the have Fox News on the TV all day long. It's always in the background, like a dark shadow constantly spewing sensationalism disguised as news.

I wonder how a news organization can hope to be perceived as "fair and balanced" when their screen graphics are red, white and blue with an American flag waving in the corner.

I hear you. But if its true that they see abortion as murder of millions, then why are pro-lifers almost always also pro-war (I know its a generalization, but I've never seen one where the other wasn't also present)? It is one thing to sacrifice for a greater moral imperative, and in fact I also think that's something to aspire to. But anti-abortionists (I won't call them pro-life) are merely uncritically following the dictates of their religion--and much more often, their religious leaders-- not a moral cause. If it were a moral issue, they would be just as passionately represented on the streets of anti-war protests. But they are conspicuously absent. Even if it is true that they are following the dictates of their conscience, the devastation that we have brought on Iraq should at least cause them some pause, some moment of uncertainty. And it doesn't.