Drudge has a great exerpt from the Bill Sammon book Strategery (currently #5 on Amazon).
Although Memogate was initially expected to harm the president, it ended up backfiring spectacularly on the press.
�The guy that it hurt most was Dan Rather and the executives at CBS,� White House strategist Karl Rove said in an interview for STRATEGERY. �It further disgraced a network which is third in ratings and, if you look at the demographics of their consumers, it�s like 70 percent Democrat.�
Rove said Rather�s eagerness to broadcast obviously forged documents proves he is �no serious reporter.� As for Rather�s insistence, to this day, that the documents are real, Rove said: �That�s really bias.�
Memogate has helped accelerate the decline of the mainstream media, generally defined as CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times and other establishment news outlets.
�I think what�s healthy is that there�s no monopoly on the news,� Bush said. �There�s competition. There�s competition for the attention of, you know, 290 million people, or whatever it is.
�And the amazing thing about this world we live in is that there�s a kind of free-flowing, kind of bulletin board of ideas and thoughts out there in the ether space, sometimes landing on somebody�s desk and sometimes not, but always available. It�s a very interesting period.�
Having long been pilloried by the mainstream media, Bush now finds the rise of the alternative media nothing less than revolutionary.
�It�s the beginning of the twenty-first century; it also happens to be the beginning of�or near the beginning�of a revolution in newsgathering and dissemination,� he said. �Not in newsmaking�that tends to be pretty consistent.�
Rove considers Memogate a watershed in the rise of the alternative media.
�The whole incident in the fall of 2004 showed really the power of the ‘blogosphere’,� he said in his West Wing office.
�Because in essence you had now, an army of self-appointed experts looking over the shoulder of the mainstream media and bringing to bear enormously sophisticated skills,� he added.
[…]
Rove expressed astonishment that CBS ignored the warnings of document experts hired by the network to authenticate the National Guard memos.
�It goes back to the failure of the mainstream media, in this instance, to honor their own experts,� he said.
Rove is not the only senior Bush adviser who considers the mainstream media biased against the conservative president. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was outraged that the TV networks refused to declare Bush the winner on Election Night, even after all the votes were counted in the pivotal state Ohio and it became obvious Kerry could not win.
�Some of the talking heads,� Card said, �were rooting for a crisis in Ohio. It wasn�t just that they were afraid to admit we had won.�
Card became particularly incensed when Bush�s Ohio lead reached 120,000 votes, which was mathematically insurmountable.
�Nobody wanted to call it so that we had won,� he said. �It was like, c�mon, are they just afraid to say it?�
Sounds like a fascinating read.
more -Now it’s slanted polling from CBS – The Fake but Accurate! Network.
In its classic “fair and balanced” tradition, CBS slanted in favor of Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating and a 59 percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.
On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18) it says how many Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.
“Total Republicans” contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.
“Total Democrats” contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.
The national average of Dems to Republicans is 33% – 30%.
Sounds like a capable indictment on the American MSM and worth a read. I am wondering what Canada’s watershed moment for the decline of the MSM will be?
It is clear to me that the Canadian MSM is becoming more suspect and illegitimate every day. However, I am not sure if there will be defining,”Rather” moment to mark the milestone or will it be the slow erosion as Canadian’s just start to tune them out.
Keep up the great work Kate and others. The left media and their clients are falling behind the conservative movement, that is being fuelled by the internet.
I think the time between the 2004 federal election up to January 23 was the period when the Canadian MSM was pinned to the mat. I don’t believe memo-gate was a watershed at all. The decline of CBS was well known, as was its bias and pathetic anchor.
Speaking of pathetic, just try to read Tony Burman’s trite “Inside Media” bit:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/about/burman/20060227.html
CBCPravda couldnt admit to a conservative win either. Peter Pansbridge- fantasyland journalist – announced it as even. Conservatives were shutout of PEI he declared (110000 residents) Liberals out of Alberta (3000000 residents)
an obvious even split to the MSM but not to the rest of us.
MSM says, “Don’t argue with us. We are the angry.” +
Starling David Hunter said…
Wretchard writes: “Daniel Harrison writing in Blogcritics.org describes the growing competitiveness of the blogs with mainstream media in certain respects.”
Part of what makes the blogsophere such a perplexing challenge for mainstream media is this: it is not easily amenable to analysis using standard strategic management theories and analytical frameworks.
Consider, for example, the problems that arise when one uses the most widely taught strategic management framework, Michael Porter�s Five Forces , to get a handle on the competitive threat posed by blogs.
In short, Porter�s theory posits that the determinants of profitability in an industry are explained by five “forces”- the power of suppliers; the power of buyers; barriers to entry; the degree of rivalry among incumbents; and the presence of substitutes.
When I say that blogs are perplexing, it is not just because they don’t fit neatly into any one of those five classes of determinants. The real problem, as I see it, is that they fit into all of them, at the same time.
Blogs are new entrant, substitute, complement, and rival. They offset much of the power the MSM has traditionally had over its both buyers and its suppliers. Were blogs just any one of these things, they could be easily be squashed, co-opted, or marginalized. But they are not.
You don�t see challenges and challengers like this everyday. Once in a generation or two is probably more like it. And this is why blogs are rage-enablers too: having to fight such a diffuse, rapidly-growing, and potent set of threats is making executives and journalists at many quasi-monopolistic, mainstream media organizations very, very angry.
None of this is to say that the �threat� posed by blogs can�t be met. Adaptation, reconfiguration, and hybridization can and will occur. Some firms will see the silver lining and recognize the opportunity inherent in what they have, up to then, considered threatening. For others, their wooly-headed thinking on this matter will see them go the way of the wooly mammoth.
10:01 PM
Papa Bear said…
sardonic writes: “The problem, quite frankly, that I have with the lack of authentication on the Internet, and perhaps this is the wrong blog and/or topic to mention this, is that we have a critical infrastructure issue related to the insecurity of the Internet. Without authentication I sense that we are drifting on a boat made of sand,”
The basic technology exists, in the form of the Public Key Infrastructure. It just needs to be applied.
For example, if I have a “user certificate” associated with personna “Papa Bear”, then if the blogger site is set up to use it, it can verify that the person posting as “Papa Bear” is actually the “Papa Bear” who initially registered.
More importantly, if “Papa Bear” develops a good reputation on blog site A, it’s possible for Papa Bear to be invited to Blogsite B, where posting privileges are given by invitation only.
And at no point is Papa Bear’s physical identity exposed, only the web personna. +
http://www.rapp.org/url/?4WHUZB9D
belmontclub
Good post maz2. The last part reminds me of ebay, whereby discredited ebayers eventually get flushed out because no-one wants to do business with them.
However the unique thing about sites like this one is that lack of filter in the comments section. Lame points or arguments are exposed for the hogwash that they are. If there is a restriction to only hearing the people you want to hear then does one run the risk a blog becoming something like the MSM echo chamber.
way off topic – but check this blog post out http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2006/02/22/old-habits/
I saw that broadcast…I was surprised Schieffer could keep a straight face through it…I don’t thing the MSM should be allowed to ‘poll’…
D
I think the MSM in Canada has been irrelevant since the first election of the Chretien Liberals. The bias against anything to do with Reform or Conservatives has destroyed whatever credibility CBC, Global,CTV, G&M, etc., ever had. We need a conservative MSM organization in this country, or, better yet, a very active blogospere(hooray for Kate, Angry, etc.).
The local paper here in Kelowna has made itself even more irrelevant by instituting a policy that allows a person to only write one letter-to- the-editor every three months! I’m not kidding.
Most folks in the US who tend to vote for Democrats will identify themselves as “Democrats”, because they’re the bandwagon people and want others to know it. The irony is that the so-called “Progressives” (ie. Democrats, Liberals, etc.) are no longer at the forefront of anything other than the trash-heap of History.
On the other hand, a large segment of the people who tend to vote for Republicans also tend to call themselves “Independents”. Conservatives are, by nature, reluctant to join groups that ballyhoo their own existence largely for the benefit of impressing other groups that essentially ballyhoo the same thing. It is both frustrating and enraging to the Left that the Right is now ascendant nearly everywhere but in Third World hell-holes and North American urban ostrich-head holes.
Thus, the poll thrust onto the world by CBS (et al.)is doubly fraudulent. “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
Media bias has actually become a really interesting area of academic debate among economists of late. First, there’s an interesting puzzle — if the market is competitive, how can there be bias? If there’s strong bias, doesn’t that suggest that there’s a big section of the market that isn’t being served? It would be as if none of the ice cream shops in town served vanilla when a third of the market really wanted vanilla. Second, there’s the incredibly difficult task of actually identifying whether there’s bias — you have to identify a neutral point for comparison. This is much harder than you might think — you need an “unbiased” referant.
The best study I’ve seen of this thus far is the one done by Groseclose and Milyo available here: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm . Ingenious methodology. There exists an organisation in the US that scores members of congress on a right-left scale, with the most liberal member of congress moving out towards 100 and the most conservative moving down towards 0. This measure is used pretty widely in the academic literature. So we have an independent appraisal of how liberal or conservative various members of Congress are. Next they plow through Hansard, looking to see which members of Congress cite which think tanks (paying attention to whether it’s a positive or negative citation). The idea is that a liberal member of Congress is more likely to cite favourably a liberal think tank, and vice versa for conservatives. They can use those numbers to impute a liberal-conservative score to each of 200 or so think tanks. Finally, they plow through a bunch of media outlets to see who the TV networks go to as experts on different issues. If a TV station tends to cite think tanks cited by conservatives all the time, it’s likely a conservative TV station.
Results? Fox news tilts to the right, but it’s closer to the median member of Congress than is any other TV outlet, and all the rest are far to the left. Which helps explain our initial puzzle — bias cannot persist in a competitive market ’cause there’s too much money to be made by starting up a new station (Fox News) and pulling in all the viewers who want conservative spin on things.
And that explains why Fox’s ratings are blowing all the other news networks away in the US and why the CRTC(read Liberal hacks) have fought for years to keep Fox out of Canada.
The tide is changing and the left is in full panic mode.
How many confirmed leadership contenders do the Liberals have now?
Enjoy the wilderness.
Is it the right overcoming the left, or common sense prevailing over rampant leftist idea’s.
I wouldn’t really peg a guy like Martin a Socialist, more of a pragmatist (despite all I mean). Frankly, I think as many Liberals were frightened of his carping as the Tories.
Harper too seems more center than true rightwing… actually, most of the people I know or can think of tend to the center, maybe a little left, maybe a little right.
Take abortion… no one likes it, so its really a matter of how much don’t you like it vs it’s opponents.
Gay Marriage… Most people couldn’t care a less, other than the impact on the word “marriage”. So it’s really about an institution, and how much the word applies to it in relation to you rather than the act of gay marriage itself.
So in the end, there’s only the really left-leaning meanies, who really should be NDP’ers, and the NDP, who equate to the whacked out Aunt you wish wouldn’t come to visit,and the super far right religious nutbars, who we pitch in jail the moment they step over the line and definately don’t let too close to the scotch on Sunday’s.
Everyone else is in the middle for the most part… why not the mainstream media? They certainly don’t reflect the sentiments of the crowd I hang out with, nor do I think Blogs would be such a strong voice if the MSM was more centerist.
It would essentially leave the blogs wallowing either to the extreme right or left. Which shows that as an instituation, and an establishment, they are failing profoundly.
If the MSM were succeeding, we wouldn’t waste time on the blogs… we wouldn’t need to.
Yeah…they’ll let Al Jazeera into Canada but not Fox…something ain’t right there.
D
I agree William. Now that I look at it, I guess when I mention left in this context, it refers to the established order nuters who believe us commoners should not be off thinking on our own. I think you nailed it when you say its not left vs. right, but just a move to a more common sense, shall we say “revolution.” (oh, oh. Now I said it)
Ha… I know what you mean Paul, I really hate it when a perfectly good phrase ends up in the hands of exactly the wrong person.
Do they not teach ethics in journalism school anymore?
If I want to hear a certain papers thoughts on an issue I’ll read the editorials.
Now it seems every news item has a slant or bias
delivered with it.
Then again,I guess that what the Canadian sheeple want.Give me the news and tell me what to think about it too!
MSM Madness
“a clinical psychologist practising in Washington who said she had counselled several White House correspondents, said the last few years had given rise to “White House reporter syndrome,” in which competitive high achievers feel restricted and controlled and become emotionally isolated from others who are not steeped in the same experience………….
“It’s like any post-traumatic stress,”
Left, right, center is a relative term. Conservatives in Canada are to the left of most Americans including the Democrats.
It is a fight for the center but the left has dragged that center line ever leftward Trudeau onward. What we need to do is drag the center rightward.
Good clean governance by Harper and the Conservatives will do so.
I agree enough. If the right moves to the centre, then the centre will just move to the left a bit more, since the centre you were trying to get to is not the centre anymore.
From the tone of the blogs during and after the campaign, the consensus was that Paul Martin abandoned his “right of left of centre??” position and moved to far to the left. As evidenced by the Buzz courtship and begging for NDP votes. The problem is that, in my opinion only, Canada is a right of centre nation deep down inside. Common sense (there’s that phrase again) yet with a strong feeling of his fellow man. When PMPM went trolling in the far left waters his support started to erode.
FYI… It looks like Harper was on Mercer tonight.. Didn’t say anything, just held a hockey stick and kicked over a bucket of pucks in Mercer’s spoof of a commercial. (It was within the first 10 minutes of the show).
Cauchon is all over the hice… left… wing centre… tripping on the ligne bleu quebcec… equality for grays he blathers… back to charest… over to rouge… harper is elbowing the mifddle ..its around the rim and out… cherry is missing… broda is gone… over to martin in the sinbin… jean steps on the hice him furious at gomery… whistle too manu on the hice… >>>
Then the Liberals lost the Jan. 23 election, Martin’s reign came to an unexpectedly abrupt conclusion, and the Liberals began looking for a new leader.
The B team:
Ex-cabinet ministers Scott Brison, Ken Dryden, Belinda Stronach, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Joe Fontana, Stephane Dion, John Godfrey, Joe Volpe, Denis Coderre and Tony Ianno are all considering bids.
Former Ontario premier Bob Rae is also eyeing a run.
Coderre was noncommittal when asked about his plans Tuesday. >>>
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02/28/1466933-cp.html
Media bias? Noooooooo way! The MSM is completely above such dishonor and would never do such a thing. Blah, blah, blah… tinfoil hats, koolaid, winged monkeys… whatever the leftists say when they can’t win with reason, logic and facts…
Ok, sarcasm off.
Returning to normal……..
Man oh Man …it happens every time!
Kate has a great item to discuss and before you get to the bottom of the page some body goes off the tracks on totaly unrelated crap….ok for you attention challenged folks the topic is “MEDIA BIAS” and the differences between Bloggers and the MSM.
By the way and the topic….I was on the road last night for about 2 1/2 hours late at night and scanning around the A.M. Stations on late night skip over the praries. I heard Michael Savage for the first time. WOW! Talk about INTENSE! One of the first things I caught was him going off on a rant about the media bias and anti-american sentiment being fostered by left wing groups ( you know the ones that all like to call themselves “Progressive” now). So it struck me as a bit odd at first when he started blasting Drudge over being relevent. Drudge the blogging pioneer. Is now as irrelevent and unreliable as the dinosaur MSM! According to Savage anyway.
But you know when Savage starts putting his ideas in order he makes a pretty convincing argument the some of these blogs have become as Mainstream as the MSM and as a result are becoming just as self justified and OUT of TOUCH!
Food for thought!
The silence coming from the ever-anal-retentive Peter Loewens of the nation is deafening.
Hey, Peter, see, pollsters DO engage in such blatant dishonesty and bias!
BTW, we the Conservatives won! Yeeeeeehahhhhh! Inna yo’ face!
(Victory dance)
MSM from where i sit looks right wing except for the Toronto Star (centrist) and CBC also centrist.
They may look more left than they are simply because they are surrounded by the right wing media.
I sit in Toronto, i have all the American media which is Right to Far right(FOX). There is no left wing in the U S A there are a few left wing types Michael Moore for one. But he’s not really a movement or a party.
Notice the free pass that Bush got when he invaded Iraq. Almost the entire world was anti war. It was like the sixties all over again EXcEPT in the U S A. The MSM was deathly quiet and so were the vast majority of Americans. 70% as i remember. The MSM stayed impotent and quiet until Abu Garib broke but even that was not played up certainly not overplayed. Bush was looking like old teflon Reagan nothing stuck no matter what evidence of corruption or incompetence. Slowly though as the war turned into a quagmire and then Katrina hit and now the Ports debacle finally have awakened the media and the people. But dont forget Bush had a free ride in the media for 5 years. In fact Karl Rove played the media like a fiddle whenever he needed to. witnesss swiftboating of Kerry.
In Toronto the rest of the media is Right wing CTV,Global, cfrb radio, 680 news radio, 640 talk radio, the globe and mail, the sun, the national post. ALL right wing!
There is no left wing NONE not here not in the USA but there is twenty percent here that vote left consistently. HOW do they keep their ideas and ideals alive??? The Right is over served but that is no surprise because the right are the monied. They own everything. They control everything including our thoughts except for that small percentage of independent thinkers who dont swallow everything whole.
To me the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that the conservative will move wealth more quickly to the upper classes than the Liberals. The liberals will also move money and power to the POWER ELITE but pausing along the way to throw a few crumbs to the masses. In the end though the result is the same.
What I have always found sad is that many people supporting this vast movement of resources to the few are themselves victims of this very thing. It is well known that the middle class and below have been spinning their wheels economically for decades but they still dont know who is screwing them or how they are assisting in their own screwing. Kinda sad eh?
Interesting article in the Post today about blogging, the future thereof, etc. Will blogging ever replace the MSM? No, the author replies there will always be a need for news. Of course there will always be a need for news. But I’d rather have mine not skewed by the jaundiced eye of the chorus (MSM). I know what the chorus will sing; the same tune with minor variation of pitch and cadence. The reason I come to blogs like this one (thankee Kate) is to hear a counter point something to make the music more rhapsody like.
The Canadian Bromide Corporation is right up there with other useless media outlets – except that Canadians are forced to pay for that drivel.
A journalism school in Canada? It was mentioned in a previous entry, but where is it? There are none at any Canadian Universities, a student can take courses in corporate public relations easily enough, but a program that teaches journalism? Never heard of one in this country.
I know it’s OT – but what the hell.
As a general rule, the freedom of any people can be judged by the volume
of their laughter.
Anon
Steve d,
Pigs are flying, and pink elephants are wandering the streets of toronto.
You might want to lay off the acid. You may see that but it is far from reality.
enough
On the CBS poll – I don’t argue that the poll is slanted toward a higher dispproval rating for Bush. The wording throughout is negative in general when referring to Bush and seems to relish the fact he has slipped in the poll results.
It has also been interesting to read the bleating on the News Busters and this site from the poor downtrodden conservatives who can’t get a break from the MSM.
I don’t disagree that bias exists in the MSM, but the fact is that the CBS poll is taken from 1018 RANDOM calls that reflect a sample of the U.S. population. In a time of lagging popularity for a political party, you could expect that fewer people from that random sample will identify as supporting that party. So fewer of the random sample are supporting the Republicans. Does this mean that CBS skewed the poll results because they didn’t find more republicans to match a demographic developed at an earlier date? I don’t think so, because people’s party loyalties change.
So, all those in insulated confines of the “blogoshpere” should check their facts before they crow too much about the demise of the MSM because of their bias and dishonesty. Best to look in the mirror.
You are a group whose voice is not heard in the MSM. You have found a voice through blogs. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be a good idea to have a solid foundation for your outrage about the MSM, not some quirky and questionable analysis. Its no wonder you folks get considered as extremist cranks.
C’mon conservatives, you WON the election, can’t you give us more than this tired old tripe about media bias and how you are so hard done by? Kate, I truly believe you are capable of leading a better discussion than this.
Bush at 34%? I don’t think he’s that high.
simpleton:…would it’s black-sheep twin be the Calgary Bubblegum Company?? (apologies to ALL Calgarians).
Steve in BC – who would know what the actual ratings are with the inaccuracy of poll statistics.
My take on polls is that public view is easily swayed by how the MSM words reports so called “facts”. Before blogs, I would see a story on TV or read in the newspaper about a certain poll and – if my view was different and/or I didn’t have a strong opinion – I might start to think that maybe I was out to lunch in my thinking. AFter listening to enough of these stories and polls, I could easily be swayed to the “popular” thinking. I truly believe that there are many, many people in our world that are swayed by what they hear on TV or read in the newspapers. That is reflected in our polls.
Prime example – Health care – the coffee shop talk is “what’s wrong with paying, what’s wrong with private health care if you get service” In public though – polls continually show that the #1 concern is that we will have two tier health care. The “private” comments do not match the “public” polled comments.
ANTONIA ZERBISIAS:
It’s a case of surfer beware for journalists
What was origin of `Hamas’ video?
The Internet, as more and more users discover, is not exactly the Library of Congress.
Just because you find information online, and on a credible-looking website, does not mean you can trust the source.
For example, late last year, the open-to-all Wikipedia took a hit in the believability department when retired USA Today journalist John Seigenthaler, founder of Vanderbilt University’s Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, found his reputation savaged by an unknowncontributor.
Now nobody feels they can really trust Wikipedia.
Many sober-seeming “research” sites are little more than fronts for lobby groups with agendas, whether they be for lowering Canadian taxes while unravelling the social safety net (the Fraser Institute) or Greenpeace Canada, which agitates for a healthier planet.
Maybe the information on these sites is accurate. Maybe not. But you can be sure that it’s usually one-sided.
That’s why, it’s “surfer beware.”
For journalists especially….
http://tinyurl.com/ma6es
ANTONIA ZERBISIAS:
It’s a case of surfer beware for journalists
What was origin of `Hamas’ video?
The Internet, as more and more users discover, is not exactly the Library of Congress.
Just because you find information online, and on a credible-looking website, does not mean you can trust the source.
For example, late last year, the open-to-all Wikipedia took a hit in the believability department when retired USA Today journalist John Seigenthaler, founder of Vanderbilt University’s Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, found his reputation savaged by an unknowncontributor.
Now nobody feels they can really trust Wikipedia.
Many sober-seeming “research” sites are little more than fronts for lobby groups with agendas, whether they be for lowering Canadian taxes while unravelling the social safety net (the Fraser Institute) or Greenpeace Canada, which agitates for a healthier planet.
Maybe the information on these sites is accurate. Maybe not. But you can be sure that it’s usually one-sided.
That’s why, it’s “surfer beware.”
For journalists especially….
http://tinyurl.com/ma6es
the “liberal” MSM seems to have missed the story that fitzgerald was able to cull 250 additional e mails from confiscated computer hard drives and other sources that seem to directly implicate dick cheney in obstruction of justice. but you little ditto heads jest keep on believing in the “liberal media” myth. one president impeached over lying about a blow job, another with carte blanch to lie cheat and steal, all while whittling dow nthe constatution to a size that can be drowned in a bathtub. you people make me ill. the only thing that makes old sarge a little cheery this morning, is that you kanukistani seem to have got on board for the same sort of corruption. hold on, my little beaver choppers, the ride will be thrilling
Sarge
I don’t understand all the griping about bias in the media. There’s umpteen outlets nowadays they’re all biased in one way or another. If you don’t like a certain outlets bias then you have plenty of other choices.
Kate, thanks for this terrific story “Strategy”. I was just discussing it with a friend via a lengthy email.
The CBS “Memogate” Scandal is a classic success story for the Blogosphere in breaking the news cartel’s silence/CBS’s propaganda.
I say propaganda because when the CBS TV news network’s executives:
1. know a story can’t be corroborated;
2. when the source of the document on which they’re basing their story is unknown;
3. when their own technical experts all question the document’s authenticity;
4. and they go ahead and broadcast the story anyway;
5. without disclosing any disclaimers;
6. just before the election,
that’s political propaganda.
That “story” rightly blew up in CBS and Rather’s face.
Now let’s see if “Pollgate”, about CBS’s cooked anti-Bush poll, has legs.
actually, old steve d is about right. democrats is republicans. old sarge never could figure out what the beef was with old pro gatt/nafta willy clinton and his snazzy wife both dlc demos, which is to say, to the right of george w. bush’s daddy. they were small w republicans in almost every sense. the failure to be able to tell things like that by careful analysis just proves the point that yer mostly a bunch of angry little dumbshits without any meaningful power of reason. maybe ya’ll should go kick a dog instead of waxing moronic on matter you can’t quite comprehend? sarge needs to go to the range now and shoot his rifles, blow off some steam. do they make a “shoot a hole-a in a stupid fake conservative” targets? old sarge is out of the osama bin laden ones.
agreed