Littwin a hard-left Democrat
We don’t want that now do we?
This letter has not been edited.
It is my opinion that EVERY person in the media should be required to publicly declare their party affiliation.
It would soon be seen that the left and hard left people are utilizing an unfair advantage over the conservatives in an outrageous activity aimed at moving our country into the "Socialist" bloc.
The dumbing down of America agenda is in full swing and nearing its optimum objective.
Posted by Mollypitcher on March 28, 2007 11:46 AMAnd Bill O' Reilly SAYS he's an Independent.
He is a Republican and a liar.
Posted by Rick on March 28, 2007 12:27 PMThe Rocky's job is to sell the most papers it possibly can, and that means providing something for everyone. Littwin is there to make lefties happy just like Mike Rosen pleases conservatives. It's traditional for American newspapers to "balance" their opinion pieces with differing points of view. It has nothing to do with "dumbing down." It's about serving a diverse audience in a profitable manner.
Some people in the media choose to reveal their political affiliation, but I don't see why it should be a requirement. If you read the columns of Littwin, Rosen, Campos, Carroll, etc., the content speaks for itself. Besides, not all commentators side with their party on every issue. I think the best ones are those who criticize their own side on occasion.
Posted by cinnabar on March 28, 2007 12:27 PM"Littwin a Hard-Left Democrat."
Well stop the presses! Did you figure this out all by yourself, George? What was your first clue?
Posted by karenm on March 28, 2007 12:31 PMLittwin has written many times in his column that he's a Democrat. Vince Carroll on the other hand has never admitted in his column that he's a Republican. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posted by on March 28, 2007 01:22 PMI'd just like to see true reporting of the facts and all the facts without any spin or slant to one side or the other.
Posted by on March 28, 2007 01:44 PMEver heard of the term 'Useful Idiot"?
Posted by Jay on March 28, 2007 02:22 PMExcellent letter Mollypitcher.
Terrible letter Rick. Tsk! Tsk!
If Independents seem to vote more for Republicans it's because they have better ideas more often than do the whiny, complaining and out of new good solutions Democrats. I was a Democrat for 25 yrs up until Bill Clintons second term when he opened up my eyes and I realized that the party had changed for the worse and I could no longer be a part of. So now I'm an Independent. Sometimes I vote for Republicans and i wish i could still vote for Democrats so sometimes I just don't vote.
All you have to do is just read anyones column and know were their loyalties lay.
C'mon, be fair...who *doesn't* mock Tancredo?
But if you think Littwin is bad, wait 'til he officially declares and gets on a national stage. He'll be blasted non-stop from all corners. How many times do you think Leno or Letterman will drag out the "Miami is a 3rd world country" line?
Look, the guy is good at raising awareness of a real problem - but his retoric and methods are laughable. I understand and respect that some folks like his act - but don't let that blind you to how he's going to play when he steps on the court with the big boys. If he DOES run it's simply to raise awareness of his pet issue. He has NO shot. None.
Posted by Tim on March 28, 2007 03:28 PMLittwin, Bill Johnson and Tina Griego are blatantly leftist OPINION columnists. Yet Editor in Chief John Temple calls them "news columnists," which they are not.
If John Temple had any interest and desire to run a fair and unbiased newspaper, he would move these three to the opinion pages to compete with the other opinion columnists. But that won't happen as Littwin, Johnson and Griego are Temple's favorites.
So the next time Littwin, Johnson and Griego tick you off with their opinions; you have John Temple to thank for his leftist puppet show.
As for Massaro, Parker and Torkelson; they are lifestyle columnists and would be at home there.
Posted by QBT on March 28, 2007 04:21 PMTo Independent,
Bill O'Reily SAYS he's an Independent but is in fact a registered Republican.
So he IS a Republican and a liar.
Posted by Rick on March 28, 2007 05:14 PMMollypitcher: "It would soon be seen that the left and hard left people are utilizing an unfair advantage over the conservatives in an outrageous activity aimed at moving our country into the "Socialist" bloc."
Molly, dear girl, you're much too nice to these people. We all know that what they really want is to move the country into communism and to send all the conservatives to Siberia to be killed.
Everyone should keep their guns loaded.
Posted by on March 28, 2007 07:30 PMThe hard right & the hard left have one thing in common - blinders! Does Mollypitcher think Ann Coulter is capable of contributing to the national debate with anything other than slurs that are regularly spewed by her hate-filled followers? Perhaps all columnists ought to be listed under the Opinion section - but they aren't (at least not in the 2 local papers). EVERYBODY puts personal spin on things - and the only people who compain about the spin are those who disagree with the spin.
Posted by Mary on March 28, 2007 08:36 PMMollypitcher-
They would all just change their affiliation to Independent and keep writing the same stuff. And, frankly, cinnabar has it right. The object of the game is to sell papers, not to be fair. When papers start making more money being fair, they will all (or most all) start being fair. But, Molly, I can't agree that lefties are trying to use an unfair advantage... they are lefties, they have to use SOMETHING, don't they? Give them the media, since they can't compete on ideas...
Tim-
You're analysis is right on the money, if phrased a bit harshly, except you miss the mark on the idea that Tancredo would not try to make a serious run, but would only be trying to raise awareness on his pet issue. I think politicians are like rock stars in that it only takes a little success to make them think they can do anything, and in fact, are entitled to do anything. But really, if John Kerry can take himself seriously, is it really reasonable to think Tancredo can't? And if that doesn't convince you, we can talk about Al Gore...
Mary-
Have you actually READ anything by Coulter?
they are lefties, they have to use SOMETHING, don't they? Give them the media, since they can't compete on ideas...
posted by Michael
You mean like the idea of starting a war in Iraq? How about deficit spending? Or arguing about Gay marriage instead of the war. These are just wonderful ideas.
Posted by Lurch on March 29, 2007 08:46 AMMichael...
Heh...I didn't mean to imply that Tancredo might not *think* he had a chance. I completely agree he would buy into his chances (he seems a little detached from reality sometimes) - it's just that once he started opening his mouth on the national stage with those stakes his history says he'd start saying wacky things and the wheels would come flying off early and often. The BEST Tancredo supporters can hope for realistically is that he raises awareness of "his" issue.
And Gore n' Kerry...yeah, not the best of political candidates. Both pretty stiff and unlikeable...and Kerry's wife is just as nutty as Tancredo is! But not a one of 'em referred to Miami as a 3rd World Country...or advocated nuking mosques, or...
Look, I understand what he was getting at for the most part - but that's just a couple examples (of many) of Tom's goofy sayings. You simply can't say those kind of things at that level. See: Dean, Howard. One nutjob scream and he was through as a presidential candidate.
Posted by Tim on March 29, 2007 09:13 AMMichael Trimble: "Mary-
Have you actually READ anything by Coulter?"
What is your basis for such a question? I think that you can assume that she has read something by Coulter, just as we assume you have read something about the subject matter of your comments.
She says: "slurs that are regularly spewed by her"
Sounds to me like she has indeed read what dear, sweet Ann has to say.
Posted by Truth on March 29, 2007 09:13 AMLurch-
Yes, those are a few of the areas I am speaking about. Very astute observation!
Tim-
Well, then, we agree completely, in principle if not in tone. Speaking of tone, catch the next response, below… do you think it’s a sign of my success that I seem to have my very own heckler?
Truth-
What is my basis for asking if she has read Coulter? Are you kidding?
Truth, this is a discussion and debate forum, not a court of law. I really am not required to have any “basis” for asking a question, and you really are over the top (again) for jumping up and shouting, “Objection! Lack of foundation, your Honor!”
Well, (sigh), if that’s the way you want to play, then…
“Objection! The witness has mischaracterized previous testimony! Mary did NOT say slurs are spewed by Coulter, she said slurs are spewed by her “hate filled followers”! Furthermore, testimony will establish that, whatever one thinks of Coulters tone, she does, in fact, contribute to the national debate, frequently making observations that are original and interesting, even though leftist disagree with them! That’s why she keeps getting her books published- AND making the best-sellers lists! Move to strike, your honor!”
Oh, that was more fun than I thought it would be! See you in court, counselor!
Michael...
I *do* vote Democratic almost always, but that's because I'm not too excited that the Republican party (in my view) has been hijacked by the Religious Right. But that doesn't mean I can't see bad actors on both sides of the spectrum.
With regards to Ann Coulter - I'm surprised an obviously reasonable guy like yourself is seriously protecting her. Sure, she has a RIGHT to say what she wants (within free speech limits, natch), and she DOES make interesting points at times. But she's horribly hateful and just spews out nasty bile very often. Much like Rush (who's at least entertaining while he's being hateful), she really puts a bad face on the conservative movement. Hollywood Liberals are NOT who I want representing me...not sure why you'd want Ann Coulter.
Posted by Tim on March 29, 2007 10:45 AMTim
The Rebublican party has not been hijacked by the Religious Right. The majority only pay lip service to them when the want their votes.
Their main allegiance is to big business and corporations.
Now the Democratic party has been hijacked by the "Immoral Left" and that is a fact.
They support child killing thru abortion. They also support sodomy and are encouriging kids in school to be sexual immoral with condom handouts and birth control and abortion information in their so-called sex education classes which is not their responsibility but the parents.
Stealing from hard working Americans to give to lazy welfare reciepients and have destroyed minorities families for generations. It's their welfare money for votes program. The list goes on and on.
So when I vote I make sure I don't have these things on my conscious. Of course you have to have one in the first place or you can rationalize these thing and lie to yourself.
So what it comes down to it is the Religious Right v.s. The Immoral Left more than Democrat v.s. Republican.
Posted by THS on March 29, 2007 12:11 PMTim-
Don't read too much into my question for Mary, "Have you actually read Coulter?" I actually wrote a piece that the Rocky did not print wherein I said I wish Coulter had not said the line about John Edwards. I do think she goes too far sometimes, but I also think she sometimes makes good points. I wish she were more gentle in some of her statements, but that doesn't make the statements incorrect regarding analysis. I generally won't defend her delivery, even if I do defend her conclusions.
Rush, though, I don't listen too, because while he is often comedic (I mean on purpose) he dosn't often say things I find to be unusually insightful. You know who is really sharp on social issues, I think? Medved. That guy is a thinking man's man.
But we (you and I, Tim) still agree on Tancredo, for the most part. And if you, Tim, are left, you are pretty moderate left as far as I have seen in your work here. You're intellectually honest, at any rate, and that's saying something in here!
THS-
That's an interesting view. I think, though, that on balance, both parties have a wide range of people, and various factions come in and go out of power all the time. The Pelosi left and the Hillary left are far more radical than the Bill Clinton left was, and they are swinging into power now (though perhaps not for long- lots of moderate Dems were elected to congress last cycle). The current Republican power base appears to be signifcantly more moderate than what I percieve the base to be- but that could be my bias, since I tend to be fairly far right.
Michael - Oh, if the Republicans would get the Bible out of their party platform I could easily vote their way quite often. I'm also very aware of the fact that not everybody agrees with me on everything - and that's a good thing.
THS - See, this is what I'm talking about. Your narrow viewpoint is truly scary to me.
1) Teens having sex. I have no clue when and where you went to school, but in small town Colo in the 70s and 80s the vast majority of my schoolmates were very sexually active, and I don't recall any government doled-out condoms. Teens are gonna have sex. One arguement to make them have safer sex is handing out condoms. I'm not sure it works, and I don't really want the schools giving *my* kids them, but it's not "immoral" in my OPINION.
2) Sodomy. Pppfffttt...I'll have a hard time being civil here. Who the freak CARES? It's two people doing something consensual in the privacy of their home. The Bible says a LOT of whack-job things, especially in the OT, why pick this particular one for your hate?
3) Welfare was a good-hearted attempt to help people in need. It failed miserably, but it sure doesn't seem "immoral". In fact, it seems like an answer to "WWJD". Helping people who are worse off than you are is one foundation of J's teachings. It just doesn't work as well when the government gets involved.
4) Abortion I have the hardest time with. I was HARDCORE pro-choice until I witnessed the birth of my son. Suddenly it wasn't so clear. I'm still pro-choice - but I can much more easily understand the views of Pro-Life folks.
I really don't think Democrats have a monopoly on immorality.
Posted by Tim on March 30, 2007 08:31 AMMichael: "I really am not required to have any “basis” for asking a question"
I agree with you Michael. I just think it's a good idea to have a basis. It makes for more intelligent discussion.
Posted by Truth on March 30, 2007 11:45 AMTruth-
I re-read your question about my basis for asking that question. I took it as criticism, because I did not realize what I now think was going on. I THINK you were reacting because you took my words to be an accusation that Mary did not know what she was talking about- and I can’t fault you for that, since it seems Tim got the same idea (hence his remark about my “support” of Coulter). That would be worthy of criticism, perhaps. I was, in fact, simply asking Mary if she has read Coulter. That’s why I didn’t feel like I needed a basis for the question- because it was really a question. I think it’s fine to say Coulter is reactionary, says objectionable things, etc. But I think she clearly does contribute to the national debate, since she does say things no one else is saying, and sometimes they are good observations, even if dealt out in objectionable ways. Mary could say the things she said- and be right on lots of it- without actually reading Coulter, because Coulter gets so much coverage. But Coulter’s coverage is on the objectionable things she says, not the good points she makes.
Tim-
“Get the Bible out of the party platform”? Your answer to THS reveals what your thinking better than “get the Bible out of their platform” doesn’t it?
I think what you really want is a progressive, relative morality, isn’t it? Or else, no morality at all to be used to shape public policy (simply meaning, you don’t find morality to be a good basis for political decisions). Conservatives want a traditional, non-relative (“absolute”) morality. Both groups try to move the public debate and statutes in the direction they favor- but really, when have you heard a Republican platform that quotes the Bible in favor of restricting abortion, or even one that quotes the Bible in rejecting progressive gay rights? Sure, some PEOPLE do those things- just like it was not long ago that some PEOPLE were getting major press quoting Marx, Maslow, Rogers, etc. for more liberal positions (adopting their postulates, not making direct quotes, actually), even though the Democratic party does not cite them- and all of those writers’ works are far closer to religion than to science, don’t you think? It’s not all that different to say, for example, “We need to outlaw “hate speech” because it leads to violence, low self-esteem of the targets of hate speech, and it’s just not nice and not moral.” The truth is, “hate speech” itself is not harmful in physical ways in itself unless it is used to incite violence. So, outlawing hate speech is not necessary since we already have laws against inciting violence- unless we outlaw it simply because it is immoral. But that doesn’t stop people from calling for certain kinds of speech to be outlawed as hate speech, does it? How is that different from what you are saying Republicans do, except you object to the latter and not the former?
Good stuff Michael.
Yeah, in essence I'm not a fan of legislating morality - basically because you'll never get everybody to agree what's moral and what's not. I'm more of a proponent of: my rights end where yours begin.
Hate speech...I'm not too worried about that. I'm pretty sure it was added to make folks feel like they're doing *something* about some of the truly heinous things being said, but yeah as you say we already have "fighting words" and "inciting to riot" stuff on the books that seems like it should cover it fine. In general I'm always gonna fight for folks right to say what they want, if at all possible.
You're going to have a hard time finding a "moralistic" law this Democrat can support. Laws *should* exist to protect you from me, and vice versa.
And yeah...Democrats absolutely do the same stuff - try to pass laws to suit their personal beliefs. But in my experience they do NOT have the "God said it, I believe it, no discussion needed or wanted" sense of absolutism that the Bible cherry-pickers do. If you believe God is on your side, everything is justified. As I said, that's just plain scary to me...doesn't matter if they're Muslim or Christian.
Michael, we commonly and frequently rely on the reports of what a person has said. For example, yesterday the king of Saudi Arabia made statements critical of our presence in Iraq. I didn't see him on TV, and don't know if he was shown on TV, but, like you and most other people ,I take the reports as true. If someone were to post a comment about what the king said, I would not see the point in asking if they actually heard the words coming from his lips.
Nonetheless, if it was important to you to know whether she had seen TV clips of Ann Coulter or had only heard quotes of her by someone else, it was a natural question for you to ask. Most of my information about Coulter's various vulgarities have come from quotes of her by others because seeing her interferes with my digestion.
I agree that she certainly says things that others do not say and I am thankful for the others. For me, the fact that a person slips some factual information in between gross vulgarities is not sufficient to redeem their language.
given your comment, while I agree with the propriety of your question, it is also a fact that we very commonly and frequently rely on a person having said something because of the reports that they have said something. Yesterday, we heard that the king of Saudi Arabia criticized the war in Iraq. Few if any of us heard him in person. But I wouldn't feel comfortable asking someone if they had heard him in person because I was skeptical that otherwise their information might be wrong.
We very commonly rely on what reports of what people have said
I do think, however, that a person can form an adequate opinion of Ann Coulter from the numerous times she is quoted. While I have had the unfortunate occasion to hear Coulter's harangue coming from her mouth, I mainly have relied on what others have said she said, just as is the case with what Osama Ben Laden has said and many, many others.
Posted by Truth on March 30, 2007 03:28 PMTruth-
“because seeing her interferes with my digestion.” Do you suppose she was sponsored by the makers of Tums? She might be selling quite a bit of it, since she has that effect on lots of people.
“We very commonly rely on what reports of what people have said.” Too often, don't you think?
But in this case, yes, I agree that with high-profile types it is not unreasonable to make some assumptions and/or draw some conclusions about them from quotes and media reports. In the case of “Coulter on Edwards” in particular, her actual words and video were available to anyone with Internet access who cared to see them, and for that matter, there was no mis characterizing what she said anyway. But if someone has not read her, then the conclusions drawn from that incident (and the Jersy Girls stuff, and... well, I think that makes the point- it's not just a one-time thing) are probably useful for deciding if Coulter is “nice,” but probably not sufficient for determining if she has anything of more value to say. And that was my entire point I hoped to make with Mary- despise her for her crassness if necessary, but see what her serious points are before discarding them entirely. She does make some serious points that are worthy of consideration.
Tim-
Ahhh. A true libertarian lurks beneath that Democratic facade ... it becomes more clear (please note the small “l” in libertarian- I would not insult you with the “Libertarian Party” label) So, in essence, you vote for Dems because they scare you less, and you are less concerned about the coercion of the left than that of the right at this time, correct?
Tim, I think most large “L” Libertarians vote for whoever they are less mad at on election day (which is almost always NOT the incumbent) which is what makes them sort of silly. But the small “l” types- what I call “philosophical libertarians” -in the end, there is always someone who thinks folks need to be convinced to see it their way (not so bad)... and then made to DO it their way (really bad). Tough going for the folks who really just want to be left alone...
But which is the greater threat, really? The ones who say "small government, you can take care of yourself better than we can take care of you," or the ones who say, "big government, because you need our help- and if you don't it's becuase you are lucky and we'll take your resources to help everybody else"?
Michael...
Heh...just a couple o' points:
1) In any group of people over, say, 5 you'll NEVER get them all to agree to anything - so anything the government does (and I mean anything) will have somebody protesting it. Just because somebody "wants to be left alone" is NOT a reason for the government to not do something. Sometimes things are done because most people want them, and sometimes just because it's "right". You might still find counties in the South that would support segregation...that doesn't mean the government should allow it.
2) Oh, not the ol' "Republicans are the party of small government" chestnut! There is definitely some truth to it, but, well, the elephants spend their share of our money as well. The War in Iraq (which I'll just say I never voted for) is costing more than I like to think about. As far as government regulation goes, I'll submit that the Republican platform of outlawing abortion and limiting gay rights (among others) is pretty restrictive of individual rights. It's all in your perspective, I think.
But clearly a LOT of the big government programs like welfare are an unmitigated disaster. I just don't know what to do, to be honest. If it's a healthy adult, I'd have NO problem letting them work or starve. But if they have kids? That's when my heart does start to bleed.
Heh...this has been fun. Not much I like more than arguing with a well reasoned conservative. Too many people just want to discuss politics with those they agree with (Rush fans?) - that's just too boring.
Posted by Tim on March 31, 2007 08:09 AMTim- your comment on "Rush fans" got worth a chuckle out of me- but don't leave out Bill Marh fans, right? At least Rush takes dissenting callers one-on-one, while Bill Marh (Mahr?) always feels the need to stack the deck with himself, and 2 lefties, vs. one conservative. But recall, I'm not a big Rush fan myself. Check out Medved, bud- even if you disagree, you will give him props for knowing the arguments inside and out.
Oaky, to the issue at hand:
1. You are right, the government cannot let itself be frozen by failure to build massive consensus. But, if someone wants to be left alone, that IS good reason for the government to quit trying to "help them." Don't you agree with that, at least? For example, don't help me educate my kids if I don't want the help. Do quit charging me to educate everybody elses kids for as long as I am spending the money to educate my own (and probably better than the government would do it anyway). Or tax me the same and let me choose where to spend the education money my kids qualify for (I know, that's not entirely consistent with #2, below, on new rights, but I think the differences are evident).
2. Republicans blew their majority by failing to adhear to the "small government" plank. But compaired to Dems, the GOP is still "small government" even at their worst. (Military spending is not a big governement/ small governement issue: I KNOW you will agree with that, even if you don't like military spending or the war in Iraq). Repbulicans are not trying to "restrict individual rights" in their own eyes. Abortion: They think unborn children HAVE rights, and, Gay Marriage: They would say they are resisting ADDING rights that have never existed (same with other progressive gay rights issues). Note that Gays have the same rights I have- any gay man can marry a woman just as I can. Marrying same sex is a new right, whether you agree with the practice and think they should have that right or not (I do support gay rights as far as inheritance, family status for hostipal visitation, common property, etc. By and large, I think most legal marriage stuff is about supporting family and kids, like tax breaks, etc. and gay people with kids should get those same breaks. Household income is household income, and kids a person supports should qualify if they are genetic children or not). School vouchers might be called a "new right," but I already have the right to choose how to educate my kids. If I want the voucher money, that just seems fair to me.
3. Welfare: Man we got BIG progress with welfare reform. We can hold people accountable and still provide a safety net. I think welfare refrom like we had with a GOP congress and Bill Clinton in the Whitehouse is the best example of a workable compromise I have seen in a LONG TIME. But you have a point with some government "help" that goes to kids or people not able to help themselves. You see Republicans pushing for some reform, while you see Dems just increasing the budget on most of this stuff, though Like with Medicare/Medicaid.
Posted by Michael Trimble on March 31, 2007 02:40 PMsdyg qsdif xgdnha pwhzxtdy epbonkjm ekhi ijxqwn
Posted by grmzftaqc rsybwcead on July 12, 2007 09:05 AMsdyg qsdif xgdnha pwhzxtdy epbonkjm ekhi ijxqwn
Posted by grmzftaqc rsybwcead on July 12, 2007 09:06 AMsidcngbwx nwsqtjoyd fiexsgpo dmot eqsb kfnq mysijbu http://www.xaevswh.zqrkvesba.com
Posted by upyzb kzwcybn on July 12, 2007 09:07 AMsidcngbwx nwsqtjoyd fiexsgpo dmot eqsb kfnq mysijbu http://www.xaevswh.zqrkvesba.com
Posted by upyzb kzwcybn on July 12, 2007 09:08 AMsidcngbwx nwsqtjoyd fiexsgpo dmot eqsb kfnq mysijbu http://www.xaevswh.zqrkvesba.com
Posted by upyzb kzwcybn on July 12, 2007 09:09 AMmydfkseci mxujke luimxv sroduiyw fxheuklc hzakxo ojeiqwy fotpem zarxl
Posted by xfuestiqc blxniqhcf on July 12, 2007 09:10 AMsxznrqvug gcnbxsvr rqtlsfh wlvzjsf ihevgcwa agwoybl pectab [URL]http://www.zpku.slpofugaj.com[/URL] bcqfm inxpyguze
Posted by lxprhjg rdtmpku on July 12, 2007 09:12 AMsxznrqvug gcnbxsvr rqtlsfh wlvzjsf ihevgcwa agwoybl pectab [URL]http://www.zpku.slpofugaj.com[/URL] bcqfm inxpyguze
Posted by lxprhjg rdtmpku on July 12, 2007 09:13 AM