Thursday, May 10, 2007

SOMETIMES I WONDER HOW THE NY TIMES DECIDES HOW TO LABEL SOMEONE A MODERATE

>

Did the Times mean him?

The headline in this morning's Times is clear: G.O.P. Moderates Warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains. The meaning of "G.O.P. Moderates" is decidedly less so. In fact, it's a loaded propaganda tool, that the Times employs regularly.

In the very first line of the online version of the story, the Times goes out of the way to offer a superfluous, wholly gratuitous definition of Republicans, purposely leaving it to the imagination of the readers what they mean by "moderate." I imagine a Republican moderate doesn't dress up in white sheets and pillowcases like Tom Tancredo, Trent Lott and Marilyn Musgrave. I imagine Republican moderates don't read chapters of Ann Coulter books before going to bed at night. The article by Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny, however, doesn't offer any real clues.

A gaggle of Republicans-- nearly a dozen-- scared that electoral doom has them on a list, perhaps a long list, wandered over to the White House today and told the head of their disreputable party, certainly someone who no one would confuse with a moderate, "that conditions [in Iraq] needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war. The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks."


Is standing with the unmoderate Bush and his extremist and failed policies part of being a Republican moderate? "Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts." 11 members of a moderate bloc? That bears some looking into.

A perfect voting record at Progressive Punch yields a 100. Right now there are exactly two Democrats with perfect scores, Yvette Clarke of Brooklyn and Hank Johnson of DeKalb County, Georgia, although Keith Ellison (MN), Mazie Hirono (HI) and Steve Cohen (TN) are close enough to be considered perfect. All the way down at the very bottom of the congressional barrel are some mirror images-- Republicans with perfect scores, perfectly horrible, right-winders so extreme that compared with them almost anyone would be a moderate. Many people have wondered if Tim Walberg (R-MI) escaped from a mental institution. Who knows? But he and David Davis (R-TN) each has a zero score next to his name. They have voted against everything: increased minimum wages, lowering the cost of student loans, clean air, safe water, peace, mom, apple pie... And nearly as crazy are 4 other kooks with less than a 1 score (less than 1 out of 100!)-- Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Mary Fallin (R-OK). For those keeping track, others who have fallen over the edge of the lunatic fringe are Adrian Smith (R-NE), Michele Secret Puker Bachmann (R-MN), Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Patrick McNutcase (R-NC).

Scorewise, if we look where Democrats meet, we find only one Democrat below 50, Gene Taylor (D-MS), who votes with Republicans most of the time on substantive matters. There is only one Republican above a 30, Chris Shays (R-CT). Even the next dozen most radical-right, reactionary Democrats-- like Bud Cramer (AL), Dan Boren (OK), Collin Peterson (MN), Ike Skelton (MO), Mike McIntyre (NC), Allen Boyd (FL), John Tanner (TN), Jim Marshall (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Lincoln Davis (TN), Charlie Melancon (LA), and Tim Holden (PA) have voting records that are far far far from "moderate." Yet their scores are as much as 4 times more progressive than the least reactionary next dozen Republicans: Rodney Alexander (LA, a former Democrat), Ron Paul (TX, a Libertarian), Chris Smith (NJ), Michael Castle (DE), Jim Ramstad (MN), Wayne Gilchrest (MD), Frank Biondo (NJ), Timothy Johnson (IL), Vernon Ehlers (MI), Jim Gerlach (PA), Charlie Dent (PA) and Fred Upton (MI).

I've been looking at Dent's voting record lately because a progressive woman named Siobhan "Sam" Bennett is about to start a campaign to replace him in Congress, pointing out correctly, that he has been an unswerving rubber stamp for Bush's every catastrophic policy and the whole hideous agenda. Please take a look at this abysmal voting record and tell me on what planet would Charlie Dent be considered a moderate. And not once did he ever not support the BushCheney line on Iraq. Of the 16 roll calls on Iraq since he took office, he voted for the Bush Regime position exactly 16 times. Perfect score. And this is a moderate? And Jim Gerlach has a virtually identical voting record, as do Michiganders Vernon Ehlers and Fred Upton. I'm not sure why Hulse and Zeleny would label these radical extremists "moderate."

Dent was one of the Repugs at the meeting. Others were even further to the right, like Illinois nutcase Ray LaHood. If Ray LaHood is a moderate, the average American is a Maoist. LaHood, who has been a big time Bush enabler in Iraq, painted a picture for the naive Hulse of himself as a Hero Of The People: "It was a no-holds-barred meeting... It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war." "Moderate" Ray LaHood has voted on 49 roll calls involved Iraq, You want to guess how many times he took a moderate position? Exactly zero times. He could just as well have given Cheney his proxy and gone to sit in a tanning booth with John Boehner (who, incredibly, was also at the meeting).


Dent, who was one of the ringleaders of this publicity stunt for the suckers back home said the discussion with Bush was "very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq" but that all these "moderates" would "maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for two-stage financing of war," which the House votes on today, legislation most progressives see as not even moderate, just more caving in to the reactionaries. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said the bill was so pro-war and so devoid of taking any kind of a stance against Bush's escalating and catastrophic involvement in Iraq that he felt he couldn't vote for it.

Bush sat mute at the "conference" and didn't say one word. Condi and Rove were there too, presumably whipping the Repugs into shape. Among the other radical right war-mongers the Times has mislabeled "moderates," who attended were Mark Kirk (R-IL), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), and James Walsh (R-NY). What these kooks all have in common is not moderation but extreme vulnerability to losing their jobs next year when their constituents are asked to look at their voting records and asked to decide if they should be allowed another 2 years of ruining the country.


LET ME TAKE A STAB AT WHAT FOLKS LIKE THE NYT
MEAN NOW BY A "MODERATE" REPUBLICAN


I think what they have in mind is a party member who can point--or, if it's beyond his/her mental capacity, have SOMEONE ELSE point on his/her behalf--to someone in the party who is MORE extreme.--Ken

Labels: , ,

12 Comments:

At 7:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all about elections with the Republicans. What about the morality, the incompetence, the denial, No! We will lose the next election if Mr Bush doesn't change course. Sad!

 
At 8:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mental institution escapee Tim Walberg is from Michigan (MI), not Minnesota(MN). I wish it wasn't true, but it is....
I would be glad to ship him to Minnesota, though!

 
At 8:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I just love it when they talk about the "liberals" on the Supreme Court.

 
At 10:10 AM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

Anonymous, thanks for the correction about Walberg. And don't bother shipping him to Minnesota. Between Bachmann and Kline and even putative Democrat Collin Peterson, those folks have enough problems without dumping the worst congressman in the entire nation on them.

 
At 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great Post. The notion that Michael Castle is a moderate is an utter joke.

He throws out just enough moderate sounding BS (this white hosue meeting for instance) to keep the sleepwalkers marching to the polls every two years.

 
At 9:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doug Lamborn is indeed a nutcase! You have got to see his "Dubious Achievement Awards of 1996 and 2006" that some gal by the name of Demogirl has revealed that he won--and he'd rather not have it known that she has. She has nailed him to a cross from which he cannot come down.

Check out the links tha appear at this site for the "Parts 3" and "Parts 4". You'll die laughing at Lamborn! http://www.coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=5312

 
At 12:45 AM, Blogger Jean said...

This is the same MSM that calls Joe Lieberman a "centrist" and refers to "moderate" Arab governments--i.e. repressive thuggish antidemocratic regimes that are hated by their subjects but which can be counted on be "pro-American" when push (Bush) comes to shove. And describes right-wing terrorist Luis Posada Carriles a "militant Cuban exile." Funny how they never refer to Osama bin Laden as a "militant Saudi exile."

And in economic articles (see Dean Baker for more) misleadingly and inaccurately uses the term "free trade" to describe trade deals and policies that are anything but free.

And love to remind us that Rahm Emanuel engineered the Democratic takeover of Congress.

Etc. etc. etc.

 
At 5:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sweet bejeebus!

Thanks for the link to Lamborn's "awards" but, I thought the dirty money trail item for the Christian Coalition rocked. It's worth a read on how "Christians" in Colorado campaign.

http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=BDA54996D6AFA187E9FACDBC565FF6D8?diaryId=3140

 
At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the MSM's moderation test is based on whether a repug can walk without dragging his (or her) knuckles.

 
At 2:05 PM, Blogger John Emerson said...

Minnesota has one of the least-bad Republicans (Ramstad), one of the very worst Republicans (Bachmann), one of the worst Democrats (Collin Peterson), and one of the very best Democrats (Ellison). That's quite a range.

The worst district in Minnesota (Bachmann's: 56% Bush) was six points better than Texas taken as a whole (62% Bush). Why they got such a wacko there I don't know.

 
At 1:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A woman was banished from California because she had too much education. Instead, the "Jews" and U.S. Government deliberately suspended her driver's license so that she would be dependent upon American men and targeted as a sex tourism spectacular to service them. Her mother left her a $100k estate trust so that she would not have to be dependent upon government funds that other persons need for sustainability. The "Jews" and U.S. Government reps have allowed the woman to be a psychological and physical battering instrument so that they do not have to be accountible and so that she is deprived of medical assistance as well. In addition, the U.S. Government defaulted on a substantial sum of money due to the woman. Todate, the U.S. Government demands that her hard working resumes (three of them) be invalidated so that the U.S. Government can continue to use her in their Human Trafficking episodes and the towns people can banish her from city to city through the use of derogatory names and psychological threats and assaults; that way the People, U.S. Government and their reps can declare and vex her with, "the crazy lady"! If you don't believe me check out her website at http://kinispolarbear.bravehost.com

 
At 7:33 PM, Blogger Demidog said...

Do yourselves a favor and instead of letting somebody else tell you via an arbitrary "score" where somebody truly stands, why not find out something about the indivudal?

For instance, Ron Paul. He's a Republican but you've listed him as a Libertarian. He's more liberal than most democrats more conservative than most republicans and more constitutionalist than all combined.

And he's running for President.

And the Republicans will not win on the current war stance.

Ron Paul voted against the war in 2003. He voted against the Patriot act.

He also voted against the marriage amendment. Not constitutional.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home