Comments on: The New York Times watches Freedom Watch

By: Laura

Laura — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:06:20 +0000

Neo, I also read this article. What I think sets the two apart, at least at this time are the number of benefactors. MoveOn being a grassroots organization with more than 3.5 million members and Freedom’s Watch having a small group of wealthy contributors. What remains to be seen, in my opinion, is whether or not the latter will be able to engage a relatively large consituency that will move it into more of a collective voice.

It is interesting to me. Groups such as these appeal to people on both sides for probably the same reasons; a growing feeling of discontent of the masses.

By: Nausicaa

Nausicaa — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:03:59 +0000

Has press ever had objetivism?

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:35:22 +0000

Objectivity of the press is probably not possible. I would be far less upset about the press’s bias, however, if the MSM did not pretend to be objective.

By: expreacherman

expreacherman — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:17:44 +0000

Neo,

I continue to read all your posts with such brilliant analysis.

From an old-time Christian Conservative, I am so thankful that Conservatives such as you, Cinnamon and Book, among many others, continue to see the lie of the Left and the truth of the Right and don’t mind telling it like it is..

Keep up the good analysis and truth-telling…

ExP(Jack)

By: amr

amr — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:38:50 +0000

It is much easier for an organization to achieve a grass roots constituency if the media fawns over it. Freedom Watch will obtain public exposure probably mainly from negative publicity and will most likely be relatively moderate in their approach to politics. That will not gain them the attention of right of center donors who I suspect are not the zealots that are the netroots.

By: Log Cabinet

Log Cabinet — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:23:09 +0000

Just for clarity, Soros did help fund Move On, but this tenacious lefty group seems very much in control of its own agenda. Freedom Watchers could learn something from the way Move On has polled its membership to set priorities, and enlisted their help for things like telemarketing and get-out-the-vote campaigns.

Regardless of its politics, Freedom Watch is in its organization and messaging alooks to be a lot more like the Swift Boat clan — which is a shame, as it only undermines the good parts of its message. (Swift Boaters may have helped clinch the elction but that’s not the way I want to elect a president.)

Furthermore, Enlisting the erudite but petulant Fleischer is hardly a good thing. He knowingly bent the truth to the press in service of the president, and continued to defend administration missteps even after Bush recanted re WMD.

Yes, we should utilize the media. Yes, we should organize in grass roots ways. But we needn’t lie or obfuscate to make our point — those poor judgments, and the tragedies thye have created, will also be here after George Bush is gone.

By: Log Cabinet

Log Cabinet — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:24:22 +0000

… Sorry for all the embarrassing typos.

By: expat

expat — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:59:20 +0000

Re. NYT: I followed a link to der Spiegel Online International yesterday and was surprised to find columns by Tom Freidman, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd. It seems they now have a deal with Spiegel. I guess they need the money. Who knows? Maybe we’ll see a merger or a takeover.

By: Laura

Laura — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:49:25 +0000

Neo

you might want to do a comparison of the story and see what AP says about Freedom’s watch. Has more to say about the alliances of Cheney and not Bush.

FYI

By: camojack

camojack — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:17:37 +0000

The New York Times is on their way out.

Personally, I can’t wait…

By: Mockingbird

Mockingbird — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:21:19 +0000

”Swift Boaters may have helped clinch the election but that’s not the way I want to elect a president”

Maybe it’s just me but I feel that exposing Kerry as the fraud he was(and is) was as good a way as any to win an election. Of course, as is evident by the NYT’s article, Freedom Watch will never receive the same sort of advocacy assistance from the MSM that MoveOn has.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:59:24 +0000

I wonder if the same could be said for the Times.

Nice hit.

By: Xanthippas

Xanthippas — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:43:21 +0000

…former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, a member and benefactor of Freedom Watch, is quoted as saying, “We will still be here after George Bush is gone.”

Yet again demonstrating America’s tolerance for patronizing liars.

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:05:34 +0000

“Yet again”, Xanth? Yeah, I guess we do tolerate your patronizing lies, your intolerance, your hate around here all the time.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:06:24 +0000

Yet again demonstrating America’s tolerance for patronizing liars.

Of course, you’re still around, are you not, Xanth.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:00:37 +0000

Laura Says:

September 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm

“What remains to be seen, in my opinion, is whether or not the latter will be able to engage a relatively large consituency that will move it into more of a collective voice.”

I’m sure that means much or is apples to apples… Conservatives just don’t like to join political groups as much as lefties… sorta like we don’t like bumper stickers as much… it’s in the attitude towards life… its different. That and with the media power leftists have to demonize things (say neocons or more aptly… recently the Federalist Society) it’s not always safe to join conservative groups… Last of all, I think we learn from the past… Moveon went kind of nuts… I have to add THAT to my list of reasons to not join political groups… What if, even though they’re mostly on my side, they go nuts later? And my name is on their old member lists… just one more reason to not join a political group (they may end up being idiots later)…