The press has won
Back in the earlier half of the 20th century right through my childhood years and up to the Vietnam War and the cultural explosion we call the Sixties, the press (with some more liberal pockets) was predominantly—at least compared to today’s press—pro-American and at least somewhat supportive of whatever government might happen to be in power, especially during wartime.
Time and Life were not only read by a huge number of Americans, but they were published by a man who was fairly conservative, Henry Luce, and they set the cultural tone, especially Life. The Saturday Evening Post was similar and the Reader’s Digest was read by a lot of people, too. Movies were on the same page.
During the 60s, as we know, all of that changed. We can date the change to this moment or that, but I think we can all agree that major elements for the press were Vietnam after Tet (including Cronkite’s response, whom I’ve written about here), the Nixon years and Watergate. Suddenly, or perhaps not so suddenly but over a period of less than ten years, the press saw itself as “speaking truth to power,” reforming government and making it more responsive to the people. It became, at least in its own self-admiring eyes, a whistleblower on government.
This would have been okay except for a couple of things. One was that America doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The press’s relentless negativity about the country and its policies, and some of its presidents, was taken as gospel and accentuated abroad. After all, it was almost unheard of for other countries to do something similar to themselves, so why wouldn’t they believe things must be even worse than the press was saying? Another was that it required even-handedness; the press needed to speak truth to power whichever party was in power, and to require of itself a strict devotion to getting its facts straight.
As time has gone on, though, that press has fallen more and more behind on that latter task. It goes without saying that they were always going to be rough on Republican presidents, beginning with Nixon. But to the best of my recollection they were not especially easy on Carter either, once the honeymoon period was over (isn’t it quaint, now, the idea of temporary a “honeymoon” period for both a Democratic and a Republican president—the Democratic because it’s a never-ending honeymoon now, the Republican because even the honeymoon is a knock down drag out battle?). And even Clinton, although he got a lot of good press for a long time, wasn’t always a media darling.
That changed with Obama, of course. Obama is the recipient of such fawning worship, such complete lack of criticism (and the opposite for the opposition) that it would be almost laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.
The reasons are fairly obvious. Obama is the president the MSM of this generation has always dreamed of, as though sent by central casting. And it occurs to me that the press, having worked so hard for so many decades to “speak truth to power” and to further its own liberal agenda, recognizes that it has finally gotten what it wanted. Criticizing Obama would be to kill one’s own beloved creation, the fruits of all one’s labors. Why would anyone want to do that for some abstract notion like truth, or reporting? Wasn’t the point of all the reporting to coax America into electing someone like this, and then another person like this, and another?
And so, in an interestingly ironic twist, the press—which earlier in the 20th century was marching somewhat in lockstep with the government, at least in wartime, and which had some respect for the person who held the office of president no matter which party, and which had set itself up as the official government whistleblower during the 60s and beyond—has come full-circle back to marching in lockstep with the government, probably more than ever before, while somehow simultaneously retaining its own vision of itself as whistleblower by concentrating that function on Republican administrations. The press rebelled and remade American opinion in its own desired image, and is now the mouthpiece for the party a la Pravda, turning in its press badges to become bards and tribute singers to the current administration.
In my youth I was drawn to journalism. I took journalism each of my 4 years in high school. In my junior year I was sports editor of my school newspaper, and my senior year I was editor-in-chief. Journalistic “theory” in those days was simple and straight forward: Emphasis on how to concisely write the lede (the “5 Ws”), and to get the facts, corroborate them, then state them unambiguously and without bias.
When I got to college (1967) a wisened old J professor advised me to lighten up on J classes and to instead study everything else, the idea being the best reporters have a broad knowledge base to draw upon. Of course this was the era of the draft and Vietnam, and I was called upon. When I finally resumed my studies in 1973 the world was very different. Watergate dominated everything, particularly J classes, which were full of Woodward and Bernstein wannbes, and they didn’t care about niceties such as properly written ledes, getting the facts, or being objective, mainly because those things got in the way of changing the world. I lost interest in journalism as an avocation, and never took another class in the subject.
Whoever fancies themselves as speaking truth to power is actually in competition with that power. I agree with most of this post, but I don’t know why people continue to somehow believe that the press is something more than a bunch of people with opinions, who have control over an infrastructure that gives those opinions way too much influence. What else would it be?
The press never did speak any truth to any power. Recall the deals they made with Saddam, in return for access and resources, the media would “gloss” over whatever Saddam felt was right.
Also, when Waco Island fell due to the Admiralty and Democrat administration refusing to reinforce it with reinforcements, the media did up a little propaganda project that said everyone there died, through fighting to the death like Alamo.
In fact, the Marines there were ordered to surrender.
It’s like the cult of personality with Obama as the figure of worship. Obama is actually being refered to as a savior. Colin Powell said that Obama saved to automobile indusry. Juan Williams on Fox said that Obama saved the economy. Obama is our savior. Instead of Jonestown we have Obamatown.
Ymarsakar, this is not true. There was an attempt to reinforce Wake. A task force with the carrier Saratoga was en route with reinforcements. The interim CINCPAC Admiral Pye flinched when the TF-14 was something like 5 hours away. He said he was afraid of handing the new CINCPAC Nimitz yet another disaster while he (Nimitz) was still in transit to Hawaii. Since part of the Pearl Harbor attack force peeled off on the way back to Japan to finish Wake, a catastrophe was real possibility. The Wake garrison sent one of the most poignant of messages: “Enemy on island. Issue in doubt.” The commander of the TF-14 Admiral Fletcher was (somewhat heatedly) urged by his staff to disregard the recall orders and proceed to Wake.
Also we don’t have an Admiralty. We have a Department of the Navy.
Oh, come on. Press publishes what people want to hear. If nobody read New York Times it would quickly change its tone. The sad fact is that majority of people like what they read/hear/see in the media or at least are indifferent to it. If you want someone to blame then blame American people and total democracy that lets everyone vote. People select their media and elect their government.
Conservatives blaming press for the content it produces is exactly equivalent to liberals blaming food chains for the content of the food. Both produce what people want to consume.
Marvin, of course that’s right. But there are elements of ideology that become self-reinforcing when you live in a society with certain values that are constantly in your face. There is no neutral position on values; your social environment creates an atmosphere that supports SOME perception of worth, some state of cultural righteousness, and those ideas compete. The press makes up an important part of our culture, and being able to push a perspective is in the nature of its power.
But I certainly agree that people like to hear what the press is selling. Here, have some cynicism.
http://praxamericana.blogspot.com/2013/03/catchy-political-blog-title.html
Explains the slippage in readership and viewership of the news.
Good post, Neo.
Picked up my new pistol caliber carbine yesterday. TFG is salesman of the year!
Yes Neo as we have spoken before I remember those times. Our generation was going to shake the world. We did, but it didn’t turn out like anything we expected.
Other commentators here have described liberals and Obama quite well. I do say this the Libs use Obama like a magic talisman, which when they perceive the darkness closing in they shake him and to them light comes back. One day the magic won’t work anymore.
If nobody read New York Times it would quickly change its tone.
I have to disagree. The NYT, CNN, and MSNBC, to name a few, have been circling the bowl following Newsweek, and yet haven’t change their tune at all. Instead, they just look for another
host benefactor.The fact is that they’re Party organs, and pushing the Party line is more important to them than turning a profit.
Oops. Sorry.
the press (with some more liberal pockets) was predominantly–at least compared to today’s press–pro-American
True, but the Reds had started to infiltrate the media long before then, but just kept a lower profile. Recall that Whitaker Chambers was a senior editor of Time, and a Party member, in the late 40s and early 50s.
And after he passed, we found out that Cronkite was in fact pretty hard-left, something of which we had no inkling when he was alive.
Harvey Klehr, in one of his books about the KGB, pointed out the emphasis that august body placed upon infiltrating the media of a target country. It was how, for example, they planted the scurrilous stories about J. Edgar Hoover, and the CIA ginning up HIV/crack to devastate the black community. Both stories were planted in obscure Third World papers, and then picked up here in the West. If you think about it, it’s the perfect way to spread this rubbish; an American agent in place can do so and keep his skirts clean by merely reporting on the other, obscure report. Perfect.
Without profit there is only loss. The avant guard are those who have actually been left (nudge, nudge) behind. The grindstone turns slowly, but it does turn relentlessly. 😉
I had a friend try to argue the “the press is in business and just tries to sell viewership” angle yesterday. He prides himself on his professed political agnosticism. Of course, noting the press’ treatment of Bush vs. Obama or the overwhelming percentage of press corp members who vote *and donate* Democrat doesn’t mean anything.
There’s no bias if you agree with it.
Occam’s Beard: you are mistaken about the dates of Whittaker Chambers’ Communist membership. He was not a Communist while at Time:
So, although there were some pro-Soviet editors at Time during the 40s, Chambers was not among them, and Luce did not support them. Interesting that Theodore H. White was among them (he also supported the Chinese Communists in their early days).
Marvin: the press publishes what people want to hear to a certain extent (for example, if it bleeds, it ledes). But the press also shapes and molds public opinion, and then feeds the opinions it has already molded. It’s not just a one-way street.
For those who believe the market (loss of readers) will modify the Times’ or the Posts’ ideology and partisan policies will be disappointed. They will receive secret subsidies and the readership loss will be disguised as much as possible.
I think the press passed the point if no return before Obama because they hated Bush so much. It was during the Katrina and Plame scandal coverage that they demonstrated just how far they would go to create a narrative out of whole cloth simply to destroy the man. And their love of Obama was equaled by their absolute hatred (and quest to destroy) of Palin.
Some of the media outlets have diversified enough that they can weather bad ratings (such as NBC & MSNBC – there are enough other non-news NBC-owned channels to keep them afloat). The others will either end up begging for a govt. bailout or be bought by progressive billionaires (see the New Republic).
The whole idea that press significantly molds opinion doesn’t survive close scrutiny. First, there is a plenty of conservative press both old and new and yet somehow it doesn’t manage to mold anything. It’s readership consists largely of already convinced. Second, as you yourself observed a few times the reaction of regular people when exposed to contrarian view is very interesting. They seem to be quite disinterested in following it.
As far as all the nonsense about liberal media losing readership – great! If that’s the case you have nothing to worry about. Nobody reads NYT so it’s influence should be negligible. Right?!
In reality liberal media has plenty of readers. Including you Neo. Every time you read an NYT article (for whatever noble reason) you sponsor it’s vile content. You contribute to its readers count and see the ads on the page even if you don’t click on them.
If you want the liberal media to die there is one and only one way to do it. Boycott it completely. Do not read their content no matter what. Write to their advertisers and tell them you will stop using their products if they advertise there. The liberal machine had used this method many, many times with devastating effects. It works precisely because at the end somebody pays for the press and directly or indirectly they are in the business of making money. Cut the money and they will listen to you.
Everything else: lamentations, conspiracy theories, cries about unfairness of it all are just dust in the wind.
And if you really want to make people stop reading Marxist nonsense start with schools and colleges. It is there where Marxist idiocy is softly poured into people’s brains and it is their graduates who go to read NYT because it sounds just like what their professors say.
Great article, neo.
I’ve taken a brief vacation from politics to follow what to my mind is the most exciting and important story around: the launch of SpaceX’s Dragon on a resupply mission to the International Space Station.
It’s important because Dragon is the first new manned spacecraft to be developed in the last 30 years. True, this flight is unmanned, but it’s still early days yet. SpaceX has very ambitious plans for Dragon, which include flights to Mars.
I gave a synopsis of events at AoS early this morning.
I’ve been practically living at NASASpaceflight.com since Friday morning. Here is a comment that site administrator Chris Bergin gave in reply to one of my comments.
Yesterday was a tense, nail-biting, and ultimately inspiring day. The MSM seemed to take little notice of it. Who needs them, anyway? Not me.
Whoops, I forgot to mention that in a follow-up comment at AoS, I said:
Grappling and berthing at the ISS is now scheduled for 6:31 am EST on Sunday, with NASA TV coverage beginning at 3:30 am.
Marvin:
but the MSM is liberal, and it reaches many people because it is widespread. The conservative press is small and more obscure and therefore has to be sought out, which is usually done only by people who are already conservatives. Most other people who might be molded by it if only they were to read it—those who are relatively apolitical, and those who are moderate—don’t seek out the conservative press to read it in the first place. Therefore they read the liberal press (the MSM) without realizing it is liberal, and they are shaped by it.
Most of my friends repeat the liberal talking points of the liberal MSM while unaware they are repeating liberal talking points, and although they are relatively apolitical they vote liberal Democratic. In great part that is because their worldview is shaped by that liberal MSM that they believe is objective.
The liberal MSM very much shapes the opinions of those groups, and they are not exposed to the conservative press at all.
I stand corrected.
I overslept my alarm clock. The ISS captured Dragon at 5:31 am EST, a full hour ahead of schedule. What a thrilling last couple of days this has been.
Actually, I find it quite refreshing to check out Pravda every now and then.
It strikes me as more “Wild-East” lurid tabloid than stolid mouthpiece of the Putin government, and it features stories and opinions you won’t find anywhere else. It’s certainly no worse than CNN. See for yourself:
http://english.pravda.ru/
Had I been selling ads for, say, Newsweek, I would have pointed out that, in addition to a bajillion personal subscribers, we had a million offices subscribing, which meant piles of back issues in a million waiting rooms. That’s eyeballs, man, eyeballs. Multiples.
Those are gone, unless you haul out your mobile device and log into Newsweek on line while waiting to see your dentist.
And, of course, unless you deliberately do the same at home when resting your back between dishes and dusting.
You do not “sponsor” anything unless somebody knows your eyeballs or earballs are on target or actually pay somebody for it. Neilsen takes a large group and projects it, with results that punish some–Couric–who need to be punished with the presumption that there are eyeballs. IMO, they’re stuck in the old days when, to change the channel, you had to get up and cross the room, possibly adjusting the rabbit ears, to see what was on one of the other two networks and one local station. Nobody knows who watches what ads. Took one of those surveys years ago. Effort of memory to recall who was adverting on what, since I didn’t watch.
I can’t say for sure that I like reality shows–I don’t–but they’re less actively harmful than some of the other crap which has gone, or which suffers at commercial break time.
It used to be, if you mentioned something a lib didn’t like, he’d sneer about hearing it on Faux Snooze, as if that discredited, say, the Law of Gravity (would that libs did think so). No longer. They may sneer, but nobody’s abashed.
Forged documents?, one asks politely? Exploding trucks? Edited tapes?
Nope. Even libs are capable of learning if severe negative reinforcements are applied.
IMO, the lib press is primarily read by those who need reinforcement, not those who seek enlightenment.
So, the bigs, NYT, WaPo, the alphabets, can get subsidies and keep going, but their captive eyeballs will continue to decrease.
Got to look elsewhere: Texas with its pro-Islam curriculum in high school under the radar. TEXAS!?
That sort of thing.
Good post.
For years now, I’ve referred to the Washington Post as Izvestia (the paper of the government) and The New York Times as Pravda (the paper of the party).
Yes MSM readership/viewership has dropped dramatically but not enough. Encourage everyone to get their news from other outlets.
And the MSM is NOT left because the people want it. It’s left because it was part of the march through the institutions by the left. The wild success of Fox and conservative radio demonstrates what the people want.
Marvin is a gentleman. I mean no sarcasm in this, I’m writing these words truly. Nor is any slight upon him as a person intended, but a slight upon his political methodology, and that of many conservatives, anti-multiculturalists, resistors of Islamic colonialism and other people on the good side: A rebuke of the common misconception that the good side has only to put forth the truth, using logical and evidential appeal to the other side’s rational faculties, or just to employ the tactics of civilized men such as plain boycotts, and the war will be won. Far be it to consider the unpalatable idea–and I admit this isn’t a savory set of thoughts–that this war is a zero-sum game, that the other side will not be appealed to by reason, that there is no level the enemy won’t stoop to, and that, most horrifying of all (again, truly said, not in sarcasm), the only way to win against such a vicious enemy is to be at least as vicious as he.
Because of the misplaced idea of gentlemanliness, we will not see the beginning of evil’s banishment until the good side is finally convinced that life and limb are at stake. Only then do good people breach the walls of the conventional and stop behaving as if this were an leisurely, amicable salon debate with the other side over a cup of tea.
There’s no doubt the Fellatio Media is in full DNC propaganda mode. And there is no doubt the Fellatio Media set the national debate on just about every topic. It’s not just the coverage, or lack thereof, of certain events (F&F, Benghazi, sequester, illegal alien catch and relese, Trayvon Martin, et.al.), but it’s the language used. For example, the ‘Name That Party’ game which is often played when talking about corrupt or incompetent politicans. For a Dem, you might, might I say, find out the party in the last paragraph, while a Repub political scandal is mentioned right there in the headline in bold agate type. But also look at how they treat two opposing groups, the #uccupysesamestreet radicals and the true grass roots TEA Party. They totally ignore all the criminal activity of the #occupy clowns, while disparaging those who support the ideas of the TEA Party by either ignoring their numbers, downplaying their numbers, or calling them teabaggers. When we ourselves play the ‘what if?’ game when it comes to political coverage, we are acknowledging that we live in a world far worse than 1984.
The main problem with our
Fifth ColumnistsFourth Estate is that they have not been crushed by an oppresive government to slant and tilt the news in the progressive favor. No, they have willingly done so. That’s what makes them so dangerous. They are unelected, beholden to no one, aparently not even ratings, yet they wield such power far beyond their intelligence level.It used to be, that besides the ‘who, what, when, where and why’ theory of reporting, there was also this archaic gem: The purpose of journalism was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. But as the media became part of the comfortable, again beyond all intelligence or worth (think of the multiple millions paid out to hacks like Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, and any other of the pert airheads), they are not only rubbng elbows with the rich and powerful, they themselves are the rich and powerful. Can’t afflict themselves, now can they?
It’s sort of like politicians pushing gun control. The smart ones know that it is guns that keep us free and that to totally conquer us ideologically, they must take away our weapons. How many anti-gun news stories have ever uttered Jefferson’s famous line, one of many famous lines? “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” I guess I can see why the most incurious and uninquisitive media ever ignore that line from Jefferson if one continues reading the rest of his thought: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
The progressive pols pushing for gun control are, at bottom, pushing for self-preservation. They know their ideas are not only unpopular but crap (global warning anyone?). Their ideas are detested but the progressives know their ideas will work once there can be no resistance to their instrusive nanny-statism tyranny. The Fellatio Media are the progressives’ willing enablers, even co-conspirators, in their push for totalitarian rule, thinking the crocodile they have unleashed will never eat them. After all, they have a place in the Hamptons, too.
RickZ, 9:39 am — “The progressive pols . . . know their ideas are not only unpopular but crap (global warning anyone?).”
Excellent post from RickZ. But I must take exception to the idea quoted (by me) directly above.
My educated impression is that, far from knowing deep down inside that their ideas are “crap”, the vast majority of progressives, including “progressive pols”, are true believers, very true believers. In a way, that makes the situation even more depressing and dangerous. They ^really^ truly believe their stuff and will fight to the bitter end for it.
“[A]ll of these [items] have revealed a mainstream press that has absolutely decided to wear its bias openly as outriders of the Obama administration.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/28/obama-is-closest-thing-to-nixon-weve-seen-in-40-years/
Obama is the closest thing to Nixon we’ve seen in 40 years
By Patrick Caddell
FoxNews
Published February 28, 2013
NOTE — Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others.
M J R,
I understand what you say about true believers, and they are, but not about global warming or the ”science’ of green energy. They are true believers in the power and the money that comes from their insane green policies. They certainly don’t believe in the science as they manipulate it to fit their progressive control agenda, or they ignore contradicting science completely. The whole green movement is a scam designed to break the populace, to control their every action, not push science. They are true believers in the power that such total control brings. And that why they fear us freedom-loving hoi-polloi owning weapons: We just might get fed up with their destructive economic and ecological policies and give them our guns, bullet first.
Just my nickel (adjusted for inflation).
Re: Afflicting the comfortable & comforting the aflficted,
I remember watching the PBS “Ethics in America” episode where Charles Ogletree asked Peter Jennings & Mike Wallace what they would do if they were embedded with and the enemy, and they realized the enemy was about to ambush and kill American troops (detailed description here: http://tinyurl.com/bac57). Mike Wallace had no shame in admitting that he would just roll tape.
Journalists have fancied themselves separate (and decidedly above) the American public, and have developed contempt for America, her citizens, and their readers. They want to ‘tell a story’ (i.e. build a narrative) instead of just report because they believe it is their job to interpret the news for us dummies.
I think it would be interesting if we could ask prominent media types what they would do if they were embedded with enemy troops in the Middle East and discovered that an assassination attempt was about to be made on the president.
Lizzy,
I think ‘journalism ethics’ is the 800 pound oxymoron in news rooms everywhere.
“Journalism ethics” means the same to liberals as any other kind of ethics: the ends justify the means. It’s a shame the principled liberals of generations past are nearly extinct.
RickZ – Yeah, I think journalistic ethics is an oxymoron. Maybe we should use the Left’s favorite approach to their various causes and call it “journalistic justice”.
Mike Wallace had no shame in admitting that he would just roll tape.
One of the many reasons why when I learned of a “journalist” getting killed in Iraq or Afghanistan it troubled me not in the least.
Occam’s Beard: oh, so they all thought exactly like Mike Wallace? Do you read their minds? Or whether they did or didn’t, you think they all deserve the death penalty anyway? They must all pay as representatives of the same class, “reporter,” as Mike Wallace, and you care not one whit for their deaths or their families’ grief?
For example, Michael Kelly, the first US reporter killed in the Iraq War?
Or how about Daniel Pearl?
Steven Vincent?
RickZ, 6:29 pm — “They certainly don’t believe in the science as they manipulate it to fit their progressive control agenda, or they ignore contradicting science completely. . . . They are true believers in the power that such total control brings.”
I suggest that belief is a feedback phenomenon: “they believe in the science” ^because^ it fits “their progressive control agenda”, ^because^ “they believe in the science”, ^because^ it fits “their progressive control agenda”, ^because^ “they believe in the science”, etc. ad infintium.
As to “ignor[ing] contradicting science completely”, yes: since it doesn’t fit the feedback loop, contradicting science gets ignored — or stifled, suppressed, punishable by banishment from the mainstream. But they do believe whatever part of the “science” furthers their agenda (ignoring/suppressing the rest), which in turn buttresses their belief in that part of the science, which in turn furthers their agenda, which in turn . . .
HELLLLP! [ smile ]
Michael Kelly was indeed a huge loss. My favorite op-ed columnist. He and Breitbart were both truth tellers.
It seems television has placed so many Americans like the frog in boiling water. I’m convinced my elderly neighbor lady would not notice if her blaring television went to nothing but mindless commercials 24/7. Hey they don’t call it programming for nothing.
Ref libs and science: Various folks in or near the university situation have said for years that libs are grossly underrepresented in the STEM fields. And that was before the advent of Angry Studies, which tilted things even further.
I guess in STEM, it either works or it doesn’t and calling a chemical reaction nasty names doesn’t help much.
I think we really are getting a better handle on what is happening given both Neo’s original article and the comments. After seeing the MSM discredit Bush and push Obama on the country even over Hillary it has become increasingly clear, as the comments show, that the ‘march through the institutions’ has been highly effective. But ‘conservative’ thought is evolving, seeking to grapple with fundamental problems, while the left is quite serene in its mid century based vision of the future to which they have added the distortions of post colonialism and political correctness. .
KLSmith, rather convenient that they keep dieing due to those heart attacks, now isn’t it.
The Left’s primary weakness is that their internal security must be at the maximum, otherwise they risk being infiltrated and destroyed as they did to the US.
Journalists that go into the world, learn the truth outside the control of Leftist propaganda, are more dangerous than REpublican senators. Their termination is a safety valve for the Left.
In terms of judicial execution of terrorists and enemies of humanity, that should really be a personal judgment. All too many people wish to out source the dirty work to others, as if they can be trusted to know red from black.
In a way, because people cannot reach the Left’s strong hold in America to damage it in any successful manner, oversea casualties can stoke that buried emotion of resentment.
Those that do not consider themselves capable of lethal force, often fantasize about people dying due to the push of a button or by the hands of others. In the case of the former, it is merely a fantasy, for they believe it would either not happen or that they would not be capable of pushing the button when it really happens. In the case of the latter, it is easy to brush off as the consequence of some other madman’s cause and not in anyway directly related to themselves as the origin point.
MJR, a true believer is someone who is already prepared to kill or die for the cause. Because they believe in the cause.
How many of the Left are prepared to die? How many are prepared to kill? So far the ratio is no more than the Revolutionary War times, when 10% of the population lead the other 90% in war or exile.
The enemies that the US military power should have been killing weren’t foreign terrorists. They shouldn’t have been water boarding terrorists. They shouldn’t have been assassinating and killing those overseas. They should have been applying the full power of whatever they had in cleansing America of domestic enemies, enemies of humanity, aristocrat lords of Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, and every other Democrat fiefdom in existence of slavery and serfdom.
For the greatest enemy is never outside the gates, but the traitors within.
“The whole idea that press significantly molds opinion doesn’t survive close scrutiny. First, there is a plenty of conservative press both old and new and yet somehow it doesn’t manage to mold anything.”-Marvin
Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.
One doesn’t even necessarily need the press to brainwash the fools in the US. Which are perhaps a majority now a days. Conservative press have yet to graduate from propaganda 101, let alone 201.
The power equation is a bit imbalanced.
Ymarsakar: Kelly died covering the war in Iraq when the Humvee he was in overturned.
Both were taken too young, both left behind young children, and both were devasting losses.