More major papers endorse Kerry
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


Most major newspapers are owned by conservative businessmen or
corporations, and the editorial page writers are not for the most part
workaday news writers.

Are you trying to somehow imply that the NYT, WP, LAT, BG, AJ-C et al are
*not* liberally bent papers, simply because they have wealthy corporate
owners or wealthy majority stockholders?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Is there any surprise that a press corp that usually backs the Democratic
candidate by a margin of 4 to 1 has come out with endorsements for Kerry?
I'm surprised that Bush is only down 2 to 1 in endorsements vs. Kerry.

Journalists shouldn't be partisan anyhow.



Most major newspapers are owned by conservative businessmen or
corporations,

And you think that their opinions are on the op-ed page? Or is it the
opinion of the editorial staff, most of whom are liberal democrats?

The moment that a conservative businessmen/owner ever tried to pressure his
editorial staff to support Bush over Kerry, *he* would be the topic of that
night's news shows. Dan Rather would make him the target on the next 60
Minutes...fake memos and all.




and the editorial page writers are not for the most part
workaday news writers.

Nope. They're liberal editors who used to be liberal "workaday news
writers."

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message


Most major newspapers are owned by conservative businessmen or
corporations, and the editorial page writers are not for the most part
workaday news writers.

Are you trying to somehow imply that the NYT, WP, LAT, BG, AJ-C et al are
*not* liberally bent papers, simply because they have wealthy corporate
owners or wealthy majority stockholders?



I would posit that most major city newspapers are moderate on their
editorial pages.

snicker

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message


Most major newspapers are owned by conservative businessmen or
corporations, and the editorial page writers are not for the most part
workaday news writers.

Are you trying to somehow imply that the NYT, WP, LAT, BG, AJ-C et al
are
*not* liberally bent papers, simply because they have wealthy corporate
owners or wealthy majority stockholders?



I would posit that most major city newspapers are moderate on their
editorial pages.

snicker

About has valid as his title of the 36 ft lobsta boat or his wife's doctor
doctor degrees.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message


Most major newspapers are owned by conservative businessmen or
corporations, and the editorial page writers are not for the most part
workaday news writers.

Are you trying to somehow imply that the NYT, WP, LAT, BG, AJ-C et al are
*not* liberally bent papers, simply because they have wealthy corporate
owners or wealthy majority stockholders?



I would posit that most major city newspapers are moderate on their
editorial pages. You're on the far right, and you believe that any
variance from that position makes one a "liberal," but there are many
data points along the path from conservative to liberal.

This is a common misunderstanding among conservatives. Today's
conservatives have moved even farther to the right since Reagan's
presidencies

Baloney. Today's Republican platform is virtually to the left of where the
American Socialist Party was in the 1920's. The Democrat's *current*
platform has virtually moved them left of even Karl Marx.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message



I would posit that most major city newspapers are moderate on their
editorial pages. You're on the far right,


This is a common misunderstanding among conservatives. Today's
conservatives have moved even farther to the right since Reagan's

Crap. This is the myth that the Dems love to perpetrate - that the entire
Republican party is driven by extreme conservative religious zealots. The
fact is that today's repubs are not nearly as far right as conservatives of
the 50s and 60s, and the so-called "Christian Right" is small in number and
does not enjoy nearly the influence that it started to build 20 years ago.
It is the Dems who have moved out to the fringe left, but still consider
themselves mainstream moderate. Compare the government fingers in your life
today with those of Truman's time to see just how far you've run to the
edge. But you still think you're normal, so the whole world looks like
they're off to the right from you.



I don't find the descriptor liberal to be a pejorative, by the way. But
to be called a conservative by today's definition of that word carries a
lot of negative baggabe...

Among your circle, I imagine it would.

John Gaquin wrote:
... This is the myth that the Dems love to perpetrate - that the entire
Republican party is driven by extreme conservative religious zealots.

Yeah... the truth is that the Republican Party is not exclusively
controlled by witch-burners and/or KKKers.

However, the Bush Administration *is*, which explains why many sensible
(non-fascist-whacko) Republicans are planning to vote the other way in a
few weeks.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message news:DcRad.151431

.....is not exclusively
controlled by witch-burners and/or KKKers.

..... sensible
(non-fascist-whacko) Republicans

And one thing the Dems could do to get just a small start on rebuilding
their credibility would be to stay away from these grade-school lies and
insults, and the small, small people that employ them.

John Gaquin wrote:
And one thing the Dems could do to get just a small start on rebuilding
their credibility would be to stay away from these grade-school lies and
insults,

You mean like Vice President Dick Cheney, lying that he'd never met John
Edwards before? Or his slightly more recent lie that Kerry was planning
a 50 cent/gal gas tax hike, based on Kerry's proposal from 1979? Or
Cheney's profane insults which are his standard response to questions
about his conflict of interest over Halliburton?

DSK

And one thing the Dems could do to get just a small start on rebuilding
their credibility

Oh come on. The Dems could heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, and
turn water into wine and still be discredited
in the sight of most Repubs.