September 08, 2006
More on Democrat Thuggery
Cassandra comes out swinging.
Every newspaper editor and liberal pundit in this country should be up in arms about Harry Reid's strong arm tactics. For five years now, comics, actors, and mostly ridiculous pundits like Keith Olbermann have warned American about the face of censorship and fascism in our midst. They tell us this looming danger comes from the Bush administration, from the overbearing pressure of having men like Don Rumsfeld say they are intellectually and morally confused.I don't think people like Reid are "confused." They are illiberal leftists who don't brook infidels and apostates. Whatever means necessary, including unconscionable government intimidation, they will use to revise or suppress views that make them feel uncomfortable.
At this point I would like to see any reporter with cajones start asking any Dem candidate whether they agree or disagree with this thuggery. ANY Dem candidate, from Senate to House to Governor to State Legislatures.
Hello? Phil Angelides?
I just left the following comment on Angelides' blog
You recently ran a campaign ad where snippets of Gov. Schwarzenegger's speech at the last Republican National Convention in support of Bush's nomination. After a scroll tying Gov. Schwarzenegger negatively with the war in Iraq, detainees and high gas prices you ask "Schwarzenegger is for Bush. Is he for you?" Let me ask then, are you supportative of the recent move of Senate Democrats threatening the broadcast license of ABC over the mini-series "The Path to 9/11"? Could we not seriously ask "Angelides is for government censorship. Is he for you?"Interesting to see if I get a reply or the comment disappears. The latter is a Dem m.o.
Posted by Darleen at September 8, 2006 06:53 AM
Wow, you are loopy. Calm down Darleen. Here's some helpful facts. The docudrama says that it's based on the 9/11 report. Yet, numerous representatives of the bi-partisan 9/11 panel are arguing that it significantly misrepresents the 9/11 report. And in the case of Clinton's affair, the fake-u-drama explicitly CONTRADICTS the conclusions of the 9/11 report.
That's not censorship, it's honesty.
The Dems here aren't afraid of criticism. They're afraid of demagoguery and dishonesty. Both of which, from the looks of your blog, seem to be entirely alluring to you.
Pull it back, honey, you make conservatives look like idiots. And most people of good will know conservatives aren't idiots.
Posted by: truthseeker at September 9, 2006 02:05 AM
Tell me, o seeker of truthiness,
just WHEN did Senate Republicans threaten CBS's broadcast license for Dan Rather's 60 minutes II show that used fraudulent memos in an attempt to libel George Bush before an election? And that show was touted as NEWS not a docu-drama where aggregated characters and events are a given?
Posted by: Darleen at September 9, 2006 08:04 AM
Illogical response, Darleen. The issue here is the ABC movie. If you can rebut truthseeker's claims, about it, do so. Bringing up CBS and Rather is just a red herring.
Posted by: Josh at September 9, 2006 04:45 PM
I watched the movie. Thought it was equally critical of both administrations. What came through was the tenacity of our enemy.
I still wonder what Sandy Berger stuffed down his shorts--seems to correlate with the censorship efforts somewhat. Anyone know what was contained in the stolen code black security documents?
Posted by: nikkolai at September 13, 2006 09:16 AM
Josh, you are showing yourself to be confused. There was an implicit threat to pull ABCs license if they aired this. What part of free speech do you have a problem with, the part where the right gets to speak?
Posted by: Kanelin at September 13, 2006 10:14 AM
Sorry, that post was aimed at "truthseeker" not Josh. But the question still stands, what part of freedom of speech do you not understand?
Posted by: Kanelin at September 13, 2006 10:17 AM
"The docudrama says that it's based on the 9/11 report." As well as several other sources. It was a docu-drama, not a documentary. Some of the movie was based on reported fact from the 9/11 Commission and other sources as clearly stated by ABC many times during the presentation.
So, what was Reid, et al, so afraid of that he would use his political power to threaten the entire network? Sandy Berger hanging up a phone? I don't think so.
They did not want Americans to see something that would serve as a reminder that 9/11 began long before Bush became president. They have many of their syncophants convinced that it is all Bush's fault and ABC's docu-drama might serve to inform many that it wasn't.
Reid was aware of that and so that explains why their not so thinly veiled threat demanded the docu-drama be pulled completely - not just edited.
The whole response by Reid and crew was disgusting, cynical, and stupid.
Posted by: F15C at September 13, 2006 04:11 PM