So in honor of Michael Moore's style... (I'll be blue, and Mr. Smalley red)
I thought this was interesting because Mr. Smalley's reply only noted his opinion of Tammy Baldwin despite numerous other issues brought up that I would argue are quite a bit more important as to their effects. I sent a large 3 page collage from "WSJ's misleading headlines" ( viewtopic.php?t=51943 ) mentioning numerous different issues and WSJ's coverage of them just prior to this, and no mention of any of those issues from that either except that they aren't in bed with Scott Walker.
I just meant that she votes or proposes independently of what the democratic leadership wants on major issues, re: single payer, patriot act language in a 9-11 bill, etc. The Democrats, in my opinion, are also sold out to corporate interests, whereas Tammy is fairly independent of that in key ways (I like Nader's phrase: The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is the speed at which they drop to their knees when corporations call) Interestingly enough though, she is now considered more mainstream by Wisconsin voters than Tommy. But calling her "too Partisan" over a guy like Chad Lee, or never noting the more solidly partisan positions of Ron Johnson or Scott Walker- which is maybe best called "corporatism" for Scott...
--- On Fri, 11/9/12, John Smalley <JSmalley@madison.com> wrote:
From: John Smalley <JSmalley@madison.com>
Subject: RE: ...sans the hype
Date: Friday, November 9, 2012, 10:59 AM
Thanks, Jon, for the feedback. I will keep it in mind as we move ahead. I'm sure we would quibble on various points of your note but I do appreciate being data and facts to a discussion, as opposed to pure opinion.
Speaking of which, the only thing I have to respond to is this: calling Tammy independent is pure revisionist history. If her voting record is the standard for independence and bipartisanship, well, then we can rest assured nothing will ever get done in the Senate. I find Tammy to be a smart, warm, thoughtful person. But independent and/or bipartisan? Ah, no. The record will not come close to supporting that conclusion.
Take care for now.
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:37 AM
To: John Smalley
Subject: ...sans the hype
I thought yours was an interesting editorial. I have to agree with one aspect of it: when compared to blatantly partisan media, WSJ is a better choice. But unbiased? That requires a deeper look. I've always said WSJ's views are more subtle, but pretty consistent, and sometimes even moderate. But when you're extreme, you're extreme right. A feature editorial for How to criticize Bush, for example, in regards to what Republicans will accept. Or labeling Tammy Baldwin as "too partisan" when she's independent in key ways to today's democratic party, while an extreme party-line voter like Ron Johnson doesn't receive a glance. Or we could look at WSJ's endorsement of Mitt Romney (one of your more even handed endorsements for sure, but...) whose key economic policy of wealth redistribution to the top, the very policies that created this recession, were completely over looked. While at the same time ignoring that Obama is the most fiscally conservative President we've had since Eisenhower, if the Wall Street Journal is to be believed: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05 ... ken-sailor
"Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s."
Never mind that a stimulus had to happen no matter who became President.
Income inequality the biggest issue of our time (charts from various source of the income disparity since 1979) : http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... hart-graph
Income inequality and deregulation, that which a Romney administration would expand on, created the Great Depression, the Recession of 1991, The Great Recession, and stagnates economies all over the world whenever it's implemented.
... By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus measures and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.
I understand that Romney could become moderate again, but there's also a risk (more likely a partial guarantee at the least) that he would also appease extremists again once elected. Proof of that is in his pick of an extremist like Ryan whose budget proposal is extremely out of the main stream, can't possibly work, and also exacerbates the major cause of this recession.
Not to mention the lack of coverage in regards to Scott Walker['s extremism and the special interest groups behind him while relentlessly focusing on or attacking unions. Also, sitting on major lies: Claiming that Walker balancing the budget when he increased Wisconsin's actual debt by $320 million to $700 million in the long term; lying by stating that Walker didn't use one time finding gimmicks when he borrowed $558 million, and took $25 million from the mortgage relief fund to make the false claim of a balanced budget. Implying that he balanced the budget as if it was special when in fact it's required by law. And misleading about the jobs gained by never showing under whose budget they were gained or the when and how they were lost, kind of exposes your paper as being dishonest with it's readers. The budget and jobs were the two major issues at the time and WSJ chose to mislead or simply lie about them.
For me personally, I see WSJ swinging both ways, but often exposing it's hand as mostly conservative. So I agree that your (WSJ's) brand of journalism looks moderate when compared to radical media, but it's still obviously right of center. I think you can call it a more subtle and moderate version of bias. Thanks...