ROSEN: Liberal lowlights of 2007

Liberal lowlights of 2007

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 28, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

December 28, 2007

6:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

MARLOWE writes:

As usual, Mike hits it right on the head. These ignorant haters get full billing in the 'drive by media' and are the problem.
December 28, 2007

8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

some balance
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
December 28, 2007

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

There is not enough ink in the world to print all the lowlights of this republican administration. Rosen you again prove that it only takes a second grade education to write for the RMN.
December 28, 2007

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

DougH writes:

Here it is another year end and we have Mike Rosen’s annual crank about liberals in our midst. Instead of his boorish ranting about liberals, maybe Rosen could tell us about all the good things that have come from Conservatives. For starters Mike could tell us about the 9 trillion dollar national debt run up by his limited government friends. Or how about the squandering of the Peace dividend of the nineties on a made up war for no reason. Readers would love to hear about $ 20,000 a night rental apartments for the billionaire class that gets tax cuts while working people face foreclosure and have their jobs sent overseas. I wonder how proud Mike is that the health industry takes up 18 % of our GNP and produces less health care than countries with socialized medicine.
Yes, there will always be goofy things with Liberals, but you have to look to Conservatives for real achievement.
December 28, 2007

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

RJS07 writes:

what in heaven's name is the "Peace dividend?" Ignoring terrorists acts committed on us because they didn't happen here? Bending over after Yemen?

It sounds really warm and fuzzy...
December 28, 2007

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mikefreed924 writes:

Hey, Mike how about this as a liberal lowlight:

"With more than $5 billion in tax and fee increases, this bill would impose an unnecessary and onerous tax burden on Minnesota's citizens and would weaken our state's economy."

Oh, sorry, I forgot - that wasn't a liberal who said that. That was what Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a conservative Republican, wrote on May 15, 2007 when he vetoed a bill that would have increased taxes to fix roads and bridges in Minnesota.

For years, that pesky bunch of liberals in the state legislature had been passing bills to increase funding for road and bridge maintenance, but Pawlenty had shot them down because - horrors! - they all involved increasing taxes. The legislature even overwhelmingly voted to override his May 2007 veto, but fell short of the 2/3 majority needed.

Way to stay the course, Guv! You show those bad old tax and spend liberals!

Too bad that a couple of months after Pawlenty's little anti-tax manifesto, one of the bridges that those "onerous" taxes would have fixed, the I-35 bridge in downtown Minneapolis, collapsed during rush hour, killing 13 people. Surely they all spent their last moments on Earth thanking Pawlenty for not raising their taxes to fix bridges, right, Mike?

But this "lowlight" somehow escaped Rosen's list, in favor of far worse offenders like Sally Field and Rosie O'Donnell.

Or perhaps Rosen's right - this wasn't a lowlight. Maybe instead of being lambasted by a fourteenth-rate columnist like Rosen, Pawlenty should be tarred, feathered and deported to Gitmo, where he could spend the rest of his days with the Taliban.

No doubt that will be the subject of Mike's next "lowlight" column.
December 28, 2007

11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mikefreed924 writes:

Yeah, ripcord, look at what "conservatives" in Minnesota were able to achieve by refusing to raise taxes to fix their bridges.

That's certainly an impressive record of achievement. Guess they needed a new bridge anyway, right?
December 28, 2007

11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

Here's just a few conservative low-life quotes from Rosen over the past year. Thanks to CMM

“Exactly. I think that’s right on. They’re [women] more, they’ll be more dependent on government, or choose to be more dependent on government, if they don’t have the financial support of a husband. Sure, that would make sense.”

“My producer, Dave Lauer, tells me that I inadvertently -- and I assure you it was inadvertent -- had a slip of the tongue. I was referring to Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama, and Dave said I said “Osama bin Laden.” Did I say it repeatedly, or just one time? OK, I meant Barack Obama, and I think I’ve done that before.”

“You’re trying to overcome an ideology, and so many Jews are instinctive socialists.”

“Commenting on Ahmadinejad speech, Rosen said, “Maybe Boulder would like to send [Iran] a few” homosexuals”

“Mike Rosen decried “gratuitous comparisons to Hitler and Nazis,” saying that “they trivialize the seriousness of what Nazism was all about.” However, Rosen on a previous broadcast referred to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels while discussing the Michael Moore documentary Sicko.”

“I think it’s more likely” a terrorist attack in U.S. will “happen sooner if a Democrat’s elected”

Rosen asserted Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Hannity don’t “deal[] in venom” on the air

“The Virginia Tech shooter shared some of the hateful views that many on the left have.” You’ll remember Cho talked about how much he hated capitalism, and he hated the rich. All right, this is left-wing dogma. Michael Moore might have said the same thing.”

In defending Janet Rowlands remarks about comparing homosexuality and beastiality...”Monogamy is lawful; polygamy is not. It’s a classic example of legislating morality. That’s the point that Janet Rowland was trying to make, and it’s an entirely defensible point. I’d have advised her to use a different example than bestiality. She could have used the example of incest, for example.”
December 28, 2007

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

RJS07 writes:

GK--I believe Teddy Kennedy has also called Obama Osama as well. Why no mention of that? Oh yeah, that's right Kennedy and his ilk can say anything...
December 28, 2007

12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I would like to take this moment to retract any liberal b.s. that I may have earlier spewed. A good friend of mine has shown me the light. Logic and reason have won out in my brain over ideologies full of platitudes and fed by the hoax that is global warming. Followers of socialism, while not stupid people, are probably a little crazy, considering that the definition of crazy is, to paraphrase, 'to continue to do the same thing over and over again even though it fails.' Well, socialism has failed, and I and my pinko and green colleagues over here on the left are WRONG! I may again, one day in the future, wake up from this reality check and start barfing more vague leftist platitudes, continuing in my previous state of rectal-myopia as I continue to push the hate-America rhetoric and anti-capitalist garbage. I will continue to say things like 'war doesn't cause peace. Peace is the only thing that can bring peace.' My friends and I on the Left actually believe this, but admittedly, it makes no sense (however warm and fuzzy it might sound). I am sorry that up until now, I have been a confused person, wasting my entire day bouncing around opinion columns and unsuccessfully bashing conservative thinkers, in all their reasonable and practical thought. I may be educated, but up until now, I haven't opened my eyes. Churchill once said (not that moron Ward...I mean the great Winston) something to the tune of (again paraphrasing), "A young person who is conservative has no heart, and an old person who is still liberal has no brain." Well, I am the epitomy of this saying. I just turned thirty and realized that I have been spoon-fed bleeding-heart-liberalism by kooky "academics", a very-biased mainstream media, labor unions, and oxymoronic leftist think tanks. I now feel as if my eyes are open. I encourage my crazy leftist friends to follow my example and show that you are not crazy, just a little young and naive.
December 28, 2007

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

Spot on ripcord. The first thing I notice in mike's post was he seems to think that "a couple of months after..." was sufficient time for the magic tax increase bill to have prevented the tragedy. Reality is the bridge would still be work-in-progress today.

And wasn't there tons of haranging after the bridge fell that this was all Bush's fault for wasting money in Iraq that could've fixed the bridge?

All is well though, now we have someone from the left at least pointing the finger in the proper direction for the failure to maintain an interstate. At the state, not the feds.
December 28, 2007

6:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

joeblow writes:

A pithy, erudite comment would probably not get Mike Rosen's attention. So, let me resort to the juvenile and base: Rosen's a bonerhead who's out of touch with the world beyond the most extreme right wing.
To use a phrase he loves (and would surely understand): Eff him!!
December 28, 2007

7:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

joeblow-

Would you grace us all with some examples of how Rosen is out of touch with the world?

Or are you talking about just your make believe world?
December 31, 2007

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mikefreed924 writes:

Ripcord stated:
There is no doubt the roads and bridges in the infrastructure in ALL states are in need of attention. Are you saying that if this bill had passed, in May of 2007, it would have prevented the tragedy? You left wingers like to pick and choose things that have no relevance to the argument but only bring emotion to the issue."

Mikefreed924 responds:
Gee, Ripcord, what's not emotional about watching 13 of my fellow people die because the state of Minnnesota was too cheap to fix a bridge?

And you're correct - bridge maintenance has been a problem for years. The Minnesota legislature was aware of this, and that's why for YEARS they tried to generate more revenue to fix the problem. The governor vetoed every bill that was sent to him to do that. Maybe his 2007 veto wouldn't have fixed the problem...but his 2005 and 2006 vetoes (all on record) might have.

My point is that while the state's bridges became dangerous, the governor spouted right wing platitudes instead of doing what needed to be done to fix the problem because - God forbid - taxes might have gone up a little bit.

What's more important - saving a few cents on gas taxes or making sure that citizens can use a bridge safely?

That's the problem - priorities.
December 31, 2007

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mikefreed924 writes:

Posted by KW on December 28, 2007 at 1:02 p.m.:

Spot on ripcord. The first thing I notice in mike's post was he seems to think that "a couple of months after..." was sufficient time for the magic tax increase bill to have prevented the tragedy. Reality is the bridge would still be work-in-progress today. All is well though, now we have someone from the left at least pointing the finger in the proper direction for the failure to maintain an interstate. At the state, not the feds.

Mikefreed924 responds:

Yes, this collapse WAS the state's fault - more specifically, the governor's. The legislature voted three times - in 2005, 2006 and 2007 - to increase gas taxes to fix bridges, and each time, the Republican governor vetoed the bill. Each time he spouted the right wing "taxes are bad" line.

Well, guess what? Taxes ARE going to rebuild that bridge, and instead of a few million, it'll cost a few hundred million. Way to save taxpayer money, gov.

Would not vetoing the bill in 2007 have prevented the collapse. But what if work had begun in 2005 or 2006?
December 31, 2007

10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

You can be balanced fiscally and still fix bridges though. Rather than increase taxes again (Minnesota is already one of the more liberal places as far as the government stealing people's wages goes), the governor could have reallocated funds from other programs. He could have cut down on some feel-good but impractical programs meant to do little else other than redistribute income...except that those who write the bills would not give a bill like that to him. I'd venture to say that the reason Minnesota wound up with a Republican governor is that, generally speaking, they collectively needed some balance, you know, something to tone down the socialist aspect of the state government.
January 2, 2008

12:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

You are probably not independent; you mean that you are unaffiliated (John Caldera griped about this the other day on KOA...a little petty, but true).

Next, I doubt you have any logic. To vote for someone who supports abortion the first time and someone who does not the next means that you are just confused. The same goes for voting for someone who proposes making our mixed economy more socialist once and then supporting someone who wishes to leave it more capitalist the next. Global Warming, environmentalism in general, gay marriage...choose your issue. They are generally greatly intertwined anyway...and it is the twenty or thirty percent of Americans like you that leave the political scene in this country confused and muddled.

On the one hand, that is better than joining Germany and France in their socialism (and ten + percent unemployment rates). On the other hand...well, I don't need to say it. If I do, I will piss the lefties off, and if I don't, my point is better made.
January 2, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Just ignore Tbone. He is one of those fellows on the left who believes that moderate leftist rhetoric in the mainstream media is neutral. There is black, and there is white, and then there are gray areas, but everything is more black or more white. Nothing is neutral gray. That includes the media. Everything you hear on 4, 7, 9, and CNN is biased left. Some stuff on Fox and some other news venues is biased right. Everything that comes out already assuming that global warming is a fact is tilted left.

He is a liberal who has made up his mind that his way is correct, not to mention moderate. He gets pissed when someone in the (quasi-)mainstream writes in contrary to his beliefs (now, having said that, I concede that I am a right-winger and blow off most leftist rhetoric as socialist gibberish. My mind is just as closed as his). Take my advice T-bone, if it makes you that mad, ignore it. Anybody who writes an opinion on one of these things has already made up his mind; cussing and making inflamatory and derogatory statements to the other side will do nothing but make them wish you a slow and grizzly death. It won't convince them that you are right. I don't think you or your political allies are stupid, just wrong, so I don't call you nasty names.
January 2, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Addressing paragraph two; conservative thinkers "write liberals are dumb columns?" Their antithesis, liberals, write "what about the kids," "Global warming will destroy the world," and "conservatives have no heart" articles (all of which promote socialism). I don't see why you have such a problem with this. I personally get a kick out of reading and listening to well-thought, rational, and reasonable conservative thinkers. I feel they are correct, and Mike Rosen is far and away the better thinker between him and Rush. Rush is less visceral and plays to the audience better. Mike Rosen is often condescending and nasty, even in the way he treats his own supporters, but it is difficult to find holes in his logic.

Addressing paragraph 2; I said tilt...gray areas remember. The papers and other media sources are not called "The Marxist" or "The Watermelon." They would lose their support from the right altogether if that is how they formatted their media. And for each of those examples you listed, there are ten more that put Hillary in the limelight, denounce global warming, or bash Bush. Also, the Ron Paul article may be neutral...it may not. I personally think that the media is playing up all republicans right now who are either not conservative or are assured to hang their own party should they be elected. Huckabee is the former (who is the republican getting most of the attention now), and Paul is the latter. I agree with his theory...but he is making promises nobody can keep, and it will be the end of the republicans for a very long time if he gets elected. The media loves that...then again, the article seems neutral, and I am not in the columnists' heads. Maybe it is.
January 2, 2008

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Tbone,
Media bias is all a matter of perception. You're just so extremely far to the left that what someone in the center or a bit right of center would see as bias you don't see at all.
January 2, 2008

4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Tbone,
I don't claim to be unbiased at all. And I do see right leaning bias in some outlets, such as Fox. How does changing my sentence have anything to do with the fact that bias is a matter of perception?
You claim that Chris Matthews is not liberal. To me, that is laughable. See? Perception.
January 2, 2008

4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Tbone,
Dude, debating with you is absolutely impossible. The point went straight over your head. Your bias blinds you towards what someone on the right would see as left leaning bias, yes. Mine might do the same sometimes, I can't really say as well as a third, left leaning party would. All I said was that I do sometimes see some right leaning stuff on media outlets such as Fox. I never claimed to be some kind of all-seeing, all-knowing consumer of media.
By the way, here are a few more quotes from Chris Matthews from brainyquote.com

"I can't find a reason to be for this war. I've looked, and I can't, so I'm not."

"I don't understand how we can justify the occupied territories. It serves no goal, except the political goal of Sharon within Israel."

"The question will be, 'Do they hate us or not? Do they have a grievance?' Well, they will after this, won't they?"

"Unity is the most important thing on the road to stamping out terror. You need global rules of law and order, and they have to be enforced. Start with that principle."

"You don't say, like the Bush crowd, 'I got this guy over here and I don't like him and I'm gonna get him, whether you back me or not.'"

"I've never felt anything but hospitality around the world. I don't think they hate me. I don't feel the hatred a lot of these right-wingers assume."

"But he decided to take advice from Dick Morris, and if you want advice to lie or cheat you go to a guy who lies and cheats."

"The U.S. has married a down-the-line, right-wing policy toward Israel with an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim policy toward the region."

"Fox [is] so successful because there's a percentage of Americans, five to ten percent, who feel alienated from secular culture, from television, from the movies, who feel the media is just liberals on the coasts."

"I've come to like Hillary a lot. Look, she's going out there, she stuck her neck out, she took a risk running for Senate, she had the balls to do it, she took on the job and she won. And she's a good senator - in fact, she's probably going to be the next Senate majority leader."
January 3, 2008

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

You just get too inflamatory, Tbone. I pre-empted everything I said with a statement that liberals are not stupid. Conservatives are not all smart either. I had a long piece written here, and the stupid page refreshed.

I am bummed that Rosen didn't write about the caucus too, but he posted this article last week. Maybe you have a problem with the last few of his articles because they are not very deep and do not give quasi-original arguments about politics. If you listen to his show while he is spouting economics or military, however, I think you would like his talk just as well as you like the other conservative talk.

I stand by my statement that nothing is completely neutral. Fox is Right Wing, obviously, but 4, 7, 9, CNN, Oprah, and most of the rest of the mainstream is slanted left. I perhaps made a word useage error when I earlier said that libs denounce global warming; I meant that they see it as bad, while hard-Right thinkers argue that man made global warming is non-existant, and they have their largely ignored science to back it up. The liberals talk up all their models, none of which work, and they ignore the fact that the last seven years have seen, if anything, a slight decrease in average temperature. The fact that the mainstream media mentions it in articles as if it is factual is the epitomy of the mainstream media's leftward slant.

I am conservative, and proud of it. I think I am right, and I stand behind and argue my points. You are liberal...you do the same. I don't think you or your kind are stupid in the least...though I can't say the same about the ideologies you have chosen to follow...however, you have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to mine.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: Liberal lowlights of 2007

Liberal lowlights of 2007

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 28, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs