100 PEOPLE WHO ARE SCREWING UP AMERICA
Bernard Goldberg has true grit. He is the author of “Bias”, the best-seller that gave an insiders view of liberal bias in the media. To support the selling of his new book he had to do…what? Go on the mainstream media. Those they gave him air time, which were few, tried there best to lay him out cold. He held his own just fine, thank you. Of course, truth has a way of helping you stand up straight. But to open up a lions mouth so you can stick your head in it and tell the lion he shouldn’t be eating people takes cajones. (I think the spelling is correct.)
His latest offering is the wildly poplular “100 People Who Are Screwing Up America”, and yes, he names names. You can probably guess a few of them, Al Franken, Tim Robbins, Rep. Sheila Jackson Leah and a few more prominent liberals He also names categories of people, including Hollywood liberals, rappers, lawyers. Again it’s his marketing efforts demonstrate his grit as much as the content of his books.
To promote “100 People” Goldberg recently went on The Daily Show with John Stewart. A hostile host, a loaded audience and yet again, Goldberg’s truth of thought wins the day.
Goldberg’s basic premise in this book is that abusrd ideas and actions put forth in the name of political correctness are harmful to this country and what we stand for, especially when they’re not denounced by the so called main stream. Its even worse the it’s the socalled mainstream doing the talking.
Example: Rep. Shelia Jackson Leah (E) thinks we need a law that would force the national weather service to give “black” names to Hurricanes. The implication by Leah is that the lack of “black sounding” names for hurricanes is robbing black youth of self-esteem.
Goldberg, while accepting the basic absurdity of this view, points out that there could be some black people named Katrina or Andrew. So don’t they count? Is Leah saying to those people, you aren’t really black because your name isn’t Rashonda or Tamiqua? Rep. Leah is one of the most powerful memebers of the congressional black caucus and she thinks theres so much racism in America that even our hurricanes are too white?
Yes, theres a problem and on page after page Goldberg shines a light of truth on examples of absurd thought and even hate-speech promoted by the supposedly “open-minded” liberal establishment.
Yes, most of the people in the book are liberals, but if the shoe fits, right?
This book is a must read for any true conservative. It offers up great fodder for the next time you go toe to toe with a liberal whiner, and trust me, if any liberal sees you reading this book, you will be having a conversation.
conservativechick14 Says: September 10th, 2005 at 2:06 am
ive read the book at least twice. it’s perfect! downside is that my high school friends just say “huh?” when i say “al franken” “diane feinstein” or “michael moore”. im glad that in politics, i was raised to have a clue. im glad that ted kennedy also got a pretty high mention for one of the worst people screwing up America. i reccomend the book highly.
Jack Antilla Says: September 10th, 2005 at 7:39 am
Yes, It’s A shame they didn’t mention any conservatives in the book that are screwing up America, That would have given the book more credibility and more neutrality, I would have liked to see Rush Limbah in there, he’s just as bad as Al Franken at tarnishing politics.
The same goes with the nutcase we call Anne Coulter, the chick that believes any one who disagrees with the president, or any one who isn’t rightwing is guilty of treason. Pardon me if I find that just a tad disturbing because at this point that’s half the country, and It isn’t even TRUE treason, True treason would be selling information about high casualty targets to Al-Quida, or harboring Terrorists, etc… Not protesting a war, that’s a little thing we call free speech, I believe there’s a document out there somewhere in Washington that was written a long time ago that amends something we call a constitution that establishes that right… oh yes the bill of rights.
I don’t Think Michael Moore is screwing up America; I think he does great work, especially with Bowling for columbine. While I disagree with some of his views about 9/11 I do commend him for his courage to publish the piece even when he knew people would trash his patriotism and his reputation would go down the gutter. I just wish he focused more on resolving the problems rather than blaming them all on the Bush administration.
And just because Dan rather made a mistake doesn’t mean he’s screwing up America, I don’t think that has a profound affect on society, only the credibility of CBS.
There ore other things too like All Gore’s inconsistency and Howard Deans antagonism that really doesn’t make sense, how does that affect American society?
I also disagree with his Exaggeration of media bias. The Media is bias, but not in favor of one particular side, many conservatives seem to forget that the media isn’t just the news, it’s EVERYTHING! It’s blogs, it’s radio, it’s magazines, it’s newspapers, it’s Wikipedia, etc… It’ is a vast entity that is bias towards both sides, and unfortunately presents very little REAL news, just some one else’s spin on it, I find it rather irritating.
I think this book is far from perfect and I would hope the author could develop his horizons just a little bit so that he realizes that Republicans aren’t always right either. I would prefer to see it more balanced and truly refer to people who have an affect on society.
Anna Says: September 10th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
I enjoyed watching Jon Stewart interview Benard Goldberg. It was pretty clear after that interview that Goldberg was out of his league and didn’t have a leg to stand on. If you conservatives ever read anything of true quality you may awaken from your dogmatic slumber and come to life.
John Bailey Says: September 11th, 2005 at 2:58 am
Why should conservatives waste time buying this book? Better study your constitutional law and start a third party that can squash the other two. Our states are being tread on by an out of control Supreme Court with members who feel enough erroneous decisions atop each other makes it right to confiscate private property and wrongly interpret and wrongly apply the establishment clause in order to erase christian culture from public life.
Jack Antilla Says: September 11th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
It’s not trying to erase Christian Culture from public life; it’s attempting to avoid conflicts of interest, mainly because of the many religions that inhabit our country. For example an atheist would have a lot of problems dealing with a Christian public just as Christians would have a problem with an atheist public.
Add this to the fact that there are at least 100 different forms of Christianity, some of which conflict with each other such as protestants and Catholics (Look at northern Ireland, people kill each other of this kind on nonsense, after all it’s not like they worship the same god or anything…)
That’s why I think it’s best if people keep religion in their private lives otherwise it’s bound to cause conflicts.
Joy Says: September 13th, 2005 at 5:45 am
Not meaning to sound too pessimistic, but a third party will not likely become powerful enough or cohesive enough to ’squash’ either of the 2 major parties right now; in spite of the present lack of representation of the majority of American people on the part of politicians (not statesmen) on both sides.
In my parent’s generation, Democrat and Republican platforms at least had the same basic moral values; which made the choice break down to other issues…as it should be. Now, there are so many whackos posing as ‘liberals’, that true liberalism - meeting needs liberally but with some semblence of morality - has long ago been polluted and putrified with the backwash of pleasing all those with a ‘victim’ mentality and ensuring criminals and misfits (due to known continual poor choices)get all the benefits they can while anyone who actually is liberal in giving aid to those who need it, but has the poor taste to mention moral standards, the need for individual change when applicable and be favorable to (gasp) Christianity in its true form (as opposed to self-righteous finger-pointing, KKK, and skinhead sickos) is labeled as RELIGIOUS RIGHT or RIGHT WING FUNDAMENTALIST…hmmmmm.
There’s not a need for a third party, there’s a need for sanity regarding true morality and respect in both parties, at the very minimum. There’s a need for the majority of Americans to think for themselves and stop labeling each other as though we were canned food or clones. There’s a bottom line need for true respect. When we become too critical, we lose respect for that which we are critical of. It’s necessary to see faults…but it must be in the complete light of the whole picture or the fault becomes the picture.
Steak anyone?
Lug Says: September 15th, 2005 at 11:35 pm
LOL! I love it!!! Lib kooks visiting a
web site that exposes them for the moonbats that they are!!!!!
Anna Says: September 17th, 2005 at 2:35 am
Well said Joy. We all will benefit most by genuinely respecting one another and really listening to and thinking about each other’s perspectives on the problems at hand. We have major challenges ahead of us in this country and we had better learn to work together to solve the real problems. If we can’t figure out how to treat each other with dignity then our future is bleak. Our fates are entwined.
Jack Antilla Says: September 17th, 2005 at 5:29 am
It’s very possible for a third party to take power. It may be a tad harder nowa days because the centrist “inconsistency” is fading and many people tend to stick hard left or hard right, and with it the parties that represent each side. But still very possible if they have the resources and basic knowledge of Mass psychology.
They’d need people first of all, not just one or two millionaires, I mean they need strong willed millionaires, a few billionaires wouldn’t hurt either.
They’d need to devote the Money to the media, and lots of it, come up with many annoying political commercials, run their name all over T.V and the radio. Starting their own newspaper chain might be affective to, and help raise more funds to run their name in more places.
They’d need to Know how to manipulate people, and not just one or two government officials, they’d need mass psychology, a tactic that Both the Clinton administration, and most notably the Bush administration, have put into affect in the last few elections. For the Bush administration, Fear was a powerful tool, manipulating people into thinking that not voting for him, of electing John Kerry would cause another terrorist attack.
John Kerry tried the same ploy accept in reverse, saying that if George Bush were elected that America would enter into 5 more wars, and as a result a nuclear war. Too bad the Kerry Edwards team was so disorganized and weak to use this ply effectively. Schade.
Rapid response is also effective ploy, if you can counter an opponents response quickly and decisively, you give off the appearance that you know what your doing, this was a tactic invented by the Clinton administration, but perfected by the Bush administration. Ironic isn’t it?
It’s threw these tactics that your message can get threw to people, no matter how absolutely absurd it seems, if you pitch it right, and repeat it enough, people will start to believe it. That’s how the Nazis came to power in Germany, that of course and the Post WWI depression in that country had people so desperate for a savior. I guess the old saying is true, “Be careful what you wish for”
Of course this will all mean nothing if you don’t have a strong willed individual to lead the party. Without this, organization becomes very hectic and chaotic and the party will be doomed to failure.
Drew Thomas Says: September 23rd, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Liberals do nothing but whine, bitch, moan and complain. They have YET to offer ONE, just ONE plan for anything. “Free health care for all Americans”. Great idea…TELL ME HOW!
“No more racism”. Excellent idea…TELL ME HOW! It seems they leave all the real work up to conservatives and then bitch about it because they don’t get credit for anything.
Jack Antilla Says: September 26th, 2005 at 6:39 am
No more racism…. Teach Tolerance to children by requiring it in public education.
Free Health care… there are several ways to do this.
One way is the German way, having multiple public insurance organizations linked by a common legal framework.
Canada has a federally sponsored, publicly funded Medicare system. Each province may opt out, though none currently do. Canada’s system is known as a single payer system, where private doctors provide basic services, with the entire fee paid for by the government (a single payer) at the same rate. Other areas of health care, such as dentistry and optometry, are wholly private.
In Finland, the publicly funded medical system is funded by taxation and every citizen has state-funded health insurance.
In 1948, the United Kingdom passed the National Health Service Act that provided free physician and hospital services to all British nationals. Most doctors and nurses are on government payroll, and receive salaries; a fixed fee for each patient assigned, and enhanced payments for specialized treatments or skills.
Any one of these systems might work. The United States has been virtually alone among developed nations in not implementing a universal healthcare system, even though many liberals of this country HAVE purposed healthcare re-forms, and lets face it with employers cutting insurance to their employees to save money, I think we need it.
While many liberals do whine and complain about problems, that many conservatives fix, I think it’s important to understand Conservatives do the same. Like it or not this country needs both sides to establish equilibrium, if only they would work together and not focus on destroying each other so much. If there’s one thing I’ve noticed while surfing both liberal and conservative blogs, is they both blame each other for the same things.
And people wonder why nothing ever gets done in this country…
Anything else Drew?
master of all things Says: September 28th, 2005 at 5:18 am
Social healthcare has yet to be proven affective. The countries that have it now enjoy long waiting lists for health care, and many people die while on such lists. Leftists have many decent ideas, but have few ways to implement them, other than higher taxes, and bigger gov’t. We need to go in the other direction in these areas, or risk losing our liberties, and free enterprise
Lefty Says: September 29th, 2005 at 1:46 am
Exceptions to #12 include Western Europe and Canada. Stories of long waiting lists are propaganda put out by people who have a lot invested in getting their hands on your health care dollars. Second, Bush has increased domestic spending more than any president in history. He is the king of Big Government. Clinton actually reduced the size of the federal government. But Bush, being the BORROW and SPEND president that he is, has massively expanded the federal government. Additionally, he has overseen the greatest destruction of american citizen’s liberties in history. You need to think about what you are saying and who you are supporting because the right wing politicians talk a big game about conservative values but they have actually thrown them to the wind. Yet some so-called conservatives just keep following like sheep.
bill Says: October 1st, 2005 at 1:57 am
I couldn’t agree with Drew Thomas more. Democrats do nothing at all that is worthwhile. The Clinton administration (proponent of big government if I’ve ever seen one) left us with a budget surplus that could have easily been spent to help the country (I recommend giving the money directly to Haliburton and skipping the middle man). The Republicans do infinitely more for us, running an annual budget deficit that rockets towards the trillions. Man, I hate the Left. With all of their logic and data to support their claims. How snobbish.
Gina Nakamura Says: October 5th, 2005 at 12:07 am
The book was dead on!
used to be liberal Says: October 7th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
I am going to read this book. There is so much liberal bias in the media, it is disgusting.
Jaden403 Says: October 7th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Bill,
You stated “The Clinton administration (proponent of big government if I’ve ever seen one)…”
Actually, President Bush is responsible for more government pork spending in the form of transfer payments than Clinton ever dreamed of (he’s probably even jealous).
Jaden403
Lug Says: October 25th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Actually Jack…..there’s way more than
100 Libs screwing our country up….it’s 50 million Gorons who voted for the tree in 2000 and a traitor in 2004!!!
Jack Antilla Says: October 26th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Actually lug, without those liberals the nation would be one party rule. And any one with any knowlage of history knows thats not a good thing especially with radicals.
and John Kerry is not a traitor, if he were, he’d be selling military secrets to al quida or giving nuclear acess codes to kim jong il.
sure the mans an idiot and doesn’t know how to run a campaign, and yes, the democrats could have selected a much better canadate like General Clark for canadacy, but the man is no traitor, you seriously need to redefine your deffinition of treason.
HawkAtHeart Says: October 31st, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Sounds like the kind of book for me!
Lug Says: November 2nd, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Hey Jack!!
The Constitution does not say we have to have multiple parties!!
The Federalist papers warned about “factionalization!!!
There was only one party before 1800!
A house divided falls!
The Demwits have divided and “Balkanized”
America!
They have changed it from a melting pot
into a tossed salad…thanks Oprah!!!
And yes Hanoi Kerry is a traitor!!!
Jack Antilla Says: November 4th, 2005 at 6:26 am
I never said the constitution did lug. The constitution doesn’t say anything about political parties, thats somthing that evolved on it’s one. our nation really is an annomily when it comes to this issue because most democratic nations have so many political parties that they have to form coalitions to get anything done.
And our nation has had a long history of 2 party rule so your statement about 1 party before 1800 is very inaccurate. It started out as The Federalists and the Anit Federalists.
and your reference to a house divided refers to the civil war I take it. Interesting thing about that is there was little room for compramise in that conflict. I agree a house divided is a bad thing, but only if the different sides of the argument hate eachother so much that they are unwilling to compramise or work with eachother.
Politics is all about Balance. you have to balance the 2 sides in order for it to work, my biggest concern with washington right now is the absalote division between democrats and republicans. It used to be when the Republican Party was not controled by any one side of the political spectrum, that you had Liberal Republicans, centrist Republicans, and Right wing Republicans, Now you have Radical right wing Republicans controling the party.
The Same holds true with the Democrats, it used to be there were many right wing democrats, now the Party seems to reject most of them accept Zel Miller, I can’t explain his position, it rather baffels me. Now the Left has taken over the Party, and disregards the Center and the right. When you get this happening with both parties it becomes a rather large mess because neither side wants to work with eachother, and disregards any centrist logic that keeps them together.
It’s not the Democrats who have divided America, It’s Both Parties. They don’t want to work together on anything period. One says up the other says nown, one says yes, the other says no, one says black the other says white. They don’t even acknowlage the existance of the grey, even though it’s the greay that keeps this nation together.
Lug Says: November 4th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
We don’t need “political parties”…they only divide us!
All we need is for politicians to follow the constitution and judges to stop legislating from the bench!!!
Jack Antilla Says: November 5th, 2005 at 7:19 am
Theres No way to avoid political parties!!!!!!
Factions will alwayse exist no matter what because people realize they’re stronger in groups who have the same belief. In a Democratic Republic such as ours Political parties will alwayse exist, I just wish there were more than 2
3 or 4 would be best.
nutslikebush Says: November 5th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Interesting commentary on the CIA-Leak case on the legal blog FindLaw today. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html
Chris Says: December 19th, 2005 at 1:26 am
With due respect, Anna (#3), you seem to be the stereotypical Liberal. You are self-righteous and think that your self-proclaimed intellectualism places you on a higher pedestal than the rest of us. The fact of the matter is, you are incorrect. History, the facts, and pure common sense support me, my fellow conservatives, and our president, whom, by the way, i should entreat you to have more respect for. In conclusion, your party, as it turns out, is the archaic proprietor of failed idealism that history tells us, fails around every turn. Your ways have been tested and found wanting and I pray that you change your mind.
Thank you.
nutslikebush Says: December 19th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Chris,
Who’s history are you refering to? Give some concrete examples of how one party has failed and I promise that I can match that with an equivalent failure by the other party. Show me an example of my party being tested and found wanting and I will give you as many examples of the same from your party. I wouldn’t defend any party at this point in history but would challenge them all as an American - not a conservative or liberal. Once you let go of your conservative identity you can think freely and let your own mind be your guide. Think through each issue without the corrupting influence of ideology.
Lug Says: December 20th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
Hey Nutcake….prove the Republican Party embraces Communism like the Demwits do:
Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
Expert warns: Communism is alive, well and dangerous
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/regional/s_134509.html
Communists for Kerry
http://communistsforkerry.com/GPU/viewforum.php?f=30
nutslikebush Says: December 21st, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Lug, I know you guys prefer fascism.
Jack Antilla Says: December 21st, 2005 at 11:26 pm
The Democrats don’t favor communism.
according to your examples COmmunists favor democrats. Harldy the same thing.
Come up with a better example and don’t waste lefty’s time.
ug Says: December 22nd, 2005 at 5:54 pm
A Visit From Old St. Hillary
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9181
Chris Says: January 5th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
The very simple example that the weak cannot survive in the world and that petty liberal idealism will lead us nowhere but down is all of the example that I need. I don’t need anyone’s confirmation on this, my friend. Show me one example in history that says that hyper-tolerance and ignorant socialist politik can be helpful to any society. Also, I am using my mind in politics. Frankly, I think that that is why I am a conservative. In fact, YOU need to start using your mind, and maybe stop arguing with so much emotion. The only ideology being exercised is that of hyper-tolerance, ignorance, and petty and failing idealism that is preached by the left. I’ll bet the whole pot that in a hundred years, the liberal party will have all but died out. Believe it or not, we need action, not ignorant dreamers.
bob Says: November 10th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Chris, here’s an example of tolarance, people are tolerating your macho bluster. In case you didn’t notice, on Tuesday your side was repuiduated by the majority of this country. We’ve had our fill of conseravtive lies and incompetence. You are expelling the last gasp conservtive breath. President liar is going to have a tougher time this next two years stealing from the American taxpayer. Who knows, now that there will be some responsible adults running Capitol Hill, we may even catch Bin Ladin…. Lord knows the draft-dodging cowards in the whitehouse can’t seem to do it.
WhyNotObama? Says: July 12th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
So he writes a book that claims to “expose” liberal bias in the media ….than he writes a book about various liberals who are ruining America. So he’s admitting that he himself is bias. So his first book about liberal bias is written with conservative bias. HAHAHAHAH, he has now completely discredited his first book. Hmmm, you’d have to be STUPID to think he is “exposing” anything other than his own Conservative agenda.
In order to write about bias you have to be nonbiased to begin with!!!!!!! DUHHH!!
Any educated individual who has studied mass media (I have degrees in the subject) knows that big business caters to conservatives for tax and regulation cuts and most of today’s media is comprised of only 4 big businesses. Thus, there is actually a conservative bias (this is just one of the many arguments that support this idea).
Why are you neo-cons so complaisant in your stupidity? I guess self-righteousness is its own drug.
The Other Side Says: July 13th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
do the people that always demonize the liberal-bias in the media ever think that reporters, journalists, etc. may be, in general, liberal? maybe they are liberal thinkers that like to ask questions and gain facts, unlike fox news that does whatever they are told. trying to force in equality by having more conservative media just seems unnatural because a conservative mind, in general, doesn’t mesh up with journalism. most of the controversial remarks made in the media are by conservatives like ann coulter, rush limbaugh, bill o’reilly, michael savage…
who cares if there is a liberal-bias in media? are conservatives afraid that people cannot make their own decisions about the world around them? the right-wing agenda is far more blatant than any left-wing agenda.
nutslikebush Says: July 14th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
The other side: your point is a good one. Whenever I genuinely try to get to the bottom of an issue and really understand it, I am accused of being “liberal.” So perhaps what conservative mean by liberal is that we are not sufficiently willing to follow revelation - we want to know why things are the way they are. We want to evaluate the evidence and the reasons why our administration behaves the way it does. Conservatives seem to just be satisfied with straw man arguments and simple-minded assumptions. They generally seem shallow.
WhyNotObama? Says: July 16th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Well Put “The Other Side”. From what I have observed Neo Cons think anyone who uses logic, reasoning, research, and impartial judgment to form opinions is labeled as “liberal”. Also from what I have observed many (not all) Cons copy their opinions from dogma espoused by politicians, religious zealots, and Fox News. This is just lazy. I used to enjoy discussing many issues with admitted conservatives (like limited government, free market, even abortion). Now when ever I talk about Iraq all I get are talking points that lack reasoning and insight.
I came to this blog because I my need to form my opinions using logic, reasoning, research, and impartial judgment. I think that’s why there are so many “liberals” on this blog (it seem we out number the Cons on their own web site). WE like to hear other arguments…we like to challenge our own….sadly Neo Cons have offered little challenge. Maybe it’s because we are actually right about IRAQ!
I said it before and I’ll say it again. Self-Righteousness is its own drug. The only cure is to honestly try and prove your self wrong…like the scientific method…..hmm also sounds like good journalism too.
NOT AMERICAN Says: September 16th, 2007 at 9:31 am
This book really screws up America. Everything that comes to blame one man or few specific people in something, especially something TERRIBLE, gets the best sells in the US. Who screws up America? The media that misuses the freedom of speech, and books like that. Freedom of speech doesn’t go without respect, that’s why Americans who think they are the most cultured people in the world actually destroy the real values of democratic culture.