The term "liberal media" = 21st Century McCarthyism (1 Viewer)

[disneydude]

The term "liberal media" is the McCarthyism of the 21st Century. McCarthy used the "communist" label to try to brand anyone who opposed him as anti-American. Bush and his radical fundamentals throw the the term "liberal media" out there in the same manner to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
It didn't work for McCarthy in the long run...you would think that the radical right would realize this. Obviously they don't, because the way they constantly throw around the term is almost amusing.

 

[justone]

The term "liberal media" is the McCarthyism of the 21st Century. .

no.

McCarthy used the "communist" label to try to brand anyone who opposed him.

no

no Bush and his radical fundamentals .

no.

throw the the term "liberal media" out there in the same manner

no.

to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

no

It didn't work for McCarthy

yes

in the long run...

no

 

[jamesrage]

The term "liberal media" is the McCarthyism of the 21st Century. McCarthy used the "communist" label to try to brand anyone who opposed him as anti-American.

Communist are typically anti-american.The idea of ownership,right to bear arms and anything else our constition supports is absurd to them.People like that are dangerous in hollywood and the media considering they can warp and twist the public into disreguarding such things as our constitution

Bush and his radical fundamentals throw the the term "liberal media" out there in the same manner to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
It didn't work for McCarthy in the long run...you would think that the radical right would realize this. Obviously they don't, because the way they constantly throw around the term is almost amusing

There is a liberal out there.
When peacenick morons got rescued by the military the liberal said the peacenicks were freed.
It was the liberal that told the world about our secret cia prisons and informed the enemy that their phones messages were being tapped with out a warrent.
It is the liberal media that calls illegals "undocumented workers",migrant workers" or "immigrints".
It is the liberal media that tries to air every Arugab photo in a attempt tp demonize our soldiers and to undermine the efforts of our troops in the iddle east.
It is the liberal media that refuses the show the vermin in the ACLU's attack on christmas,easter and other holidays.
It is the media that refuses to show the deballing/sissyfication of our youth and country.
It is the liberal that refuses to show the mexican drug cartels dressed in military uniform comming across our borders to aid degenerate drug dealers smuggle drugs,becasue they would rather air old geezers getting into a hunting accident as a miserable attempt to discredit the bush administration.
It is the liberal media that allows illegals to call themselves "immigrints" and refuses to correct them.

 

[jfuh]

The term "liberal media" is the McCarthyism of the 21st Century. McCarthy used the "communist" label to try to brand anyone who opposed him as anti-American. Bush and his radical fundamentals throw the the term "liberal media" out there in the same manner to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
It didn't work for McCarthy in the long run...you would think that the radical right would realize this. Obviously they don't, because the way they constantly throw around the term is almost amusing.

Liberal progression is what has made the US the strongest nation on the face of the Earth today. To stop it is suicide.
The communists of Soviet Russian and Maoist China were hardly liberal at all, they only used communist ideology to mask thier true intent of dicatorships. Dictatorship mixed with weak economies and suppresionist ideology are always bound for failure, thus the fall of USSR and the rise of the modern day ultral capitalist China.
The US in retrospect has been completely liberal up to the point of Regan to which a southern movement of conservatism through the religious bible belt permeated into society.
The progressive liberal left of the 60's and 70's (Nixxon) gave way to partisan politics. Instead of electing based on who could do the job best, the incentive today is vote on who you feel is most like you. From supporting of an elitest government that works hard for the better of the country, now the support is for who seems more like the common person that spends the economy into oblivion.
Now the word liberal is branded identically to how McCarthy branded communism. Ohhh you damn liberal. Sad thing is there's a population that actually buys into this type of bullshit.
The forefathers of this country would be ashamed.

 

[hipsterdufus]

no.

no

no.

no.

no

yes

no

Heck of an argument you made there.:roll:

 

[ptsdkid]

The term "liberal media" is the McCarthyism of the 21st Century. McCarthy used the "communist" label to try to brand anyone who opposed him as anti-American. Bush and his radical fundamentals throw the the term "liberal media" out there in the same manner to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
It didn't work for McCarthy in the long run...you would think that the radical right would realize this. Obviously they don't, because the way they constantly throw around the term is almost amusing.

***I doubt if you could have twisted the facts more if you had actually tried. First of all, the term McCarthyism has been used by the liberal media to connote something that is anti-American. We all owe senator McCarthy much praise for his openess in shaking up the Communist contingent within our Congress and White House. There should have been a lot more commies doing time, other than Alger Hiss, but unfortunately, this is where the liberal press won the day. While the 'liberal media' has always help our enemies, I believe its the liberal minions among us that are our true enemies. You could start with that traitor John Kerry and work your way to that nitwit Ted Kennedy to get an idea of how and why liberalism is the kiss of death for our nation. There is nothing amusing about the term liberal. A liberal is a socialist. Have you been watching the riots in France under the auspices of another dying socialist regime? Don't look to your favorite liberal media to get the skinny on the riots in France. Try listening to Rush Limbaugh or Fox news to get the straight scoop.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Try listening to Rush Limbaugh or Fox news to get the straight scoop.

Now that's just classic..

 

[jfuh]

***I doubt if you could have twisted the facts more if you had actually tried. First of all, the term McCarthyism has been used by the liberal media to connote something that is anti-American. We all owe senator McCarthy much praise for his openess in shaking up the Communist contingent within our Congress and White House. There should have been a lot more commies doing time, other than Alger Hiss, but unfortunately, this is where the liberal press won the day. While the 'liberal media' has always help our enemies, I believe its the liberal minions among us that are our true enemies. You could start with that traitor John Kerry and work your way to that nitwit Ted Kennedy to get an idea of how and why liberalism is the kiss of death for our nation. There is nothing amusing about the term liberal. A liberal is a socialist. Have you been watching the riots in France under the auspices of another dying socialist regime? Don't look to your favorite liberal media to get the skinny on the riots in France. Try listening to Rush Limbaugh or Fox news to get the straight scoop.

I see your true colors are showing.

 

[justone]

Heck of an argument you made there.:roll:

You get what you deserve from me; no more.
No.

 

[mpg]

Even if we assume that liberalism is a good thing, bias in the media is a bad thing. Therefore, exposing bias in the media is a good thing, regardless of which bias it is.

 

[disneydude]

^
I agree where REAL bias exists. However, what I am referring to is the trend of Bush Apologists to label any news story critical of King George as "Liberal Media". It becomes to be like the boy who cried wolf. When real bias exists, they've cried foul so many times, no one will believe them when it is true.

 

[mpg]

^
I agree where REAL bias exists. However, what I am referring to is the trend of Bush Apologists to label any news story critical of King George as "Liberal Media". It becomes to be like the boy who cried wolf. When real bias exists, they've cried foul so many times, no one will believe them when it is true.

I know that he criticized the media's coverage of Iraq. Was there other times? Did he accuse them of being liberal, or did he just criticize the coverage.

 

[jfuh]

I know that he criticized the media's coverage of Iraq. Was there other times? Did he accuse them of being liberal, or did he just criticize the coverage.

Since when did bush start to enjoy coverage by the media? Especially now that his poll numbers are so low, well at least not as low as Cheny.

 

[mpg]

Since when did bush start to enjoy coverage by the media? Especially now that his poll numbers are so low, well at least not as low as Cheny.

When did I say that he enjoyed coverage by the media?

 

[Pacridge]

Now that's just classic..

I like this:

Debating liberals at politics with 3/4 of my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair

I always thought he wasn't firing on all neurons. Didn't realize he purposely shut down 75% of his synaptic gap activity. Personally I think if he wants to start making sense and winning a debate here and there he might want to consider firing up some of those he's shut down.

Course if he continues going this route it is entertaining to watch.

 

[aquapub]

The term "liberal media" is the McCarthyism of the 21st Century. McCarthy used the "communist" label to try to brand anyone who opposed him as anti-American. Bush and his radical fundamentals throw the the term "liberal media" out there in the same manner to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
It didn't work for McCarthy in the long run...you would think that the radical right would realize this. Obviously they don't, because the way they constantly throw around the term is almost amusing.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian government released a lot of classified Cold War intelligence. Many of the people McCarthy shined a spotlight on DID turn out to be security risks connected to/being paid by the Soviets.

Aside from this misguided analogy though, there is still the mountains of evidence liberals are always so unable to refute...

Pasted from a different thread:


"Just to give you an idea of how many holes there are in the liberal lie that the media is anything but liberal, the following is a short list of some household name-media people and which Democrats in office they worked for before being trusted to disseminate "objective" news:

NBC Tim Russert-Governor Mario Cuomo (D), Senator Pat Moynihan (D).

CNN Jeff Greenfield-Senator Bobby Kennedy (D), Mayor John Lindsay (D).

MSNBC Chris Matthews-President Jimmy Carter (D), House Speaker Tip O'Neil (D).

NBC Ken Bode-Presidential candidate Morris Udall (D).

PBS Bill Moyers-President L.B. Johnson (D).

NBC Brian Williams-President Jimmy Carter (D).

ABC Rick Underforth-President Carter (D), President Clinton (D), and a handful of Senators, all (D).

PBS Elizabeth Brackett-Mayoral candidate Bill Singer (D), Brackett was also HERSELF a candidate (D).

NBC Jane Pauley worked on the state Democratic Committee of Indiana (D).

ABC Pierre Salinger-President Kennedy (D), he also WAS a senator from California (D).

CBS Lesley Stahl-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New Yorker Ken Auletta-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New York Times David Shipley-President Bill Clinton (D).

New York Times Leslie Gelb-Presidents Johnson (D) and Clinton (D).

New York Times Magazine, Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker, American Prospect James Fallows-President Jimmy Carter (D).

CNN, Los Angeles Times Tom Johnson-President Johnson (D).

Washington Post, CBS, NBC, Walter Pincus-Senator J.W. Fulbright (D), Pincus’s wife was also a Clinton appointee.

New York Times Jack Rosenthal-Presidents Kennedy (D) and Johnson (D).

USA Today John Seigenthaler-President Kennedy (D).

New Yorker Sidney Blumenthal-President Clinton (D).

U.S. News and World Report Donald Baer-President Clinton (D).

Nightline, New York Times Carolyn Curiel-President Clinton (D).

NBC Thomas Ross-President Clinton (D).

Nightline Tara Sonenshine-President Clinton (D).

TIME Strobe Talbott-President Clinton (D).


And one of my personal favorites, Dee Dee Myers, worked for Bill Clinton (D) and then got hired by Roger Ailes (the evil genius credited with Fox’s “conservative bias”-what a laugh!)

THEN, there are the media figures who are sons, daughters and spouses of prominent Democrats:

ABC-Chris Cuomo

E!-Eleanor Mondale

ABC-Cokie Roberts

Newsweek-Evan Thomas, who is the grandson of one of America’s most notorious Communists. Comrade Evan has been caught manipulating the news to protect Senator Bob Kerrey (D), and President Clinton (D)-he buried the Monica Lewinsky story for weeks until Matt Drudge finally forced it into the spotlight.

All of this, and he is still the editor of Newsweek.

And Maria Shriver, of NBC, is the niece of ultra-liberal, Teddy Kennedy, but, in all fairness, THIS one is also married to a pseudo-Republican, Governor Swarzenneger.


-Not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, NONE of the major papers have endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

-What about all the studies done by respectable, non-partisan groups proving a huge liberal tilt among reporters, anchors, news directors and producers?

-What about the multitude of unexplainable examples I have provided like: Dan Rather calling a leak about Bill Clinton's indictment "well-orchestrated" and "Republican backed," only to find out the next day that a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ADMITTEDLY, ACCIDENTALLY leaked the information? Where do you suppose Dan got his bad information? It sure as hell wasn't from research. He made it up....because he is a liberal."




Explain all this away, and then we'll talk. Until then, save your baseless, biased assertion that this is all just conservative paranoia for O.J. jurors-who are accustomed to disregarding large volumes of evidence to reach a$$ backwards conclusions.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

*** A liberal is a socialist. Have you been watching the riots in France under the auspices of another dying socialist regime? Don't look to your favorite liberal media to get the skinny on the riots in France. Try listening to Rush Limbaugh or Fox news to get the straight scoop.

It is very fun that for you everything that is not american conservative is socialist. That even a liberal/conservative regime in France is socialist. Maybee it can have something to do that you sources is Rush Limbaugh and Fox news...

 

[jfuh]

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian government released a lot of classified Cold War intelligence. Many of the people McCarthy shined a spotlight on DID turn out to be security risks connected to/being paid by the Soviets.

Aside from this misguided analogy though, there is still the mountains of evidence liberals are always so unable to refute...

Pasted from a different thread:


"Just to give you an idea of how many holes there are in the liberal lie that the media is anything but liberal, the following is a short list of some household name-media people and which Democrats in office they worked for before being trusted to disseminate "objective" news:

NBC Tim Russert-Governor Mario Cuomo (D), Senator Pat Moynihan (D).

CNN Jeff Greenfield-Senator Bobby Kennedy (D), Mayor John Lindsay (D).

MSNBC Chris Matthews-President Jimmy Carter (D), House Speaker Tip O'Neil (D).

NBC Ken Bode-Presidential candidate Morris Udall (D).

PBS Bill Moyers-President L.B. Johnson (D).

NBC Brian Williams-President Jimmy Carter (D).

ABC Rick Underforth-President Carter (D), President Clinton (D), and a handful of Senators, all (D).

PBS Elizabeth Brackett-Mayoral candidate Bill Singer (D), Brackett was also HERSELF a candidate (D).

NBC Jane Pauley worked on the state Democratic Committee of Indiana (D).

ABC Pierre Salinger-President Kennedy (D), he also WAS a senator from California (D).

CBS Lesley Stahl-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New Yorker Ken Auletta-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New York Times David Shipley-President Bill Clinton (D).

New York Times Leslie Gelb-Presidents Johnson (D) and Clinton (D).

New York Times Magazine, Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker, American Prospect James Fallows-President Jimmy Carter (D).

CNN, Los Angeles Times Tom Johnson-President Johnson (D).

Washington Post, CBS, NBC, Walter Pincus-Senator J.W. Fulbright (D), Pincus’s wife was also a Clinton appointee.

New York Times Jack Rosenthal-Presidents Kennedy (D) and Johnson (D).

USA Today John Seigenthaler-President Kennedy (D).

New Yorker Sidney Blumenthal-President Clinton (D).

U.S. News and World Report Donald Baer-President Clinton (D).

Nightline, New York Times Carolyn Curiel-President Clinton (D).

NBC Thomas Ross-President Clinton (D).

Nightline Tara Sonenshine-President Clinton (D).

TIME Strobe Talbott-President Clinton (D).


And one of my personal favorites, Dee Dee Myers, worked for Bill Clinton (D) and then got hired by Roger Ailes (the evil genius credited with Fox’s “conservative bias”-what a laugh!)

THEN, there are the media figures who are sons, daughters and spouses of prominent Democrats:

ABC-Chris Cuomo

E!-Eleanor Mondale

ABC-Cokie Roberts

Newsweek-Evan Thomas, who is the grandson of one of America’s most notorious Communists. Comrade Evan has been caught manipulating the news to protect Senator Bob Kerrey (D), and President Clinton (D)-he buried the Monica Lewinsky story for weeks until Matt Drudge finally forced it into the spotlight.

All of this, and he is still the editor of Newsweek.

And Maria Shriver, of NBC, is the niece of ultra-liberal, Teddy Kennedy, but, in all fairness, THIS one is also married to a pseudo-Republican, Governor Swarzenneger.


-Not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, NONE of the major papers have endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

-What about all the studies done by respectable, non-partisan groups proving a huge liberal tilt among reporters, anchors, news directors and producers?

-What about the multitude of unexplainable examples I have provided like: Dan Rather calling a leak about Bill Clinton's indictment "well-orchestrated" and "Republican backed," only to find out the next day that a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ADMITTEDLY, ACCIDENTALLY leaked the information? Where do you suppose Dan got his bad information? It sure as hell wasn't from research. He made it up....because he is a liberal."




Explain all this away, and then we'll talk. Until then, save your baseless, biased assertion that this is all just conservative paranoia for O.J. jurors-who are accustomed to disregarding large volumes of evidence to reach a$$ backwards conclusions.

Congratulations, you've managed to link the people that work at the news agencies with the democratic party. How many times must it be brought up to you that Conservative doesn't mean republican, Liberal doesn't mean democrat; or vice versa.

What would be more accurate would be if you posted the ownership of these broadcasting media and showed who they are? Always follow the money trail.
Not know what I'm talking about?
Ok, who's the largest medial owner of local stations in the US? I'll tell you, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Incorporated Sinclair is very much anti - liberal and simultaneously pro-republican, not pro-conservative mind you.

Fox News? Well fox news is owned by New's Corp, who's New's Corp? Follow the money trail again, major shareholder and CEO of New's Corp is Rupert Murdoch. Now are you going to tell me that Murdoch is not a hardcore supporter of the republican party? FYI, New's corp owns the New York Post. Another rediculous medial outlet.

NBC - Who owns NBC? GE, GE's CEO? Former Proccter and Gamble employee Jeffrey R. Immelt, again another hard core republican supporter (not conservative supporter)

Don't even get me started on Time Warner - owner of CNN

So, follow the money aqua. The media is very much un-liberal.

 

[cnredd]

Congratulations, you've managed to link the people that work at the news agencies with the democratic party. How many times must it be brought up to you that Conservative doesn't mean republican, Liberal doesn't mean democrat; or vice versa.

What would be more accurate would be if you posted the ownership of these broadcasting media and showed who they are? Always follow the money trail.
Not know what I'm talking about?
Ok, who's the largest medial owner of local stations in the US? I'll tell you, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Incorporated Sinclair is very much anti - liberal and simultaneously pro-republican, not pro-conservative mind you.

Fox News? Well fox news is owned by New's Corp, who's New's Corp? Follow the money trail again, major shareholder and CEO of New's Corp is Rupert Murdoch. Now are you going to tell me that Murdoch is not a hardcore supporter of the republican party? FYI, New's corp owns the New York Post. Another rediculous medial outlet.

NBC - Who owns NBC? GE, GE's CEO? Former Proccter and Gamble employee Jeffrey R. Immelt, again another hard core republican supporter (not conservative supporter)

Don't even get me started on Time Warner - owner of CNN

So, follow the money aqua. The media is very much un-liberal.

Nice try...Now answer this question...

If these conglomerates are SOOOO Conservative based solely on the top brass's political affiliation, then where do shows that consistantly get reported as "too pornographic", "too vulgar", "too violent" and "too liberal" come from?

Sinclair own affiliates across the country for all of the "public airwaves" networks...Were they sleeping when they let these affiliates show "Desparate Houswives" and "The Today Show" and "West Wing"?

Was Murdoch sleeping when they created "Temptation Island" and "Married with children"?

Did Jeffrey R. Immelt not know that "Will & Grace" and the grusome details on any one of the 15 "Law and Orders" are being displayed each night?...

SURELY if what you say is true, these shows would've been thrown into the wastebin long ago...

So sad to think that you believe they follow their heart instead of following their wallet...

These folks don't care about Red versus Blue...They only care about the green...

 

[mpg]

Congratulations, you've managed to link the people that work at the news agencies with the democratic party. How many times must it be brought up to you that Conservative doesn't mean republican, Liberal doesn't mean democrat; or vice versa.

What would be more accurate would be if you posted the ownership of these broadcasting media and showed who they are? Always follow the money trail.
Not know what I'm talking about?
Ok, who's the largest medial owner of local stations in the US? I'll tell you, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Incorporated Sinclair is very much anti - liberal and simultaneously pro-republican, not pro-conservative mind you.

Fox News? Well fox news is owned by New's Corp, who's New's Corp? Follow the money trail again, major shareholder and CEO of New's Corp is Rupert Murdoch. Now are you going to tell me that Murdoch is not a hardcore supporter of the republican party? FYI, New's corp owns the New York Post. Another rediculous medial outlet.

NBC - Who owns NBC? GE, GE's CEO? Former Proccter and Gamble employee Jeffrey R. Immelt, again another hard core republican supporter (not conservative supporter)

Don't even get me started on Time Warner - owner of CNN

So, follow the money aqua. The media is very much un-liberal.

What's important is content. FAIR, the only liberal media watchdog group that I know of, complains about who owns the various media outlets. They don't talk about content, but conservative groups such as AIM, document things that are said in the media in detail, and count how many times they say "hard line conservative" vs. "hard line liberal". It's something like 20:1. If someone is on the extreme left of the political spectrum, the media doesn't consider it an issue, but if someone is on the extreme right of the political spectrum, their opinions are described as extreme. There are many other examples of things like this that are documented. If you want to talk about money, then why did they shy away from huge scandals during Clinton's presidency? They could've made a ton of money off of Juanita Broadrick, but the coverage was low key. That's in sharp contrast to Clarence Thomas. Is that conservative?

 

[jfuh]

Nice try...Now answer this question...

I would've hoped that you would've gone without the nice try comment. Very much belittles your intellect.

If these conglomerates are SOOOO Conservative based solely on the top brass's political affiliation, then where do shows that consistantly get reported as "too pornographic", "too vulgar", "too violent" and "too liberal" come from?

You really then ahve to ask, just who is making these comments? Are those that make such statments those with an agenda?

Sinclair own affiliates across the country for all of the "public airwaves" networks...Were they sleeping when they let these affiliates show "Desparate Houswives" and "The Today Show" and "West Wing"?

Sinclair is local branches, not the national network. Those shows are all national network, and I'll answer each two of those shows (never watched the Today show). Desperate housewives, very much rings a tone with the typical housewife, many women can ideneitfy with the character and just as any of the "women's interest magazines" makes women long to be like the character they watch. I don't know why that is, but that's what many women I've spoken with tell me. Referencing to your later statment, yes, it's not about red or blue in these shows, it's all about the green. Sex sells.
Now as for West wing, it was popular, but not anymore, the popularity I believe was because it represented something that the public longs for in government, that being transparency. Everything in west wing is transparent. Just is with Commander in Chief and so on. Both of these shows have characters that are neither red nor blue, but really they are moderate. And I believe that's what americans want. What is in demand, sells. These shows do not preach an ideology, look at 24, Jack Bauers is always useing coercive persuasion techniques. He'll often shoot, then ask questions later. He represents the military gun ho attitude (no offense to you guys). Wouldn't that be then interpretable as pro for torture? No, absolutely not, because the point is not about preaching to us about ideology, it's about a show to attract your attention, to keep you tuned in, capture you to thier ads (thank goodness for bit torrent and Tivo). And again they are national network affiliated. They must air those main programs. But then look at local programing. The anti-Kerry bit, and also the pro-ID design programs? I don't think you could argue that those programs are very much pro-conservative, especially then on Sunday, all just church programs.

Was Murdoch sleeping when they created "Temptation Island" and "Married with children"?

Nope, but it does help him make more $$ to then donate to the GOP.

Did Jeffrey R. Immelt not know that "Will & Grace" and the grusome details on any one of the 15 "Law and Orders" are being displayed each night?...

Will and Grace, ahh, of course he knew, he also knew it was helping him draw a pretty penny for it too. But how important is the Gay factor in Will in grace? Is the show just about sodomy? No, it's again about the comedy of it, the break from reality, representing an ideal that ppl would like to be a part of. W&G also is very stereo typical in many aspects.
As for Law and Order's grose factor, I don't see how grusome details represent a liberal ideology. Care to elaborate?

SURELY if what you say is true, these shows would've been thrown into the wastebin long ago...

As you say, the shows are not about ideology, they're about money. It's the behind the scene aspet as well as many of the "news" that I am bringing into question. Hell look at the Simpsons, conservative? liberal? no, just poke fun at everyone.

So sad to think that you believe they follow their heart instead of following their wallet...

As I said, I look at the money trail, thus I'm not looking at thier heart, I'm looking only at thier wallet. GOP is very much pro-big corperation. As I've said also, it's not about conservative of liberal, its about only gop and dem to these ppl. So supporting the GOP is of course in thier best interest. Look at Pepsi cola and Domino's pizza chain, all big supporters of the GOP, Merck, Pfizer, GE, Westing House, Time Warner, News Corp. Exxon Mobil, Shell, Conoco, all huge fans of the GOP.

These folks don't care about Red versus Blue...They only care about the green...

They support red, because Red helps them with more green income. Blue would raise taxes on them.