Here we have someone presenting their case for or against an issue and they make the age old appeal: "donate now."

How can a Fox News analyst who is supposed to be objective in their findings on any given subject turn around and make this type of stand and ask for money to support their cause?

While Mr. Morris makes excellent valid points, this isn't about the subject matter itself. This is about the credibility of objectiveness of the person presenting their cause like this. Left OR Right, this is biased. And people wonder why so many of us don't believe news analysts anymore.

Read the material below and see for yourself:

"Urgent Message from Dick Morris

Dear Newsmax Reader:

The Senate Finance Committee will soon be voting on the Obamacare plan to radically overhaul our healthcare system. Then the full Senate will take up the matter.

We need your urgent help to stop Obamacare.

Dick Morris, the Fox News analyst, says we can still defeat Obamacare.

Dick is the chief stategist at the League of American Voters.

He says the coming votes will be very close.

In the past week, we have been airing a 15-second TV ad in Maine, Arkansas and North Dakota, 3 crucial states, exposing the Obama plan which will cut up to $500 billion in Medicare for Seniors.

We are clearly having an effect.

But we need to do more, and be prepared as this bill goes to the full Senate and House.

Dick is urging you to support our TV campaign in this final push, please Donate Here Now.

Also read Dick's latest column below that reveals our strategy.

Bob Adams
Executive Director


SNOWE AND LINCOLN WILL DETERMINE EVERYTHING

By DICK MORRIS

Watch how Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln vote in the Senate Finance Committee on the Baucus version of the Obama healthcare plan. As Snowe and Lincoln go, so will the Congress.

The Democrats need Snowe's vote desperately, to convince wavering moderate Democrats that they can offer a veneer, however thin, of bipartisanship to the health proposal. If Snowe, their last chance at a Republican vote, opposes the Obama/Baucus proposal, there is no hope of a bipartisan fig leaf for the package. On the other hand, if Snowe backs the bill, it will send a signal to moderate Democrats that it's OK to join in and the bill will probably attract the 60 votes it needs for Senate passage.

Lincoln's vote becomes critical if Snowe votes no. Lincoln is probably the single most vulnerable Democrat running for reelection in 2010. She is the proverbial canary in the coalmine. If she makes it, so will all the Democrats. Hailing from a conservative Southern state, her poll numbers suggest that she would be in a heap of trouble with a stiff challenger.

If Lincoln defects and joins the Republicans in voting no (as she has done on a number of amendments), she will do a lot to cement her chances to remain a senator, but will open a wound in the Democratic Party. A domino effect will likely set in.

Her Arkansas colleague, Democrat Mark Pryor, will feel exposed by her defection and will probably consider voting no as well. It will be very hard for the son of moderate David Pryor to explain why Lincoln jumped ship but he chose to stay on board.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, encouraged by Lincoln's vote, will probably vote no as well. These negative votes will bring huge pressure on Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat. Nor can the president count on the support of Joe Lieberman (I) of Connecticut, who has warned that, despite his basic support for the concept of the bill, it would be hard for him to back it given the current economic and fiscal crisis.

Once Obama's plan fails to attract 60 votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will fall back on reconciliation as a strategy and hope for 50 votes. But if the Democrats pass the bill with 50 votes, it will set a precedent they may come to rue. It would basically eliminate the filibuster as a parliamentary tactic and would condemn any future minority party (Democrats in 2011?) to the same irrelevance as afflicts their House colleagues. To be in the minority in a chamber run by a bare majority is not a fun task.

However, if Lincoln votes yes, it will send a signal to all moderates that even the most endangered of their species is willing to risk backing the program and will do a great deal to shore up the president's defenses.

All this means that if the elderly citizens of Arkansas and Maine -- and their families -- want to avoid the evisceration of the Medicare program contemplated in the Baucus/Obama bill, they had better get busy. They need to deluge both senators with urgent pleas to vote against the $500 billion cut in the Medicare program. Neither senator can afford to alienate her elderly constituents, but what do they expect when they vote to take the hatchet to Medicare?

Newt Gingrich found out that cutting Medicare is a ticket to political oblivion. Barack Obama will learn the same lesson. The question is: Will Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln join him?

An Urgent Note from Dick Morris:

I have persuaded the League of American Voters to run ten second advertisements in key states that show an elderly person saying: "Senator _________: Please don't cut my Medicare by $500 billion. I need my Medicare." We need to get these ads on in the key states.

We need to focus attention on the cuts in Medicare. It is slashing services to the elderly that is the key point!

Please click here to donate and give generously. This is the key moment and you can make all the difference in the world. With pressure such as the elderly are bringing to bear, the Senate would not dare pass this benighted plan!

Donate Here Now.

Thank you.

Dick Morris"

quote:

Originally posted by ipscone:
Why don't you make posts about the liberal media and how they pander to Obama and "fail" or "refuse" to publish legitimate stories about Obama or point out how biased the liberal media is?

Why is it with all that has been in the media, over the past 2 years, that you haven't found a single biased liberal story to hammer? You aren't really trying to suggest that ONLY the conservative media is biased are you? So, why is it you single out only a conservative media to criticize? Clearly you must be biased, or you don't believe the liberal media is biased in the slightest, or you would have criticized them along the way.

I rather thought I was criticizing ALL media by the sheer nature of this thread which is why I specified "Left OR Right."

It's not that I'm opposed to anyone from either side presenting their cause. I'm merely against the concept of people presenting their side to millions under the guise of "media analyst" which leads folks to believe it's unbiased when in reality they're not.

As for not criticizing liberal media, don't forget I went after AP for printing the pictures of Bernie so they could "show the horrors of war" after his Family said no. That was an obvious attempt to sway public opinion while they bolstered their sales which is why I called for all of us to take them to task over it.

This is exactly why I keep writing for all of us to be extremely careful about what we believe based on what we hear from who on either side. This is also exactly why I write how I don't trust "media analysts."

I'm equal opportunity Ips, I evaluate each issue on it's own merit.

quote:

Thanks for posting the story, however. I was unaware they were seekind donations to fight ObamaCare. Guess I'll make a donation.

You're welcome. I'm sure you're already aware of them but just in case you're not Newsmax.com covers the conservative point of view really well and is always an excellent source of information no matter what political persuasion we come from.

Good morning to you too Ips. Ha ha ha I see we're in our usual fine form this morning.

However, let's at least tell it like it is. I'm a moderate. That's M...O...D...E...R...A...T...E.

Merriam Webster's definition:

Main Entry: mod·er·ate
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-d(ə-)rət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin moderatus, from past participle of moderare to moderate; akin to Latin modus measure
Date: 15th century

1 a : avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits <a moderate drinker> b : calm, temperate
2 a : tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b : having average or less than average quality : mediocre
3 : professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
4 : limited in scope or effect
5 : not expensive : reasonable or low in price
6 of a color : of medium lightness and medium chroma

— mod·er·ate·ly adverb

— mod·er·ate·ness noun

Ips, still can't take you anywhere my Brother ha ha ha. Let's take a closer look at the REST of the definition of "extreme" and not just the part which you believe substantiates your argument.

2 archaic : last
3 : situated at the farthest possible point from a center <the country's extreme north>
4 a : most advanced or thoroughgoing <the extreme political left> b : maximum
5 a : of, relating to, or being an outdoor activity or a form of a sport (as skiing) that involves an unusually high degree of physical risk <extreme mountain biking down steep slopes> b : involved in an extreme sport <an extreme snowboarder>
synonyms see excessive
— ex·treme·ness noun

Hmmm ... forgot those pesky little parts about being "archaic" and "farthest possible point from a center" did we?

I especially like the synonym "EXCESSIVE." Was that your picture next to that?

Shouldn't this entire post be better placed in political discussions??