Concise version:
I see no evidence the media is "liberal" as right-wingers always say it is.  Do you?

Prolix version:
As I watch Chris Matthews chat it up with Ann Coulter and Liddy Dole with the backdrop of a handpicked cheerleading squad, I wonder once again, "What liberal media?"
Nation columnist Eric Altermann used the rhetorical question for the title of a book four years ago.  He used an examples of conservative bias in both the broadcast and print media to such an extent as to utterly debunk the "liberal media" mantra of the Right.  As I read that book, I kept nodding, "Yes, yes, that's just what I've been thinking!"
A couple of years later David Brock, who was an insider in the pro-Newt/anti-Clinton campaign, wrote a comprehensive history of media power structure since the Goldwater capaign.  He called his book The Republican Noise Machine. I knew what Brock was talking about from reading other sources, but Brock put all the information together with spot-on precision.  Even knowing the why and how of the "liberal media" lie, I am still shocked at the extent to which the lie circulates, and that so many of those accused of being "liberal" (as though that were a bad thing) are in on the joke.

Case in point The New York Times.  In the same article as the Old Grey Lady detailed how Bush "won" the 2000 election, they inserted a cryptic passage in the middle of the article admitting that Al Gore had in fact won the 2000 election.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0604-20.htm

(The New York Times article in question is available online for a small fee. I don't know if I can hyperlink to it, but it's out there.)
They New York Times is hawkish, pro-Israel, and pro-Wall Street. They carry more right-wing columns than left-wing columns. Yet everyday the NYT is used as a whipping boy by the Right.  I can only conclude the NYT is in on it with the right-wing power structure.  You could view the NYT and FOX News as marionettes in a "Punch-and-Judy" show.  The same corporate/right-wing puppeteers pull the strings for both, while it appears to the public the "Fair-and-Balanced" FOX network is duking it out with the "far left" New York Times.  The difference is, in the old "Punch-and-Judy" puppet theatre, the audience knew it was comic burlesque.  Media consumers today still seem oblivious.

You can cite media that is "Left" or "liberal" and does not claim objectivity.  I set this poll up with stark left-wing bias.  What access do I have to the levers of power?  That is the crucial question.  Here are examples of some media that will tell you they are "liberal" or "left."  What access do these media outlets have to the levers of power: commondreams.org, The Nation magazine, Air America Radio, Mother Jones magazine.  There is no "liberal" television network.  CNN and CBC get called "liberally biased," but I see no evidence this is really so.  Failure to condemn gay marriage is not evidence of "liberal bias," sorry Bernie Goldberg.  If a media outlet is "liberal on social issues and "conservative" (that is, Wall Street favoring and hawkish) on economic and political issues, they are Right, not Left. Same goes for individuals. "Lifestyle choices" don't count, IMO.

Prior to the 2000 election, I would have voted for option 3.
Since the theft of the Presidency in 2000, and the shattering of our democracy, I must now vote for option 5!
I wish I could say I was engaging in hyperbole, but I'm not.

You could view the NYT and FOX News as marionettes in a "Punch-and-Judy" show.  The same corporate/right-wing puppeteers pull the strings for both, while it appears to the public the "Fair-and-Balanced" FOX network is duking it out with the "far left" New York Times.  The difference is, in the old "Punch-and-Judy" puppet theatre, the audience knew it was comic burlesque.  Media consumers today still seem oblivious.


After several years of meditating upon this question, a grasshopper wondered the same thing about the "right-wing" RNC and  the "left-wing" DNC, and was enlightened.

I think the media is about balanced.  I see many liberals in the media shooting there stuff and I see many conservatives doing there thing as well.  You got Liberal's Al Franken and Bill Mahr giving off there opinions left and left and you have Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson giving off there opinions right and right.  Although personally I'm ashamed to stand alongside Robertson and Limbaugh and if I were a liberal I wouldn't smile knowing Franken or Mahr was politcally in line with me.  The media seems to be moderate as a whole, or even perhaps whig.  Ok so they're not whig, I was hoping for some ressurection of the very long forgotten party, so just forgive the bad joke.

Now ask me if I think Hollywood is liberal and I'll give you what I think anyway, from what I see.  Most movies I see now a days, and the way I follow directors/actors/screenplay writers  Liberal's seem to dominate for the most part.  I'd say 75% of Movies today if not more are written/directed/acted based on liberal beliefs and principals Vs the 25% of movies with more of a conservative touch.  Just me though, I really have no stats or proof, just the simple fact that I watch movies all the time.  

Conservatives don't complain about Reagan, Schwarzeneggar, and Sony Bono sticking their noses into politics!
::)

Bill Mahar is like a lot of Hollywood-types. He is not a "liberal" as in "Left."  He is a playboy libertarian: the government shall pass no laws restricting my pot and my porn, but I want that giant tax cut, too!  Poor people?  Poor people who?
"...It's like voting Republican, I know it's the smart thing to do, but I'd rather be over there with the pot-smoking Democrats."
--Bill Mahar, c. 1996

Unlike so many of those playboy-types. Bill Mahar is intelligent. He awoke when the politics of the absurd started running amok in the late '90s with the Clinton impeachment.  His take on it was, "WTF? So the President likes a BJ? I like a BJ.  We all like a BJ, what's the big deal?" That was in keeping with the playboy libertarian position.  My guess is that the Clinton impeachment caused Mahar and his ilk to take a closer look at the right-wing and the rest of the right-wing hogwash and look at the damage the Newt Deal was doing to the country.  I think this brought the plight of less fortunate folks to the attention of a lot of Hollywood glitterati and hence a degree of social conscience.  I see a much different political P.O.V. from Bill Mahar today than I did ten years ago.  Mahar was an early victim of the censorship monkeys after 9/11. Getting fired from NBC for expressing a political opinion probably soured him for good on "conservatives."

Dennis Miller is a peculiar case.  He had a similar persona to Mahar. Wise-ass hipster, whip-smart wit, and kind of a dick.  Miller ran in the opposite direction and became a most rare breed, a witty fascist!  I used to watch his show on CNBC out of some kind of masochism. Most of the time I wished I was in the audience sto I could rush the stage and beat the livng snot out of him...BUT every show Miller came up with a remark or two that made me bust out laughing!

IMPORTANT DISTINCTION--

Let's not equate "liberal" and "Left."  My generation, Gen-X, grew up to be what I call right-wing liberals.  The media would commend, "Increasingly today's young people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative."  This used to make me fume!  I would say "Yeah, my generation is full of greedy libertines with no social conscience!" I was then, and increasingly so as I approach middle age, more socially conservative* than my peers, and more economically liberal.  For example, I think no-fault divorce is destructive to families, but I also support universal healthcare.  Growing up in an extremely dysfunctional family with parents straight out of the hippie movement, I saw had a different perspective on social liberalism.  I remained socially liberal in general, but I knew first hand how disasterous it can be in the hands of twisted and irresponsible people!

*that's true conservative--cautious and commonsensical, not hysterical and reactionary!  In 1990, I voted for John Silber (D) for governor when my "liberal" peers voted for Bill Weld (R).  I saw Bill Weld as a corporate playboy, dangerous to the health of Massachusetts.  I saw Silber as an unappealing sourpuss with a social conscience.  I would rather have a beer with Weld any day, but we don't elect people to go bar-hopping with them. 

The deciding issue for my "liberal" peers was abortion.  Silber was "pro-life" and that did it!  "We cannot have a pro-life governor, he doesn't respect women's rights.  Weld is pro-choice, so he does!"  Yeah, that's great if your a yuppie broad from Wellesly!  If you're a poor girl, good luck getting Weld to give a crap!  I don't care whether you're from tenaments of Roxbury or the backroads of Colrain!

My peers--and the Boomers as well--didn't seem to consider it would be easier to pull a camel through the eye of a needle than pass an abortion restriction bill in the Massachusetts state legislature!
::)

IMPORTANT DISTINCTION--

Let's not equate "liberal" and "Left."    My generation, Gen-X, grew up to be what I call right-wing liberals. 

Tell ya what.  As the self-appointed defender of right-wing liberal Gen-Xers, I'll stop doing that (I've mostly stopped :) if you'll stop equating "conservative" and "right".

Once upon a time, the Elephant party was both.  It's certainly no longer conservative. 

It remains to be seen whether the Jackass party will go. My bet is that it goes left, not liberal.  Clinton/Lieberman will probably be the Jackass '08 ticket.

The deciding issue for my "liberal" peers was abortion.

Interestingly enough, that was the same issue for me - although it was euthanasia.  Around the time of the Schiavo debacle was the time the Elephant party decided it was better off casting its lot with the religious right, rather than those who sought to conserve/restore the vision of the founding fathers.  (Economic) conservatives were effectively purged from the  (Elephant) wing of the Party within months of the Schiavo debacle.  Doesn't matter how many trillions of dollars we gotta burn in the process, as long as the fundamentalists are kept happy, because there are more fundies than conservatives  in the swing states.

A rightist holds that his body belongs to the state, not himself:  Anything short of "pro-life" (in the case of religious right movements, "God" is the unofficial head of the State, with the convenient addendum that the Leader speaks on God's behalf :) positions ultimiately denies the State of the full use of its property.

"In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but  multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes  the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has  limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that  are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter  but only the State."
- Benito Mussolini

A leftist holds the same belief:  The fruits of a man's labor belongs not to himself, but to others. 

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability."
- Karl Marx

Neither liberals nor conservatives have representation in either of the two wings of the (demopublican) Party.

  It's the First Amendment against Money.  That's about as simply as I can put it.  The liberal media is only liberal because people don't know where to work...

  I think that conservatives who are upset about the "liberal" media are actually just envious.  After all, the media only seems liberal because, according to conservative principle, the people are buying the better product in larger quantities.  That must mean the people like the "liberal" media more?  This is no surprise, since we know that our culture has been reduced by the conservative "create-a-market" philosophy to an entertainment-dependent nation.  After all, liberals are more fun. We have better drugs, and I only partly jest on that...

  "Yeah, but somebody has to pay for it...."
                                            ~Davester's Late Grandpappy

  And that, I submit to you, is what's wrong with the media in general.  I mean, look at what counts as "news", and what ratings are worth.  It seems to me that the conservative need to make everything operate according to a certain economic principle is what drags down journalistic media.  The truth is too expensive, or it doesn't interest enough of the market...

  If we can step away from this economic principle, and compel ourselves to the idea that the news is good for us even when it's bad and demand boring integrity out of our information providers, they may try meeting the market that way, too.  Instead of a time-slot war, an "integrity" war among news outlets...  Now, that would be enough to make me cry with hope for the future...

  But I'm an American.  I don't always get accurate news, but it's the news I deserve.  Anyone seen the "Naked News" yet? (I'm unsure about posting the address to a website where the news readers get nekkid...uh, I get the news I deserve...
                                                                         

  go ;)...

                                                       
                                                                                         

here in washington we get a pretty good dose of both, what with the washington post (every headline was about either no-bid contracts in homeland security, rice not asking for a ceasefire in lebanon, one thing after another making the admin look like Chucks, which aint hard) and the washington times, whose headline was, i think, "9 israeli soldiers die in hizbollah attacks." the times is WAY WAY right, i find it hard to take seriously.

as far as t.v. stuff goes, i dunno, i have a hard time thinking of it as news. i listen to the sunday talk show roundup on c-span radio sometimes and the whole presumption behind just about everything that goes on there is a kind of status-quo, don't rock the boat, simplistic worldview of USA good, and the rest of the world are pretty much beloinclothed primitives in need of america's benevolent colonial guidance, or beadyeyed terrorists bent on our destruction. it's really pretty scary, the demagoguing that goes on on t.v. although juan williams (the token fox news liberal) is pretty much a national hero. a part of me wishes he wouldn't legitimize fox by even appearing on it but he's definitely no alan-colmes-style pushover.

I voted panders to fascists. There are a few (VERY few) privately owned news outlets that try to be centerized. The thing is, in this country, things are so far right-leaning that anyone that is close to the center is called left-leaning. Our local newspaper (the Rutland Herald) TRIES to be central. This one guy I know (a die-hard Republican) calls it the "Russian Herald". Of course the guy doesn't have a clue what left-leaning means.




Cat

I voted "panders to fascists".  When I think of "the media" I don't thbink about the editorialists, right or left, but the supposedly "hard news" types and investigative reporters.  It seems to me that they bend over backwards, of late, to give the far right every break, and they don't "investigate" very hard.  Thus, by keeping us common folk in the dark (at best) or misinforming us (at worst) they are creating an opportunity for the fascists to prosper.  They let the BIG LIE go unchallanged.

i'm having trouble actually voting. i don't really see the news as having a political bent per se -- although at the moment they're pretty right, by and large -- but the way they simplify things is sorta outside politics, more into this area of fairy tale and myth. it's just sorta not political, more like mollifying bread and circuses.

i guess "neo-liberal" would get my vote, if it was on there. they're sorta, um, blandly globalist, the media.

Prolix version:
As I watch Chris Matthews chat it up with Ann Coulter and Liddy Dole with the backdrop of a handpicked cheerleading squad, I wonder once again, "What liberal media?"


Here is where one major mistake is being used in your justification.

Chris Matthews is mostly known as an opioninist and commentator, not as an un-biased news reporter.  Most of his interviews and reports are done as commentaries, not as "unbiased news reporting".  Trying to say he is Right-leaning is about as surprising as saying that Dan Rather was left leaning.

In fact, almost any time you have a "Pannel discussion" type of format, there is a bias being pushed, from one side or the other.  It may be Right Wing (Bill O'Riley), Left Wing (Bill Maher), or even both at once (Hannity & Combes).

But none of these shows are "News Shows", they are all commentary shows being run on news networks.

With the exception of CNN Headline News, there is no true "News Channel".  They are all a mixture of both news shows, and opinion and commentary shows.  And even CNN-HN has changed their format in recent years, departing from the "30 minute news reports 24 hours a day" to a format much more in keeping eith their parent channel, CNN.

Myself, I tend to skip the commentary shows, unless they are having on a guest or a topic that really interests me.  In the last 2 months, the only one I can think of that I watched was a report done on the bill that John Walsh was pushing (which the President signed yesterday).

The claim was never really made that the "News Media" is biased, as much as they are biased in how they report some things.  For example, NBC a few years ago in one report listed Earth First as an "Environmental protection organization".  Then a few minutes later, listed the Cato Institute as a "Radical Right-Wing Organization".

Even Bernard Goldberg in his books stated that the bias was much more subtle, and often even the people who were writing the reports did not realize that they were putting their own beliefs and opinions into what was supposed to be an impartial report.  They were simply slipping into a first person commentary, and not trying to look at it from a neutral point of view.

Once I seperate the "Commentary" reports from that which claims to be "true news", it tends to be fairly neutral.  And bias put in tends to be accidental, and not purposefull in my belief.  This follows to reason, if you consider somebody who is a Liberal and writes news reports will be more favorable to groups like Greenpeace and Center for American Progress, and would put down that Cato Institute is a "Radical Right Wing Organization", because that is how they see it from their perspective.

  Yeah...

  If we polled everyone we considered "media" in this country, I think we would find that the more visible they are, the more liberal they tend to be.  However, I also think that we would find a pretty fair demographic balance.  After all, plenty of conservatives get paid to write about what's wrong with blowjobs and neckties, cigars, women lawyers, and Arkansas.  It's not like the market isn't there. The consumers just don't care...

I agree with Davester. "Conservative" and "Right" are not the same thing.  Sen. Barry Goldwater disowned the Gingrich bullies before he died. Yes, Goldwater, who said, "Extremism in the name of liberty is no vice."  Goldwater said "extremism in the name of liberty," not "extremism in the name of tyranny," or "extremism in the name of theocracy."  Goldwater certainly didn't see the conservative solution as shipping off our jobs to Third World countries, and then telling the displaced jobless, "F**k you!"  That's what Gingrich is all about.
Goldwater might have been an old dog, but he could see right through the neo-con tricks.

If Goldwater was in politics today, I would still disagree with him, but it would be an honest political disagreement. The current Republican party is based on a doctrine of lies designed exclusively to steal the wealth of the world from the people and consolidate in in fewer and fewer hands.

I don't think Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are either "liberal" or "left."  The are both right-wingers enthralled to corporations.  I don't care if Hillary is pro-choice or if Lieberman has a "D" after his name.  Support of a nationalized heathcare program is not a "liberal" or a "leftist" idea anymore.  It is a sensible and necessary idea regardless of whether you are "liberal" or "conservative."  The old way of doing healthcare based on employer provision is dead because employers  do not hire employees for careers.  Employees are increasingly "free agents."  American corporations would be much more competitive if they did not have to worry about paying for healthcare as European and Japanese corporations don't. Conservatives should favor nationalized healthcare if they favor the competitive marketplace.  Liberals always have favored nationalized healthcare because it is more human and it makes more sense.

However, the media still portrays the healthcare debate as "conservative versus liberal."  A more sensible portrayal would be "sane versus insane."  The "Rightists" are the ones who root for the bad guys in Dickens novels and think free immunization shots for children will make Baby Jesus cry.  The "Rightists" also seem to set the media's agenda.  For every rational voice speaking in favor of national health, there are four hysterical voices screaming about "communism" and "personal responsibility."

The only reason why Ann Coulter gets on the air is she's an entertainer.  But wait a minute, Michael Moore is also an entertainer.  Moore makes provocative statements to irritate the other side, just like Coulter does.  How many times has Michael Moore been on talk show panels compared to Ann Coulter.  It is because Ann Coulter is a cheerleader for the corporate Rightist extremists who own the corporations that own the media. Michael Moore is a cheerleader for the opponents of these very corporations.  Michael Moore ridicules "stupid white men."  Ann Coulter ridicules everybody except "stupid white men," and "rich stupid white men" at that.  Ann Coulter is extremely catty.  Like all women who got ahead by giving head, and rely on their sex appeal for advancement, Coulter hates other women.  Other women are competition.  Conservatives may value competition, but Ann Coulter is not really a conservative. She is a Rightist.  Rightists hate competition the way a vampire hates the sunrise.  If you really think Cato or Heritage favors competition for Wal-Mart or Pfizer...if you really, truly think so, then you are dumb.

There is no "hard news" on the cable news networks.

One vital point--when I ask "What liberal media?" I do not refer only to so-called "news media."  The entertainment media is not "conservative," but it is "Rightist." You no longer see favorable portrayals of the working class on television and rarely in cinema. Those portrayed inthe entertainment media as "middle class" would be, in the real world, quite wealthy.  Advertising is a Rightist construct, not a Left or liberal one.  Advertising is there to breakdown rational thought and get people to do its bidding.  This is the same dynamic behind the American Right's other pet institutions: talk radio and evangelical Christianity.

What do you get when you remove the "Christian" from the "Right"?  You get Howard Stern and the porno industry!

The fascists run the media. I'm utterly, totally convinced.

The fascists run the media. I'm utterly, totally convinced.



Anybody who doesn't draw that conclusion either does not know what fascism is, or is in denial about it!

I voted panders to fascists. There are a few (VERY few) privately owned news outlets that try to be centerized. The thing is, in this country, things are so far right-leaning that anyone that is close to the center is called left-leaning. Our local newspaper (the Rutland Herald) TRIES to be central. This one guy I know (a die-hard Republican) calls it the "Russian Herald". Of course the guy doesn't have a clue what left-leaning means.




Cat


I've done a lot of work at different colleges throughout the United States.  Private colleges seem to be more conservative and right leaning as you call it from what I've seen and public universities seem to be more liberal and left leaning. I mean it's not a cold hard fact or nothing, just my observation over the years in the colleges I've visted and talked at.  Idea's seem to run differently all over the country,  sometimes I've found myself stuck in an area where conservatives rule and liberals drool, but you been to Los Angeles lately? You better at least pretend to be liberal, or you're liable to get shot, I know I was. 

I voted "panders to fascists".  When I think of "the media" I don't thbink about the editorialists, right or left, but the supposedly "hard news" types and investigative reporters.  It seems to me that they bend over backwards, of late, to give the far right every break, and they don't "investigate" very hard.  Thus, by keeping us common folk in the dark (at best) or misinforming us (at worst) they are creating an opportunity for the fascists to prosper.  They let the BIG LIE go unchallanged.


Get Kevin Smith to report the news, just the opposite would happen.

I've done a lot of work at different colleges throughout the United States.  Private colleges seem to be more conservative and right leaning as you call it from what I've seen and public universities seem to be more liberal and left leaning. I mean it's not a cold hard fact or nothing, just my observation over the years in the colleges I've visted and talked at.  Idea's seem to run differently all over the country,  sometimes I've found myself stuck in an area where conservatives rule and liberals drool, but you been to Los Angeles lately? You better at least pretend to be liberal, or you're liable to get shot, I know I was.   


Colleges and Universities have often flipped back and forth.  In the early 1990's, Conservatism swept through UC Berkley, and the campus made some major changes.  You saw a lot of student groups almost vanish, and everybody was trying to join groups like "Young Republicans".  But that only lasted a few years, and by the end of the decade it was back to flower power, and naked guys studying on the campus lawns.

And it is not just Los Angeles that is insanely Liberal, it is the entire state.  Remember, Governor Arnold is probably the most Liberal Republican in public office.  Yet in that state, he is often portrayed as one step away from Hitler.  The state is more likely to elect somebody like Tom Hayden or "Moonbeam Brown" then anybody else.  They put pressure on the closure of military bases, then complain because they money and jobs from the servicemembers went away with it.  They want the Federal Government to do something about illegal immigration, but still give them drivers licenses, pay for their medical care and schooling, and refuse to put their own National Guard troops on the border.

California is an absolute mess, and I consider myself lucky to have "escaped" from the state in 2003.  I can't see myself ever going back there to live.

Sh*t, I clicked the wrong one.  I wanted to pick that the media was politically balanced because I didn't think anyone else would pick it and I didn't want it to be lonely.

Sh*t, I clicked the wrong one.  I wanted to pick that the media was politically balanced because I didn't think anyone else would pick it and I didn't want it to be lonely.
i got it for you.  ;) but somebody else already voted for it.

i got it for you.  ;) but somebody else already voted for it.



Yeah, I noticed that after my mistaken clicking.  Well, it has 2 votes, so it's not lonely now.

Colleges and Universities have often flipped back and forth.  In the early 1990's, Conservatism swept through UC Berkley, and the campus made some major changes.  You saw a lot of student groups almost vanish, and everybody was trying to join groups like "Young Republicans".  But that only lasted a few years, and by the end of the decade it was back to flower power, and naked guys studying on the campus lawns.
We have a Republican Club on campus at UMass too.  I used to call the the David Spade Society.  They could not post their meeting locations on their flyers because hecklers would show up.  This bugged me.  I urged anybody I could not to bother them and to refrain from heckling the right-wing lecture circuit clods funded by the Bradley and Olin Foundation.  Several years back I went to see Dinesh D'Souza.  I don't know what for, the guy never has anything insightful or interesting say.  I sat their and listened figuring Dinesh might say something that resembled reality.  Didn't happen. The problem was the jerks that were heckling him.  I mean, not catcalls, but the numerous disruptive whiners around campus who walk around with hurt feelings all the time.  The went to D'Souza so they could get their feelings hurt and yell.  I asked them after the talk how they would like it if Howard Zinn gave a lecture and these David Spade-type clowns started shouting at him.  The comparison is lame.  We have Howard Zinn, they have Dinish D'Souza!
I would love to live in Berkeley.  I could afford it if I saved up for about a million years!

And it is not just Los Angeles that is insanely Liberal, it is the entire state.  Remember, Governor Arnold is probably the most Liberal Republican in public office.  Yet in that state, he is often portrayed as one step away from Hitler.  The state is more likely to elect somebody like Tom Hayden or "Moonbeam Brown" then anybody else.  They put pressure on the closure of military bases, then complain because they money and jobs from the servicemembers went away with it.  They want the Federal Government to do something about illegal immigration, but still give them drivers licenses, pay for their medical care and schooling, and refuse to put their own National Guard troops on the border.
Say, man, I know you say you don't listen to the right-wing media, so I don't know why your rhetoric sounds like their talking points.  I mean, "Arnold is the most liberal Republican isn't even FOX News," that's like Trinity Broadcasting!  Anyway, I would never compare Arnold to Hitler.  Hitler was a slightly built man with a small moustache.  There's no comparison.
;D
I volunteered for the Jerry Brown campaign in '92.  One of our slogans was "One Moonbeam Outshines A Thousand Points of Light"!  Yeah, "Dare to Care" was a dumb motto, but if his conservation programs had been enacted, we would have put millions of Americans in good jobs working to improve the infrastructure, and there would have been no "Enron."  Can't have that, now can we?

California is an absolute mess, and I consider myself lucky to have "escaped" from the state in 2003.  I can't see myself ever going back there to live.

California is a mess because there are too many people trying to live where there is not enough water, because you have another B-movie actor as governor, and they let Enron play hell with the state's energy supply.  You do know the connection between Arnold and Enron, don't you?