Liberal/progressive think tanks? Think 13%

[SoCalDem]

We all know the "darlings" of C-Span/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/FOX..
AEI-CATO-Heritage, but RARELY (if ever) do we see much of the "other side" represented.

Do "our" think tanks so all that much thinking? or are they being shut out? Do they TRY to get representation, or sit like shy girls, lined up on a bench along the gym-wall...hoping someone asks them to dance?

The whole think-tank issue is driving public policy and media saturation of these "ideas" . These freaks sit around coming up with the most outrageous stuff, and then peddle it around to "content-hungry" 24-7 outlets who are only too happy to give them the airtime.

I had high hopes when Howard Dean took over the DNC. I had HOPED that since he was a victim of the slime machine, he would step up and pressure media outlets for a fairer representation of opposition ideas. Either di dis NOT, or we have a bigger problem than ever.

Even though MOST of the issues these tanks have supported, have turned out to be totally WRONG, they stilll get the lion's share of time, and their "stars" have been turned into media-darlings, with crossover recognition. They are on radio, in print, and in our faces 24-7..






.........................................................................
this from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tanks#United_States_think_tanks
Though there are think tanks in every part of the political spectrum, conservative think tanks outnumber their centrist and liberal/progressive counterparts. For example, the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) released a report in 2006 which listed the 25 think tanks which were mentioned most often in the mainstream media news in 2005. The most-mentioned think tank was the centrist or center-left Brookings Institution. The next two most-mentioned think tanks--the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, are conservative while the fourth, the Cato Institute, is libertarian. Of media citations, a plurality, 47% were centrist, while 40% were conservative and 13% were progressive. <7>

Conservative

Modern neoconservatism is associated with some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The Claremont Institute and the Heritage Foundation are more traditional conservative think tanks.

* American Enterprise Institute
* Claremont Institute
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
* Project for the New American Century
* Heritage Foundation
* Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace
* Hudson Institute
* Goldwater Institute
* National Center for Policy Analysis
* Pacific Research Institute

Liberal

On the other side of the political spectrum are think tanks such as the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), Institute for Policy Studies, the Progressive Policy Institute and the Center for American Progress. Economic Policy Institute is a prominent liberal think tank whose research emphasizes interests of low-income and middle-income workers. Other think tanks include Brookings Institution, a center-left organization.

* Brookings Institution
* Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
* Center for American Progress
* Center for Economic and Policy Research
* Center for Progressive Reform
* Economic Policy Institute
* Institute for Policy Studies
* Political Economy Research Institute
* Progressive Policy Institute
* Public Citizen


snip

[EFerrari]

1. And they astroturf other venues, too. They write propaganda

in book form and peddle it as scholarly work or history. They're on BookTv every weekend with this stuff.

Edit: In fact, as I type, there's a Thug bot peddling a book on BookTV. :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

3. Book TV-BAH!!

Right now they have that idiot Bridgett Gabriel..who was glowingly indroduced by not one but TWO military guys IN uniform.. She thinks that invading/bombing Iran is a peachy-keen idea..... and CSpan is giving us at least an hour of her ravings..for the umpteenth time..

on CSpan1-- ta-dahhh we have Bush blathering on about something or other..

.................................

her little "tank"

American Congress For Truth | Brigitte Gabriel
I have trained speakers, I have written for speakers, Brigitte Gabriel is the most effective and passionate speaker I have ever heard.” ...
www.americancongressfortruth.com/profile.asp - 18k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/profile.asp

[EFerrari]

4. Damn you, Brian Lamb!

:spank:

[KoKo]

19. Brian used to "seem good".....he then turned to Dark Side...don't know what happened

but either he was threatened with losing C-Span...(Cables refused to carry) or something else. He's but a shadow of the crusader he once was...even though he used to be so fair ...no one knew which side he was on. Then ..the Bushies came in and there was "THE TURN." :shrug: (at least that's what I saw ...as a long time C-Span watcher.)

[EFerrari]

22. I think he's the best interviewer I've ever seen.

And maybe they have snapshots of him with Hillary Clinton or something. It's just weird. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

24. Newt Gingrich happened . . . and everything was turned around.

Brian Lamb/C-span was getting ready to introduce C-span III --
and it all went down the drain.

At that time, I used to get C-span I/USHR about 24 hours a day -- and C-span II/Senate about
10 hours or more a day.

C-span was wide-ranging and you would often see women on C-span . . . about the only place you could!

My cable company began to eat into C-span II, preempting it for sports programming.
It was gradual, but consistent. Finally, they were down to about 8 hours a day with the Senate when it was totally removed from the basic schedule in May 2006. It is now only available on a higher tier of service . . . and the reason is because they had to urgently transmit it in High Definition!!!!

You don't have to pay more for it . . . you simply have to get different equipment and there is a monthly charge for the equpment -- and of course you have to deal with "Cable Guy" --

This is Comcast now controlling our cable . . .
and the also changed the channel line ups just a few days before the 2002 or 2004 election!!!

Nice people -- !!!!

So basically, we have only C-span I available on our TVs now and if I want to watch C-span II, I have to go to the internet.

Newt Gingrich also seemed to have a big threat over Brian's life --
you have to remember that C-span is a product of the cable companies --
If C-span creates too much discontent among the GOP . . . they could have problems!!!
I think Brian compromised . . . feeling a little bit left of C-span was better than nothing.

But, truthfully . . . C-span is but a mere shadow of its former self!!!

And . . . very . . . hesitatingly . . . liberal ---

[Poiuyt]

7. Absolutely. That's why they need $500 million for the Bush Library

It's not for really nice shelving. They're going to start a new think tank where they can write about how wonderful Bush was.

[KoKo]

12. And write Editorials for the Major Newspapers....plus hold countless Forums shown on C-Span..

There's no end to the stuff they concoct and they also work with Corporations. They need to be investigated. But, who will do it? :shrug: We can't even get our Judicial or Executive Branches investigated and our Corporations have run amok and only get hand slaps and fines for major corruption...a few light jail sentences thrown in for the smaller fish.

[EFerrari]

16. Exactly! They're skilled manipulators.

And we have to hone our skills if we're ever going to compete with them.

I'm up for it and wasn't kidding when I said we need to start a think tank to counter this stuff. :shrug:

[annabanana]

2. I'm not sure the Progressive Policy Institute counts..

(too much PNAC crossover for my taste)

[SoCalDem]

6. They are pretty much all incestuous and inbred

To "appeal" to everyone, they have allowed infiltration..

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. The problem with *our* think tanks

Is that they are almost all vertically oriented: womens issues, environmental issues, labor issues.

None of them are set up to for the flip side of AEI or The Heritage Foundation's mission. Ridicule conservatism, undermine it, criticize it, slander it, demoralize it, destroy it and make radioactive the very term "conservative".

There need not be any overriding issue beyond that one. Read "Being Right it not enough".

[EFerrari]

8. Let's start one, Jeff! The American Integrity Institute. aka

Aii!

lol

Damn, we should write a proposal! I have no problem ridiculing, undermining, slandering or criticizing these criminals. :evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

9. I never thought I'd see a day that the Brookings Institution was regarded as 'liberal' ...

... or anything close to it.

Kevin Pollack?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pollack
Bill Frenzel?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frenzel

[EFerrari]

10. At least they're not actively hostile!

lol

[OHdem10]

11. Need to start an organized --letter writing campaign

to each News Channel, pointing out the discrepencies in coverage,
how the Righties monopolize all Media. Give logical and factual
arguments in repectful tone.

How do you think the RW got to this point. Plain old fashioned
advocacy for their side. Not to mention the all out campaign
smearing "liberal". Uaed this put Media on guilt trip. The
Media sucked up and the rest is history.

[KoKo]

13. Surely by now our Dems know they don't get media coverage...so what's up

with that? Like you I thought Howard Dean would be influential in getting good spokespersons on for the Party. But look at who we have...after all this time, it's still Donna Brazille, Harold Ford, Bob Shrum and a few young voices that no one knows who are still too green to be effective.

One does have to wonder if the "two party is one party" system is really the truth of it. One being the Good Cop and the other being Bad Cop but both working for the same police department. It's hard to understand with the growth of the Progressive Internet with fact checking sites like Media Matters and so much background information on issues that we don't have more forceful people speaking out in the media. Instead it still seems much handwringing blaming things on Republican obstruction and keeping eyes on poll numbers that might have a whiff of Bush & Repugs numbers taking a tick back up.

If there had been PUSH BACK against the MSM's lack of reporting, wouldn't we out here have heard about it? Why are they so silent? And, I don't even want to think anymore about how they've lagged behind on voting rights and exposing the past three elections illegalities and frauds with the machines and the Repug Ops. Yet, we still can't even get HAVA revised or a bill to mandate that Americans have the Constitutional RIGHT to vote.

Something is very, very wrong that these issues are not talked about...it's only jobs and healthcare. When the root of the problem is overlooked.

[SoCalDem]

14. the "root" of the problem is nitroglycerin to the media.. It will BLOW them up

and they know it..

Their existence is precipitated on our being mindless drones and rushing to the "market' to buy the doo-dads they advertise..

They make a substantial amount of their income every election cycle when the lobbyist (their customers) funnel huge amounts of 'capital" to them through the grubby fingers of the politicians they OWN. The politicians "trade" favorable legislation in exchange for the lobby-money, and the big winners? Media & business & business & media and mediabusiness & businessmedia and the mega-leviathon-uberconsortiums who own them all. Piles of cash dumped into their laps of luxury, and all they have to do is keep the public uninformed, well-entertained and mind-numblingly compliant.

[BlooInBloo]

15. It's funny how DUers so happily use the destroyed term "think tank"....

... As far as the useful type of *think tank*, as opposed to "lobbying group", it begins and ends with RAND.

[SoCalDem]

17. I used it because that's how they are listed

[KoKo]

18. Let's get some Recommends for this post...Think Tank List....and what it means. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

20. Follow The Money...

Most of the "tanks" have some corporate agenda...and as the party of big business, these tanks were just fancied up PR outfits to give an "official" voice on issues of their interest. And since there are more Repugnican lies that need to be spread, the more they rely on "think tanks".

Look closely at these tanks and see whose funding them...either through a corporate or family trust. It's also turned in a mini-welfare state/government in waiting as many of these tanks have provided paychecks to either out of work politicians or paid-for spinner and "experts" whose only job is to spread the latest message.

While its easy to castigate the right wing tanks, the Brookings and Center for American Progress were home to many Democrats over their years out of power.

[KoKo]

21. True....but I still think someone needs to look into their financing and tax advantages and how

they affect our Congress and the National Dialog. There's a "spider web" of influence there that goes way past what our Constitution was designed to deal with. The influence of them is much like the Religious Right and indeed many of the RW Think Tanks did the masterminding that led to the Rise of the Christian Far Right. The FUSION between the RW Evangelicals and the AIPAC Internationalists.

AND...that they do so much "War Gaming" tied into the Pentagon is also disturbing. :-(

[KharmaTrain]

23. I Agree Koko

But we run a slippery slope here...that damn First Ammendment.

These "tanks" have become defacto shadow governments, tax shelters and a welfare system for right wing hacks. I see them as another lobbying group that needs to be removed from having such influence on policy and the beltway culture. The problem is that they sell "ideas" as opposed to widgets...how do you distance the "ideas" or speech without censoring it?

I firmly believe there needs to be an investigation into the funding games many of these "foundations" operate under. Abramoff wasn't some renegade...there are many Abramoffs in the GOOP coven that operate "non-profits" that are nothing more than money laundering schemes to pay off political hacks.

Cheers...

:hi: