Text 8826, 175 rader
Skriven 2006-09-22 13:31:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9323.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <uma8h2lunmm43107p33pm4dc4d9d27mm5a@4ax.com>
@REPLY:
<MPG.1f4b2f2e987c644b98972b@news.west.earthlink.net><1155690632.218605.182870@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com><v4CdnZAimscq5

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:35:02 GMT, Amy Guskin <aisling@fjordstone.com>
wrote:

>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:56:21 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
>(in article <70q6h2dln6i144kfn1le04tvlg6c66cn9n@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:51:47 -0700, "Vorlonagent"
>> <nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:0001HW.C137FDAA024C5B74F0284530@news.verizon.net...
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:36:39 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
>>>> (in article <86SdnUjGE9w6lY_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> That said, Ms. Clinton's crucial measure is if she can rise beyond the
>>>>> idology of her party to control terroism, which would be easier for her 
>>>>> than
>>>>> any republican.  There's a whol media establishment that will give her a
>>>>> pass that would never let up on a republican. <<
>>>> 
>>>> This was a joke, right?  Because every study ever done on the subject by
>>>> non-partisan interested groups has shown that the Clintons have garnered 
>>>> more
>>>> negative press per capita (per 'offense' if you prefer) than ANYONE else 
>>>> in
>>>> politics, ever.  While I just read something at Media Matters yesterday 
>>>> about
>>>> how Bush repeatedly gets a pass from the press, specifically on his low 
>>>> poll
>>>> ratings (he's as low as Nixon ever got, but all the press wants to say is 
>>>> how
>>>> he's doing fine, and in fact got a bump from his 9/11 speech).
>>>> 
>>>> So I'll just assume you forgot the smiley emoticon there, because that HAS

>>>> to
>>>> be a joke.
>>> 
>>> The (Bill) Clinton Administration had one really bad "offense" (Clinton 
>>> lying under oath when sued for sexual harassment).  So a division of the 
>>> admittedly large MSM attention it generated by 1 will give a misleadingly 
>>> high number.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, the MSM has nourished a continual drumbeat of scandal 
>>> reporting against the Bush admin from before Bush took office to now (brief

>>> letup after 9/11 lasting about 3 months).  The New York Times drove 
>>> hysteria 
>>> over the Valerie Plame outing to get something like a special prosecutor on

>>> the case, only to find that investigating the leak evoked a backlash 
>>> against 
>>> a reporter's ability to keep their sources secret.  The Times felt it was 
>>> ot 
>>> on the scent of Bush Admin worngdoing, which looks now to be closer to a 
>>> feud between the Colin Powell State Dept and the White House.
>>> 
>>> Now consider Ms Clinton's time in the senate.  Has the MSM been hostile? 
>>> Not that I've seen.  Some Republican sniping, but that's to be expected and

>>> isn't "media"
>> 
>> You seem to have been reading a different Times than I was. The Times
>> was full of nonstop scandal accusations against Clinton, who was
>> accused by the Republicans of everything from tying up an airport to
>> get a haircut to trashing the White House to rape -- I wish I could
>> say I was joking, but that's the literal truth. <<
>
>What about murder?  Don't tell me the Times entirely missed the crazy Vince 
>Foster allegations!

Damn, forgot about that . . .

And then there was Travelgate . . .

And Al Gore picking up the wrong phone, at great (ten cents?) cost to
the taxpayer . . .

>>> Comparable (except
>> insofar as they were a lot less likely to be baseless) accusations
>> against Bush received little if any coverage -- his illegal stock sale
>> (cf. Whitewater), for example, or his cheating during the Presidential
>> debate.<<
>
>It amazes me how much of Bush's shit that actually _has_ a basis in truth 
>isn't picked up by the mainstream media.  How about the drunk driving arrest 
>in his 20s or 30s (can't remember which)?

Two of them, IIRC.

>  And how about the recent item 
>whereby Laura Bush was found to have been staying at the Mayflower Hotel, 
>having at least temporarily moved out of the White House?  Wayne Madsen wrote 
>about that one on his website.  You _know_ that if _Hillary_ had moved out of 
>the Clinton White House, even temporarily, it would have been reported in 
>every single mainstream media outlet, and probably also the Star, the 
>Enquirer, and the Weekly World News.  But the Bushes, mysteriously, get a 
>pass on all of this.

Yep. Hell, I didn't even know about it.

And I suspect that they're overlooking another and possibly related
story, because Bush has acted at times like he's drinking again --
goosing the German chancellor(!) and so forth.

>  Has _any_ mainstream media outlet written about Laura's 
>youthful car accident that killed the boyfriend who'd recently broken up with 
>her?  All of this is above board, real stuff.  But the Bushes seem to be 
>under some sort of protection, in much the same way as Hollywood did it in 
>the first half of last century, where the studio system kept bad press from 
>ruining their stars.

The Bush's play, as Bush Sr. put it, hardball. And look at what
happened to Rather -- he, or his editors, made a single mistake, and
his career was over. So the press is /very/ careful. But no one fears
that the Democrats would retaliate over a news item.

>And the point that no one has taken up, that has had me shaking my head in 
>disbelief for five years: imagine how the press, and the Republican Congress 
>would have reacted if it was Bill Clinton who went to a photo op at an 
>elementary school after the first plane hit the WTC, and who then _continued 
>to sit there_ for over twelve minutes, reading "My Pet Goat," _after_ being 
>told that the second plane had hit, and we all knew what was going on.  (It's 
>often reported as seven minutes, but that's the most 'photogenic' section of 
>that video clip -- it was actually twelve minutes plus change from the time 
>Andy Card whispered in his ear until he got up and left the classroom.)  I'm 
>still astonished that he was re-elected after that spectacular failure of 
>leadership, but less astonished after reading Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled 
>Again" (http://tinyurl.com/hqkdb), which details the theft of the 2004 
>election.

Astounding, wasn't it? What the supposedly anti-Republican press did
instead was to buy into the spin, to build him up as a hero of the
hour because after this monumental failure of leadership and his
pathetic aimless wanderings in Air Force I (I wanted to go back to
Washington but they wouldn't /let me/ and I got mad was the
explanation given by the President of the /United States/) he read a
speech that someone had handed him and was set up with a bullhorn for
a belated photo op at Ground Zero.

And they did the same sort of thing during the campaigns. Every time
Gore made a minor slip, e.g., the details of some trivial classroom
engagement, the press would jump all over him and run articles saying
he had a credibility problem. Bush, meanwhile, made misstatement after
misstatement, and they just shrugged it off. And then they /ignored/
the fact that he was wired for the second presidential debate.

And when Gore won the debates all the headlines ran "Bush does better
than expected in debates."

Not to mention that they completely ignored the Blair Memo. Completely
ignored it.

We might as well be living in Soviet Russia.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
                                                     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)