Text 8876, 126 rader
Skriven 2006-09-24 11:41:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9373.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <OfSdnfIEsZYbFYnYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <ias8h215u1mkv8qhn3tqknc5np6t6ominh@4ax.com>


Josh Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:01:03 -0500, Carl <cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Amy Guskin wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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)?  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.  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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> You're kidding, right?  The media waited until just before the 2000 
>> election and was all over Bush's DUI.  They even had daily polls that 
>> tracked the effect that the revelation had.  There was a bump that went 
>> away almost immediately because no one cared about what happened 30 
>> years ago.
>>
>> As to the car crash, that was covered on ABC news the first election 
>> cycle too.  Unless you're accusing her of murder now (and I think that 
>> it would be irrational to do so without something to actually suggest 
>> it) the most reasonable response was that back then it was investigated.
>>
>> As to whether Clinton would have been given a pass ... he was for a long 
>> time.  The whole Lewinsky thing was apparently out there for weeks with 
>> no one reporting it until Matt Drudge did.  Before this few people had 
>> even heard of Matt Drudge.
> 
> Weeks is a long time?

In today's news environment?  Absolutely.


>> As to twelve minutes at the school... it's not something that I'm prone 
>> to being particularly upset about.  There are a lot of other things that 
>> bother me more than that.
> 
> If it were only that twelve minute absence -- a cerebral hemorrhage,
> say, or a seizure -- it would mean nothing. But in fact it was a
> demonstration of the man's complete unsuitability for the job. And
> like Amy I find it disheartening and dispiriting that the American
> public could elect someone so manifestly incapable.

No use going on about this one.

> 
>> As to Laura Bush moving out of the White House... I hadn't heard and to 
>> be honest whether it's true or not, I'm glad I didn't.  After hearing 
>> waaaaaay too much of the Clinton's personal lives, I'd rather not hear 
>> about it.  Why should I care where Laura Bush is sleeping?
>>
>> This seems like a lot of fuss over very little of consequence.
> 
> The point is that one might have said the same thing about Monica. The
> press made a big brouhaha about that one and the family discord that
> ensued, and said nothing whatsoever about Bush's spat.

First, as I've said before... I couldn't care less about Lewinsky.

Still, I think that having an affair in the Oval Office with an intern 
is substantially different than having a spat with your spouse (if 
that's even true, I don't know).  In a world that makes Paris Hilton a 
celebrity because of her sex tape, you expect the press to take a pass 
on that one?  You don't think the press would ever again show the same 
level of restraint towards such things as they did for Kennedy do you? 
Nope... sex sells and these days, selling trumps everything.

Now...Clinton lying under oath bothered me a lot more.  Realizing he'd 
do that made the whole lying directly to the public in television seem 
entirely in character.
                                                                               
             
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)