Text 8741, 140 rader
Skriven 2006-09-21 16:13:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9238.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <MqidnZ4kFKKtlI7YnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<1155498642.569827.315080@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com><1155541553.581894.307270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com><0001HW.C10


"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"


>>>  The democrat purrists are mor
>> concerned about civil rights for terrotists and cuttin and running in 
>> Iraq
>> than confronting terrotists and the Republicans are revelling in 
>> pork-barrel
>> budgets, with corruption as an issue for both parties. <<
>
> I won't even dignify the first part of that with a response -- it's so
> dismissive and incorrect that I wouldn't know where to begin (and it's 
> akin
> to me saying "The Republican purists are more concerned about torturing
> people who turn out to know nothing and in some cases are even completely
> innocent than human rights")

A comonly made charge from the Left, esp RE guantanamo bay, AKA the "gualag 
of our time" according to Amnesty International, who should be non-partisan 
but with that overblown comment proves it isn't.

This topic is about the coming election and influences on it.  When trying 
to get into the mind of the electorate as a whole, nuance and diversity are 
lost and a simplified view of a group's POV is the rule of the day.  If you 
think that Democrats are viewed differently than what I'm putting forward, 
please offer your pwn reasoning.

Take an inventory of recent leftist rhetoric from the point of view of a 
casual news-consumer.  What I come up with is: The democrats want out of 
Iraq yeaterday.  The democrats are complaining about US treatment of 
detainees at guantanamo, opposing coercive interrogation techniques that 
don't sound a whole lot like "torture" and oppose Bush admin wiretaps of 
convos between known terrorists and parties inside the US.  The alternative 
to Bush's dogged and tired "stay the course" is an unappealing mishmash of 
"consultation and coordination with US allies" but no distinct plan to 
consult and coordinate *around*.  Individuals may have ideas but as a group 
the democrats appear vague and antagonistic

What I take from that is much concern for the rights of the bad guys and no 
concern for actually winning the war that has been thrust on the US.  I 
recognize the possibility that my own opinion is biasing but it's what I 
see, as should you.


> -- but regarding corruption for both parties,
> have you seen the Center for Responsibilitiy and Ethics in Washington's
> annual survey of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress?  It's here:
>
> http://www.beyonddelay.org/
>
> You'll note that only three of the twenty are Democrats.  A whopping
> seventeen are Republicans.  Of course there is corruption on both sides of
> the fence, but overwhelmingly so on the Republican side.

I acknowledge that the "corruption" issue hits Republicans harder.  But not 
exclusively.

That's why I say that if the Dems cleaned up their act on foreign policy, 
they'd be poised to recapture both houses of congress.  They haven't and 
show no sign of change.  I tend to think it's too late for that kind of 
about-face anyway.  Not before the 2006 election.

This is where the 2006 of democrats differ from the 1994 Republicans.  With 
the Contract with America as their centerpiece, the 1994 Republicans offered 
a clear, distinct alternative and specific policy alternatives.  The 2006 
Democrats remind us they're the alternative but their primary identity is 
"not-Bush", which doesn't give anything positive to vote *for*.

-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

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