Text 8795, 115 rader
Skriven 2006-09-22 13:20:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9292.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C1395EF9029F2A01F0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY:
<1155541553.581894.307270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com><0001HW.C105E6BD0053FA6EF0284530@news.verizon.net><MPG.1f4b2f2e98

>> 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!

>> 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.

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