»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Gingrich - the next target
| The Alley |
|
Gingrich - the next target |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/newt-gingrich-slams-pelosi-for-allegedly-threatening-ethics-disclosure/2011/12/05/gIQAYL86WO_blog.html Typical for a party that cannot run on it's own record. |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
People that have negative baggage shouldn't try to become the president if they don't want that baggage to become public. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
IN that case, God himself wouldn't be able to run for president. Point out any president or contender that had no negative baggage, Ess....easier finding Yeti.  The question is not whether or not they have negative baggage....they all do. The question is how much and how it will be portrayed by the media. Obama was given a pass by the media over things another person would have been barbequed over. Clinton was given a big pass over his infidelities and charges from multiple women with regards to everything from unwanted advances to attempted rape. Now, every republican candidate who takes the lead not only gets the bullseye by the democrats but also by the press eager to make it front page news. I don't think the negatives of any candidate, or president, should be swept under the rug. They should all have to account for their actions. The definitive word there is ALL. When one like Obama gets the pass while others, who happen to all be republicans, are attacked like a ham sandwich at an Overeaters Anonymous convention, then there is something wrong....as if knowing there is something wrong with the biased way the press presents the news were not public knowledge. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Not Newt Not Mitt We're simply stuck with those willing to take the heat and that's an ever shorter list. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284652/mitt-vs-newt-charles-krauthammer?pg=1 . [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (12-06-2011 02:02 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Interesting question Mike. Should the media treat politicians equally and report controversial issues of public importance fairly and responsibly or do they have a first amendment right to report what they think sells? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why does that need to be an either or question? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Is there a third option Mike? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That doesn't answer my question. Why either/or? Why not both? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. Think about it, Mike. You're going to call it Free Speech and THEN insist everyone do it your way? Sorry, old friend, but it can't be both. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Gotta tell you, Ron. I don't understand either one of you. AL l I said was the playing field is not level and should be. Grinch makes the claim that the press can either be fair or sell more newspapers, which I don't understand at all and you claim that my belief that there should be equality is me trying to force the press to do it MY way. Well, you are right. My way is that both should be treated equally and if you feel that's being unfair of me, then so be it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You mean why couldn't they freely decide to report fairly and without bias? They could Mike (though I've never met anyone totally free of bias) but they're equally free to choose not to and if your claim is true they obviously choose not to. I suppose that you could force them to be fair and balanced, by introducing some kind of fairness doctrine, but forcing someone to do something sounds suspiciously like infringing on their freedom to me. You can't have freedom of speech then complain when people use it and you can't force people to say what you want to hear while maintaining their freedom of speech. The two things are mutually exclusive - you either have one or the other. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, you have me shaking my head in amazement. OK, you guys win. it is unfair of me to believe that the news reporting agencies should be fair. It is unfair to believe that they should display impartiality in their coverage. I apologize for such irrational behavior. Have a nice evening  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don't think it's unfair of you Mike, in fact I actually agree with you, the media should be fair and balanced I was simply pointing out that there was a potential cost involved. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Cost involved? The only cost is that they live up to what they claim to be. What is the cost that they cover individuals, regardless of party affiliation? You stated that they had a choice between being fair or making more money. Does that mean covering both parties instead of one would cause them to make less money? Why? How do you come to that conclusion? They are the ones to claim to have integrity, to be moral and fair. It's not up to me or you to tell them they have to be. They should want to be, if they want to be considered as being worthy of respect. They are showing themselves to be nothing but shills for the Democratic party. I can't make them be honest and fair, nor do I want them to be forced to. I am simply pointing out what they are. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sorry guys, as far as I'm concerned somebody's sexual activities so long as they are legal are pretty much private. I couldn't care less. What bothered me about Clinton was the duplicity involved. I could understand why he wanted to lie about it — to protect his wife and his marriage — and thought that he did a bad job of it all around. I felt sorry for him, sorry for her and sorry for the intern, and felt that making a big deal out of it was understandable political theater. The problem with understandable political theater is that it's difficult to see beyond the short term advantage, of which there seemed a great deal to be gained, though not so much as was apparently hoped at the time. Part of the fallout was the fall of Mr. Gingrich and a series of other Republican leaders who felt that it was a good bet that nobody would look at what they were doing while they were accusing the President of immorality. It appears that they got caught up in the backlash. Was the President wrong? Yes, he was wrong. To blame the press for the reaction of the public suggests that the reaction of the press is not pretty predictable, however. It is pretty predictable, otherwise the stance of the various political parties toward various parts of the press would not be as predictable as it is, would it? We would not have Democrats growling about the conservative press and the talk shows, nor would we have the conservatives growling about the main stream media. We would not even have these positions to identify as old or familiar positions. They are both old and familiar, though, aren't they? In planning political strategies, both parties understand what role the press is likely to take, and the complaints only become serious when there has been some sort of serious miscalculation made by one side or the other. Here we are talking about the miscalculations the Republicans made about President Clinton about the impeachment (which they pulled of nicely, I think) and the terrible miscalculation they made about the nature of moral high ground in politics. While folks were clear the Clinton acted badly, they also liked him a lot and his popularity grew through the whole scandal. The more bizarre and grundyish the accusations became, the more foolish the accusers looked, especially when it became clear that they were getting more and more hypocritical by the minute. The net effect was to hurt Clinton but also to hurt the Republican power structure and to make them look like serious hypocrites. Many had to leave office under sexual or financial clouds; sometimes both. We are still dealing with the fallout of that situation today. The statements of the Republicans about the nature of marriage and society, the sanctity of marriage and fidelity and the evils of non church approved sexual behavior remain as proclamations ringingly proclaimed throughout the land. Many of these proclamations are at odds with actual public behavior, many are at odds with the behavior of the actual legislators who make the proclamations and who say they hold the values. While I believe that hypocrisy is one of the great old fashioned American values, and believe that history supports me in this, I would not expect many of my fellows to agree with me here. To blame the press for the miscalculation in their approach to President Clinton and to their insistence that Officials be held to standards they they as legislators had frequently been unable to meet, the Republicans of that era and the more conservative Democrats who were foolish enough to support them have created a trap from which it is difficult now to extract themselves. Certainly it seems very foolish to attempt to do so by blaming the press for acting like the press rather than as the political sycophants the conservatives (in this case) would rather see. Forty years ago, to be fair, one might have made the same observations about the more hawkish Democrats. This is not a one party foolishness. It seems to have something to do with needing to have somebody to scapegoat for severe political miscalculations. To suggest that Speaker Gingrich is not at fault for at least a substantial piece of his own mess is close to willful blindness, the same way that one might have said the same about Gary Hart in the — was it? — the 1988 elections. And when one says that he's never been a lobbyist and so obviously benefited from his connections as a former speaker while pretending to offer his expertise as a historian to financial Institutions that desperately needed Republican support at the time, one has to wonder exactly how smart he believes he is in relationship to the general public; or how stupid he believes they may be, rather, in relation to him? And why such a historical opinion might be worth the amount of money he charged when there might be much better pure historians than he available at a significantly lower cost? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: My mistake Mike, I thought you wanted to discuss the subject of biased reporting in the media. Yes there is biased reporting in the media - I agree. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: What do you mean? My understanding was that at this point it was Gingrich who was running, and that he was trying to deal with his own record. He was apparently quite outspoken about other people's records, real and exaggerated, yet quite thin skinned about his own. Why shouldn't the man run on his own record? And why shouldn't journalists investigate him the same way as he encouraged them to investigate Whitewater, President Clinton's bedroom habits, and Barney Frank's sex life? I don't particularly like the investigative habits of the press about bedroom material in general, but Doctor Gingrich was aggressive about his demands that these avenues be explored when he felt he could exploit the results to his advantage. It is a foolish man who makes such accusations who doesn't lead a blameless life himself, and it is a foolish man who tries to blame others for creating the atmosphere in which it may feel like a guilty pleasure to point out Doctor Gingrich's own hypocrisy. Doctor Gingrich's base will, of course, forgive him anything. He is a man who is capable of inspiring that sort of loyalty, and he is a fluent and convincing speaker with whom I have almost complete disagreement. That doesn't mean that everybody does or should. I have trouble with his advocacy of such things as apprenticeships in the way he's set them forth. An apprenticeship is supposed to teach somebody a craft and to give them status and a leg up to mastery and an entry to a profession with a specific skill set and an honored tradition. Carpenters, plumbers, upholsterers, vintners and barber/surgeons were all crafts that began with apprenticeships. The apprenticeships that I haver seen suggested by Dr. Gingrich were part-time low paying jobs, like janitorial work, with no complex skill sets and no actual level of mastery involved. They are, near as I can tell, a way of using child labor as a way of undercutting the cost of low-paying jobs that are customarily taken by adults on the low end of the poverty scale to support families at poverty or just above poverty wages. This is one of the reasons, by the way, that child labor laws were made illegal early in the last century, in addition to the fact that it stole childhood from children, and sometimes put children into positions where they were in actual danger. The thoughtfulness of Doctor Gingrich has seldom failed to astonish me. I can say this with all sincerity. He spurs me to suggest adjectives that the most broadminded of people here would shudder to consider. Doctor Gingrich, while seeking to limit knowledge of the details of his previous record, certainly seems to be willing to forge ahead in the creation of a new record that may even surpass his old in its potential for the requirement of suppression, that is if his current suggestions about blaming others for the need to keep his record quiet are to be believed. Ms. Pelosi is apparently at fault for the problems with the record, not because she has threatened to say anything about them, but because it's to Doctor Gingrich's advantage to play the victim here. As I recall, the congress that got rid of Doctor Gingrich was a Republican one, wasn't it? Or do I have that wrong? The Democrats have plenty to answer for, but the quality of the Republican Presidential field is not one of them. Blaming the Democrats for these guys is simply a waste of time, and trying to smear all the Democrats and all the newspapers in the world will not make Newt Gingrich into a silk purse. You're going to have to find a candidate that the American people think is better than Obama, and as good a job as you've done tearing down Obama, and as much as I may agree with some of the criticisms you have, and as many criticisms as I might have on my own, The Republicans still have a HUGE problem on their hands here. This doesn't mean they won't solve it. This doesn't mean they can't win the Presidency or control the power balance in the country or both. But the Republican field looks pretty strange, on the whole, to almost everybody but the Republican die-hards, and even a lot of them seem to be scratching their heads. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Typical for a party that cannot run on it's own record Yes, that refers to the Democrat party, Bob, for obvious reasons. Looking at the state of the country from when Obama took over to now says it all, from national debt to unemployment rates, it is clear that Democrats will not be running on Obama's achievements. That leaves little more than trashing whoever runs against him. I have little doubt that this will be one of the dirtiest presidential campaigns ever, and it will be coming from the Democrats as their only weapon. Want a taste? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/michele-bachmann-vs-8-old-192125455.html An 8 year old was used to create a gotcha moment with Michelle Bachmann as the mother got it all with her video camera and then got it on the internet. An 8 year old....and this is just the beginning, I'm sure. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You thought she was the candidate you wanted to vote for, Mike? You think her position makes sense? It's a gotcha moment for those folks who support that position, perhaps, and it may feel strange to them, but for most of us; no, not really. We already thought she was unlikely and this doesn't change anything. It catches her out in the absurdity of one of her most absurd places. The Republicans need a real candidate that can appeal not only to the far right base, but to the center where most of the votes are; and that's a stretch that's increasinly hard to make these days. At least that's my contention. Ms. Bachman's position was way out there the whole time. It really doesn't take an eight year old to remind people of that. The fact that an eight year old could, well. . . . Be out of town for a few days. Have a good time. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, she was not a viable candidate, Bob, which makes their actions even more non-sensical....they are just covering bases, throwing dirt on whatever Republican candidate they can. There will be plenty to come...stay tuned. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I had other issues with him, yet regarding Herman Cain, what does history show a Democrat can do and still get to be president . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: That is because Clinton and Obama succeeded in becoming presidents. When you succeed in becoming the president, then people will defend you more vigorously through a scandal. If you can't even make it through the job interview without already having scandalous baggage and setting off the security alarms, that is probably a good reason why your presidential ambitions should be fried on the spot. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
When you succeed in becoming the president, then people will defend you more vigorously through a scandal. You would have Bush rolling on the floor laughing at that comment, Ess...  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I think the issues regarding Clinton were known beforehand. I don't think Kennedy was much of a secret from the media either. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bush's mistakes and the damage leftover were/are much more devastating and long-lasting. Why would people be expected to treat him the same way as Clinton or Obama? But none of that matters when talking about candidates. Candidates aren't presidents; they haven't been voted for or proved themselves at all in that role, so they don't have any presidency or presidential reptutation established to fall back upon. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-11-2011 11:42 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I see. Bush's record of drinking in college was given a lot of coverage by the press and Democrats. Obama's self- admitted about taking drugs in college was given almost none. Obama's dealing with Resko should have been open to a lot of investigation. It wasn't touched. His details of his buying of the Chicago house should have been discussed. It was ignored. His associations with past terrorists should have been given coverage. It wasn't. Bush was called unqualified for only being a governor for two terms of the largest state in the continental U.S. Obama's lack of qualifications was ignored. Every negative point about him was ignored or swept under the carpet. Without a doubt, those points attached to a republican candidate would have been front page news and yet Obama was given a pass on all of them. You know that. Everyone knows that, whether they want to admit it or not. That's fine but don't talk to me about equal scrutiny for all, please. It ain't so.... Republicans are targeted by the mainstream media, whether they are candidates or elected. Democrats are given free passes. That's just the way it is. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I don't know, this seems to be an article of faith that is difficult to tamper with. I don't happen to agree with it. I think one might easily build a case either way, though it would be unpleasant to air it. Rather than go into it in depth, a few low points might include some of President Reagan's passes from the press around Iran/Contra, some of his gaffes around our relationships with the right wing in Germany (praise for the SS left me a bit cold), and the fairly crass dealing with the Iranians around the timing of the release of the American prisoners. The suggestion that Dr. Gingrich might be an acceptable candidate for president seems to be a bit odd, given the way he was forced out of power by his fellow Republicans, and the suggestion that he might not be a candidate that the Democrats wouldn't find it a relief to face next year seems a bit odd. Dr. Gingrich has enough problems with Republicans who remember him from his days in congress; he needs to get past them first before he has to worry about something so distant as the Democrats. The Republicans have a problem because they don't have enough Republicans who can stomach any of their candidates to come to a clear decision at this point as to who might be more popular that Mr. Romney. And Mr. Romney has substantial problems with finding enough conservative Republicans who will actually believe his conservative credentials. I'm not sure what I believe about him myself in the same way that I feel uncertain about President Obama's political posture or backbone. The Republicans need an actual candidate of substance that they can pretty much all agree is a candidate of substance that represents Real republican values, whatever they believe they happen to be at this time. I don't know whether anybody left in the field represents such a person from my point of view, but my point of view is naturally quite biased. More importantly, I see no evidence that the Republicans themselves have found a candidate to rally around, one they most of them can trust and support. Don't blame the Democrats for that. I wish we were powerful enough to accomplish something like that. If we were, maybe we could accomplish a consistent Democratic Legislative agenda instead of being thwarted at every turn. It doesn't really make sense that we're so strong and devious as to be able to accomplish the one, and so unorganized and weak that we fail to accomplish the other, now, does it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No one is blaming Democrats for Republicans not having a strong candidate to rally around. That's the Republican's fault and I blame them solely for that. They allowed Obama to get elected in the first place for the same reason. What I am blaming them on is (1) the sleaziness of their attacks on any Republicans that may present a challenge to them and (2) the way they use the eager and willing mainstream press to be their accomplices. I feel confident that, if God himself were the Republican candidate, The Democrats and nightly news would bring up the killing of thousands of first-born babies, the "eye for an eye" philosophy, and the allowing of his Son to be born in less than sanitary (or stable) conditions by a woman claiming to never have messed around, as if anyone would buy that story. Further investigation would produce several men who would swear that Mary had been known to enjoy the taste of the grape and they "might have" had affairs with her. Dan Rather would be brought out of exile to interview these stalwart citizens. There are plenty of things wrong with ALL candidates and little need to go around inventing more and using insinuation techniques in attempts to influence public opinion. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Well, there are plenty of things wrong with all the candidates, Mike; but this is a Republican on Republican discussion, isn't it? The media are reporting what everybody's saying, yes, but the majority of the criticism's still what the Republicans have to say about themselves. Nobody has to make things up about any of these guys, Democrats or Republicans to make a telling comment. I don't want to go over the various things folks have said about Republican candidates, but there's really not much need to slant any of it in the fairly clever way you slanted the Christmas Story. The point is well taken as well: Anything the least bit critical one says about an icon to a true believer will be wounding. Language is difficult to find that is kind enough or soothing enough, even when an attempt to do so is made. There are no Republican candidates that at this point appear to me to present a viable challenge to President Obama. There may well be further on. There may also be third party challenges that could tip the balance seriously further on in that election; it is by no means a done deal. To my mind it would be a better Democratic move to try to offer covert support to whichever Republican candidate will most likely appeal to the most conservative of the Republican base, because they would likely throw a larger number of Independants to the Democrats during the General election. Trying to knock off a weak candidate would only be helpful for the Republicans in the long run. That's my perhaps overthought and over-devious thinking on the matter. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
but this is a Republican on Republican discussion, isn't it? - BobK Actually, no, Bob. As I said in post #2.. The question is not whether or not they have negative baggage....they all do. The question is how much and how it will be portrayed by the media. The discussion is how negative Democrat issues are given a pass by the media and how negative Republican issues are jumped on by the same media, who take their marching orders from Democrats. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: We Democrats tend to make the same complaints about the press being more or less unduly influenced by the Republicans, Mike. You may remember conversations about some of the Republican talk show hosts, about the Washington Times and some of the publications I've mentioned that don't research their facts or that cherry-pick them or take them out of context. My opinion is that it is not such an even playing field as such a description might indicate, however. When politicians screw up seriously, I believe the press is pretty much there no matter which side the politician is on. They were on Gary Hart for his foolishness in daring the press to catch him in an affair, for example. They were on LBJ for his refusal to to listen to the protesters, even though he was one of the great liberal voices of his time. They were on Jimmy Carter for trying to deal with oil and human rights, and I think dealt with the man badly. They certainly gave him a very hard time for all sorts of reasons. Clinton was roundly criticized for his morals and his politics from both sides of the aisle, and certainly in the press, who were all over him. That some would have wished that the criticism would have been more severe in the case of all these democrats seems fooish to me. In some cases, the criticism was career ending, and in almost all cases it was serious and it was based on — in the case of the major media — based as much on solid information as they could get it. The fact that some of the information may have been distorted came out later, and was reported by these papers as well. I don't see that the treatment the Republicans had was all that more damaging except that some of the allegations the Republicans made were more patently false. The number of voters registered that shouldn't have been registered is apparently very small, though the Republicans have whipped up a large amnount of hysteria on the subject. The actual number of qualified voters thrown off the rolls, on the other hand, is fairly high, and is disproportionately composed of minorities who tend to vote for the Democrats. The number of these were very high in Florida prior to the 2000 election according to Greg Pallast, and he suggests that that was also the case in a number of other swing states as well. It was very difficult to get much coverage for that story here in the United States, in direct contrast to the suggestion that Mike was making, which was that anti-Republican stories were given lots of air time and print inches. Were Mike correct, you'd find things working out the other way around. Were Mike correct, you'd find the stories coming from England about the lies worked out between the English Government and the Bush administration about yellow cake Uranium and aluminum tubing would get wall to wall coverage here. They did not. They were scarcely reported. I can't say that I think the American Press is the best in the world. I don't believe it is. I do believe that the view that Mike is suggesting is true, that there is national press plot to dis the Republicans and please the Democrats, is straightforwardly in contrast with the facts. Were this true, I, as a Democrat, would be pleased with with way the Press deals with my party, and I'm not; and I would be pleased with the way that the press deals with Republicans, and I'm not. Among the many assumptions in the suggestion that the Democrats give the Press their marching orders would have to be that there is a Democratic point of position that seems firm enough to issue orders from. I'd be curious what that position might me, and look forward to hearing what the common position is that issues the orders that hold together the common positions of these publications. In fact, I'd be pleased to hear what those common positions might be, especially in language concrete enough to cover general editorial policy of these information sources. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: For example? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting link, Reb, but fairly worthless. First of all, in politics where one can hear Dinah Washington singing, "What a Difference a day Makes" in the background, bringing up an article over two months old doesn't mean a lot. Perry got favorable treatment. Cain got favorable treatment. Ok...so what's happened since? Perry is now considered to be a bumbling fool and Cain, a serial masher now out of the campaign. If I wanted anything to prove my point, your link does it nicely. It also doesn't specify where this positive or negative coverage is coming from so it's a little difficult to point out what network news is doing it, doesn't it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Examples? Well, we can go ahead and leave out Clinton, which would take a book. John Edwards? Mainstream media completely downplayed him until The National Inquirer and other news agencies brought it to the attention of the people and, even then, they touched it only lightly. COmpare his coverage to that of Cain's, where bankrupt women show up with expensive lawyers, speaking of how they really like Cain and are only coming forward to save his soul. THAT gets a lot of attention. Edwards saying he had no contact with the woman whose hotel room we was found in at 3 a.m. didn't even get asked about that discrepancy. Gore and his involvement in in the Swedish car company reaping millions thanks to murky behind the scenes governmental dealings. Bob brings up Gary Hart. Ok, if we are going into ancient history, JFK, quite possibly the greatest feminine rover of all times and the author of Viet Nam was made a hero of the country. Bush criticized for drinking in college and Obama ignored for using drugs. Bush was barbequed for the cost of Afghanistan while no one has mentioned that, under Obama, Defense Dep't spending in Afghanistan has increased by 50% and troop strength has doubled. Bush blasted for Gitmo and noone saying a word or mentioning Gitmo under Obama, even though he promised to close it 2 years ago. Bush blasted for the Patriot Act while, under Obama, a law passing that will allow citizens to be arrested and held without any charges whatsoever. ....and on and on and on.... As my old high school history teacher used to say, "If you have to ask for examples, you ain't been paying attention." |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If you have examples Mike, then, you disprove your own point. The only real question is what does 'giving them a pass' mean? The information is available, what further information do you have that the public doesn't? What your real complaint seems to be is that in spite of the information, voters don't vote the way you want them to. Or, conversely, because of the information, voters don't vote the way you want them to. Your complaints about Afghanastan for instance, are that Obama did there, exactly what he said he was going to do during his campaign for the presidency. We all seem privy to the information don't we? If your complaint is that liberals aren't complaining about it, then you're dead wrong. They are and have been. I have a friend, a conservative, who, like me, has been watching 'The Walking Dead' on AMC. He got angry this season because he said the show is just liberal anti- gun propaganda. Why? Because a child was shot in a hunting accident and one of the survivors was a victim of friendly fire when someone mistook him for a zombie because he was limping after having been injured. Of course, his premise is laughable because the entire ability of the survivors to keep from being eaten by the zombies depends on them having guns and being able to shoot them in the head. It is a culture entirely dependent upon guns. JFK doesn't count, neither does Eisenhower's daliances, because in that era, when the world was young and misogynist, those things just weren't discussed in the media because it was 'off limits' and just something men did. Gary Hart is the very best belweather because ut predates the bligosphere, the rise of Fox News, and should be representative of the so-called liberal media in it's heyday.... yet.... if it was truly a liberal media, it certainly didn't seem to mind eating its' Hart out, did it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What does "giving them a pass" mean? I gave enough examples. John Edwards is a perfect one. If you don't want to accept them, that's up to you. "The information is available"? Sure, it is. The mainstream media, along with the others, is supposed to present it. It doesn't, or tones it down in a way to make it look less important. Just take a look at the difference between the way the Tea Party and the Occupy groups are displayed. With the Occupiers, you have a movement in which crimes were committed, private property destroyed, rapes and theft occuring, and mobs prevented regular employees from getting to work. With the tea party you have someone who may or may not have spit at a congressman and someone who may or may not have used a racial slur. With the Occupiers you had people who freely confessed they didn't even know what their goals were....and yet if you look at mainstream media's coverage, the Occupiers are the ones to get favorable press and passes while the Tea Parties are presented as the unAmerican rabble rousers. Whether you care to admit it or not, Reb, I think you know that, if the Tea Party had been a Democrat movement and the Occupiers a Republican one, the coverage would have been completely different. That's just the way it is.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mike, LR seemed to have restated your thesis neatly a few posts back, using your own words to do so: quote: While the form of the case is stated in the present tense — this is what is happening NOW — and you are correct in talking about the fact that you are trying to prove or disprove the truth of something that is happening NOW, sadly the only evidence available for consideration is in the past. It is in the near past or the distant past. Even if it is happening as you write the news of your example down, it’s history by the time anybody reads it. Any example that’s real seems appropriate, doesn’t it? Any scandal that you know about is a scandal that hit the press. I wasn’t particularly interested in Kennedy’s affairs because I was caught up in the illusion of Camelot at the time, and the press was interested in selling that; just as many of them knew about Kate Sommersby during World War Two with Ike and thought that it was more important to sell the notion of Ike and Mamie Eisenhower waiting for each other, same as all the other soldiers were, for their girls back home. That was the story; the media sold it. Same as FDR and the degree of his disability from polio — more of a story than his affairs, to my mind, though possibly not to the minds of others. quote: Pardon me? We can leave out Clinton? Please tell me I am not included in that we, since you are definitely not speaking for me, or for a substantial number of other Americans when you come up with a corker of a statement like that one. There is a reason that this apparent non-event would fill the book you mention. Many of us believe it disproves notions such as yours entirely. The fact that the Major Media picked up a story from The National Inquirer and ran with it suggests that the facts won out over the reputation for sleaziness the source has had to bear for years. Were your assertion true, the story would have appeared in that paper and died there with all the Hitler lives in Argentina: His Brain Has Been Transplanted into A Transvestite Named Phyllis stories. Instead, it was picked up and investigated and reported on. I wish it hadn’t happened; it was as distasteful as some of the Gingrich stories, which were also followed up on. Coverage on either situation was substantially broader than that of Cain; and the coverage of Cain had more of a comic quality than anything else. I don’t know who has more negative issues. If you believe that the press covers more Republican negative issues there are several possible reasons for that. One would be that the press is biased. Another might be that there are more negative issues attached to the Republican Party, and that the Republicans are trying to blame the messengers for the news that they’re reporting. Now that I see the quality of the news that Republican biased news organizations report, it seems to me that the later is true, If I were a Republican based news organization, I’d want to print the truth and the true stories behind the news and give the actual facts that are apparently being suppressed by the media that still appears to stand as the media of record. My comments on the various stories printed by Fox news and the various flaws in their research have appeared here now for several years. My complaints about the various statements of our last Vice President and the lack of truthfulness in them — and many of these statements about Iraq and El Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction were reported by Fox as the truth — were later disavowed by President Bush himself. I could go on, but I need to do some stuff about the house. In the interests of reality, such things happen to Democrats as well. I would also like to know what proof there is that any major publication takes its marching orders from the democrats, and I’d be interested in knowing the sources of such allegations. I find them a touch far fetched. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think John Edwards is a great example. Let's take that one and compare it to your subject Newt. Edwards cheated on his wife while battling cancer. Gingrich cheated on his wife while battling cancer and served her divorce papers while she was in the hospital. What's Edwards doing now? What's Newt doing now? It's not a matter of the press giving a 'pass' that's bothering you... it's about voters. Your Republican voters are the ones that are, according to polling, giving Newt a pass. It's the Republican establisment that's barbecueing Newt, like the National Review and George Will, for example. When you talk about GW drinking in college (he must have been in college a reallllllly long time btw) and Obama's self disclosed drug use, what's the real difference? Or Limbaugh's drug addled brain? It's not about the information, or the sources, its about what the people do with that information, and one would think the so- called 'family values' voters would be more interested in intemperance and infidelity, but where's Newt? Where's Edwards? Where's Rush? I have to laugh now........  [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (12-16-2011 02:55 AM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Madame Newt is probably postponing his affinity for cross-dressing at bender parties until after 2012. Edwards is still having trouble keeping his pants on. And Rush is probably in flip flops, a pair of Speedos, and (my mind begs) a cabana robe--ready for a swim at his posh sanctuary in West Palm Beach. In the history of government, I've not seen operations focus on balanced or fair. It appears to be more of a "Who's on First," type of strategy. The media reflects that and I'm not sure why anyone would argue fairness within the spectrum of media. It's always has been malleable and I don't know how one would go about leveling the field without losing important elements to the nature of information. "Million Dollar Babies," is a good example movie about government manipulation paired with the free media of the (Great Depression) times. Newspapers, radio, and circus side shows. Things haven't changed, much. Have they |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
When you talk about GW drinking in college (he must have been in college a reallllllly long time btw) and Obama's self disclosed drug use, what's the real difference? None, really. Oh, one could get picky and say the drug use was a little different because it was illegal, but why go there? The difference was in the reporting of it in the mainstream media. They had a pretty good time of it with Bush, I recall, and I hadn't seen more that a sentence at most of a quote by Obama that he engaged in that illegal act....but why be picky, right? My turn to do the laughing |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Pardon me? We can leave out Clinton? Bob, you misunderstood the meaning of my sentence. I meant we can leave out Clinton because I'm not taking 6 or seven hours to go through the accusations of all the gals, the rape attempt, the lying to congress and the American people, etc, etc. No need to do it since it is well-known what happened there, even among Democrats. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No Mike, you still don't get it. The difference is in the constituency, not the reporting. Letterman, Jim Baker. What's the difference? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, den, you don't get it. The difference is I'm the reporting. You underestimate what slanted reporting, or lack of reporting, can do and how it can influence. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh, I'm completely informed about the results of slanted reporting : quote: |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I hope I don't have nightmares about Rush in a speedo.....thanks Reg...  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Gee, a poll conducted by a university professor condemning Fox news....shocking....not. That's why Fox is the most watched news program. People have this wild urge to be uninformed. Spare me, please |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you, RWood. Well said and straightforward. Mike, I know that it was the booze that was publicized for Bush minimus, but I believe the coke abuse was mostly kept fairly quiet. I think, by the way, if you weren't doing drugs and you were going to school during that time period, you weren't paying attention. I think there is some difference between taking the drugs and having an addiction to them, however, which is what the papers were reporting. If you think that occasional drug use in college is a problem that should keep a person out of office, once you have that information, you should vote accordingly. That would apply to President Obama as well as President Bush. An actual addiction provides a greater risk for a decision maker in office, however, and I've never seen information that President Obama was addicted to anything but cigarettes. Alcohol addiction and barbiturate addiction, by way of contrast, have a level of lethality associated with their withdrawal syndromes one doesn't tend to find in cigarettes. Nor, as I understand it, to pot. In other words, the downside of alcoholism is substantially higher, and the public has a more urgent right to know. In President Bush's case, this proved not to be a block to his election any more than President Obama's college drug use proved to be a block to his election. Should the public have felt a marvelous curiosity about President Obama's drug use, I'm reasonably certain the news would have been forthcoming. I can understand that everybody might not agree with me on that, but we have the Clinton experience to go by. Despite the massive coverage of President Clinton's issues and the reasonably minor coverage of any exculpatory material, the man's popularity kept growing through the entire fiasco. While Mr. Gore lost (according to the supremes) to President Bush, I don't know that the election would have had the same outcome had President Clinton been able to run for a third term. I don't know of any way of checking that out, either; but it seems entirely possible to me that Clinton might have won. The issue here as far as press coverage goes seems to me to be that the Republicans have put themselves in the position of running on values they can't live up to in terms of family values, sexual behavior and morality; and when they fail, they look like worse people than they are. Rush Limbaugh would only have looked like a man with an unfortunate drug problem, for example, had he not made such draconian suggestions about how addicts ought to be treated. As a result of his overblown stance, he is not only a man with a drug issue — which deserves sympathy and treatment and only after other measures have been exhausted some sort of legal intervention — he now also looks like a hypocrite and has reaped the whirlwind, so to speak. There are a significant number of other Republican scandals that follow this model. These folks have made themselves news by following the classic man bites dog formula. To have a reprobate do something sleazy is not news; to have a man who holds himself up as a moral exemplar do something sleazy is news. To blame the media for reporting the news only makes the sleaze factor appear more ripe and pustulant. The Democrats are fully capable of being as bad in terms of personal behavior, but for Democrats, to be gay is not the end of the world, to have been divorced is not wonderful but need not be fatal, and to be other than completely religious is forgivable. On the other hand, to be photographed having lunch with an oil executive may well be occasion for some fancy dancing. There are some fates too horrible to be discussed in polite company. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I think you probably mean to suggest there is some connection between the first sentence and the second sentence. For many years the National Inquirer was the best selling newspaper. Since they have become more concerned with accuracy in at least some of their reporting, they may not be faring so well. People do so love a good story, they're often willing to overlook things like reality to follow along. And Fox so often presents its entertainment in the form of things that appear to be news programs that it can be difficult at times to tell the difference. Most watched does not equate with most accurate. Timex may make one of the most popular brands of timepiece, but that doesn't make it the most accurate or the best. It's one of the watches many people in this country can afford and it's commonly accepted as good enough. In the case of Fox, the question to my mind is "Good enough for what?" |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Fox news has a first amendment right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
To have a reprobate do something sleazy is not news; to have a man who holds himself up as a moral exemplar do something sleazy is news. To blame the media for reporting the news only makes the sleaze factor appear more ripe and pustulant. I agree completely, Bob. I do not blame the media for reporting the news, rather that they report the sleazy only when it applies to Republicans, while downplaying or ignoring when applied to others. That makes them as sleazy as the news. And Fox so often presents its entertainment in the form of things that appear to be news programs that it can be difficult at times to tell the difference. Fox news is Fox news. It has nothing to do with talk shows or anything else. Just as Rachel Maddow or Obermann does not represent actual MSNBC news, neither do the Fox talk shows, which are clearly defined as being talk shows. Most watched does not equate with most accurate. I refer you to "Field of Dreams" and "if you build it, they will come." Apparently many do consider it worthy of watching and accurate. Surely if they kept discovering that Fox could not be trusted for it's accuracy, they would go somewhere else. The fact that they don't proves the point. ....as does every news agency, grinch. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Such a statement is hard to qualify, or quantify, but its ramifications are huge. Gosh! We can't know what they're not telling us about the Democrats because they're not telling us! This could be huge. But, wait a minute..... how do we know what they're not telling us about the Republicans? Between Rush's speedo and now this, I may never sleep again. I know I'm just being paranoid, but, am I being paranoid enough? What else should I be afraid of that I don't know about? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: True, though most news agencies would vigorously deny ever exercising that right. Fox news however have openly admitted, in a court of law no less, that they lie and distort news reports and vehemently defended their right to do so. I may be wrong but it strikes me that a section of the media that openly lies and distorts the news is far worse than those sections of the media who report the truth with a left or right leaning political bias. quote: Unfortunately, it proves nothing. People tend to believe what they want to believe even when what they believe isn't true or consistent with the facts. Those people will actively seek out likeminded people who repeat or reiterate their own beliefs; history is full of religious nut jobs proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh and even when the predicted date comes and goes they still aren't short of eager followers. If you build it they will come? Maybe, but if you tell them what they want to hear when they get there, even if it's a lie, they're far more likely to stay. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It's a shame, Mike, you won't simply apply that same laissez faire attitude to ALL the media. It would do wonders, I'm sure, for your blood pressure. After all, if the media "could not be trusted for its accuracy," surely they (meaning us) would go somewhere else (presumably to Fox?). My mother, bless her heart, sincerely believed she was at least somewhat psychic. She would think about a person and, the next thing you knew, the telephone would ring, with that thought-of person calling her seemingly out of the blue. She would dream something and, sure enough, it would come to pass. She would look out the front window just seconds before someone would pull into the drive-way. It was, she often said, simply uncanny. In truth, however, Mom was a victim of a very well documented human foible. She vividly remembered all the times she thought of a person just before they called because, well, it was a very memorable thing to have happen. She didn't remember all the times she thought of someone and they DIDN'T call her. Those times, after all, were unremarkable. Similarly, Mom didn't recall the dreams that were clearly just dreams or remember the thousands of times she looked out the window and the drive-way remained empty. The significance of ANY event is determined by our own perception of its importance. What you see in the major media, Mike, is as much a reflection of YOU as it is of them. And it clearly isn't doing your blood pressure any good. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Once again, Mike, truth is not a popularity contest. "Most likely to succeed" in a high school year book is a matter of guesswork and popularity. Homecoming Queen and Homecoming King are pretty much straight popularity contests. News programs, not so much. There are actually college graduates who believe this stuff — that reality and truth is up for a vote; and the side with the biggest majority wins. In some situations, the construction you place on reality matters very much; but it turns out that there are other things where that’s not at all the case. It's difficult to take a vote that is very telling on what the value should be for the speed of light, or pi. When one steps off a cliff anywhere I’ve been, votes don’t count as to whether gravity applies; ignorance of the law in this case, is no excuse. It makes as much sense to me to say that people like the story Fox tells as it does to say that the story Fox tells is correct. In fact it makes more sense, because that would account for the lack of corrections for some of their more outstanding misrepresentations about Iraq, for example, and our involvement there. Other news organizations may have broadcast or published the same initial information, but published or broadcast more accurate information as it became available. Many Fox viewers were not informed by Fox of the lack of connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda or of the lack of connection between Saddam and the Twin Towers bombings, and the trail of misinformation and disinformation simply built from there. Isn't that true? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: On the contrary, Bob, in this country that's exactly what they are. And I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Fox news however have openly admitted, in a court of law no less, that they lie and distort news reports and vehemently defended their right to do so. Obviously, grinch, you have links at the ready to prove that point. Fire when ready, Gridley. I'm interested in seeing it. . People tend to believe what they want to believe even when what they believe isn't true or consistent with the facts. Those people will actively seek out likeminded people who repeat or reiterate their own beliefs; history is full of religious nut jobs proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh and even when the predicted date comes and goes they still aren't short of eager followers. So what you are saying is the majority that voted Obama into office now find Fox news to be made up of like-minded people who mirror their own beliefs. Pardon me if that doesn't make any sense at all.....? ROn, I read your response more than once and I have to tell you that I can find no relationship between your mother and the news agencies. I'm sure there must be one but it's too hidden for my feeble mind. What you see in the major media, Mike, is as much a reflection of YOU as it is of them. My point is not what I see in the media, Ron....it's what I DON'T see. Just as I have touched on the discrepancy of the different way the Tea Party and the Occupiers were portrayed (which everyone has ignored), what I DON'T see is the fervor used against republicans also used against democrats. You guys are trying to make points about Fox news, what they cover, how honest or dishonest their reporting is, etc, etc, etc. That's not the point I brought up at all, which had absolutely nothing to do with Fox news. If there are those of you who want to transfer the conversation over to Fox, go ahead, b ut it doesn't change the subject. In some situations, the construction you place on reality matters very much; but it turns out that there are other things where that’s not at all the case. It's difficult to take a vote that is very telling on what the value should be for the speed of light, or pi. When one steps off a cliff anywhere I’ve been, votes don’t count as to whether gravity applies; ignorance of the law in this case, is no excuse. Bob, I have absolutely no idea what you said there. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I've got to say, you have a point, which I acknowledge later in my post when I comment about the nature of the story that Fox tells (or any news source tells). Viewership depends on the appeal of the story to that viewership. That, however, is not about truth but about mythology. The problem with that is that almost everybody has a mythology. Of the many reasons that people despise lawyers, one of the primary reasons is that at least some of the training involves being able to identify and argue conflicting mythologies, and to create alternate and competitive stories to explain the same sets of events. News sources may offer different sorts of mythologies to explain events, may offer different stories to explain them. I'm glad you like that. My notion of the first ammendment is that it was meant to protect people's access to the truth and the press's right to publish it, and that it was meant to cover political speech. It's been constructed as widely as it's been because we want to protect as widely as possible as many possible versions of what may be true as possible. Sources such as Fox that knowingly print false information or misinformation, such as they printed and failed to retract about the Iraq war, are certainly protected because the first ammendment is cast as broadly as it is to protect different potential versions of the truth. Although I have to say that I am not as well read as I would like to be on this area, and while the above is my opinion, I would be pleased to learn information that seems to be more firmly based in research. If anybody has some atual research based evidence that would lead me to a different conclusion, I would be pleased to change my mind on the appropriate details. I still, however, believe that when a news source says "these are the facts," that they really ought to be the facts as best they can determine them. Otherwise I expect a retraction and a restatement of the facts as they stand in reality as of that point to appear in a timely fashion. In a news source of record, that is generally what I will get. I won't trouble you with my usual list of suitable candidates, but they include sources from the left, and the right and what might be reasonably called the center, though people disagree what that is today. Fox News does not appear on that list because it doesn't fit the criteria. The fact that it is popular indicates good business practices, great marketing, and finding a suitable niche for its product. You can say the same for cocaine, and heroin. I think they should be taxed and should be legal as Fox News, whose Tax Status I am not so clear about. Alcohol for the most part pays significant taxes, and though it may keep a large number of our citizens in poverty and degredation and acting against their own best interests, it's my personal belief that Fox News is trying its best to do the same and make a profit from doing so. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The analogy wasn't between Mom and the media, Mike, it was supposed to be between Mom and you. The similarity is that Mom was, like you are now, wrong. She let herself be deceived by subjective observations, coupled with selective memory. I don't believe in ESP, and I don't believe in a national conspiracy that can effectively coordinate literally tens of thousands of newspapers, magazines, television and radio stations. Neither, in my world view, are credible concepts. It's much easier to believe in coincidence on the one hand and, on the other, the very real possibility that you might be a little biased. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: There are hundreds, if not thousands, of links Mike - some to sources that lie or distort news reports and some to sources that tell the truth with a political or personal bias? Which would you prefer? quote: No Mike - that'd be a dumb thing to say and I try to avoid saying dumb things. Just because I think the world will eventually end doesn't automatically mean that I believe Harold Camping's inane prophesies, by the same token, just because I don't think Obama has done as good a job as he could have doesn't mean I agree with the distorted view of Fox news. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The similarity is that Mom was, like you are now, wrong. At least I can count on you to tell me when I'm wrong. Must be nice to be so omnipotent. She let herself be deceived by subjective observations, coupled with selective memory. Once again, my comments are not based on what I see, but what I don't see. If you fellas want to pretend that network news has fair coverage, go ahead. If you want to believe that they have no obligation to provide fair coverage, that's fine, too. I can't disagree. I have simply stated that that's the way it is and, pretending it's not, or pointing fingers elsewhere, doesn't change it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left. These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly. "I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December. "A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches." Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter. The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx (This report is from when a Republican lived in the White House. Under Obama it is even worse.) |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Come on, Mike, you know one doesn't necessarily follow the other. I don't need to be omnipotent -- or even particularly smart -- to know when two plus two doesn't equal five. quote: What you don't see, Mike, defines what you do see. They're the same thing. But, fine, if you want to maintain the distinction, the analogy still stands. Mom didn't see all the times she thought of a person and they failed to immediately phone her. Why should she? Those instances weren't remarkable in any way and didn't serve to support her world view of what ESP would be like. We are ALL victims of selective memory. quote: Duh? Of course it's real. Just as the electrical charge on elementary particles is a real phenomenon. It doesn't matter on the grander scale, however, because negative charges cancel out positive charges, leaving the bulk of our Universe largely neutral. Imbalances happen, sure, but they are always localized and temporal. There is no conspiracy, Mike. If there was, and assuming it was at all effective, you would never know about it. And no Republican would ever be elected. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Why do you blame other people for this? If there are two movies, and one of them keeps keeps on getting worse reviews, then it might just be true that that movie is worse than the other movie. Wouldn't it be better for the movie director or the actors involved to face the fact, or at least a likelihood, that they should try to work on making better movies and giving a better performance rather than using the reviewers as scapegoats so they can avoid the blame and avoid addressing their own weaknesses? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There is no conspiracy, Mike. If there was, and assuming it was at all effective, you would never know about it. And no Republican would ever be elected. No problem, Ron. You can state that as a certainty if you like. To me, there certainly IS one and we know about it because it is too hard to hide. Network news omissions along with obvious bias has come to be so noticable it is out in the open.....one reason why they continue to lose viewers. No republican would be elected if they WERE effective. They are not, thankfully. "The curious case of the dog barking at midnight......" - mainstream media. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I want to thank Mike for his effort in finding the 2005 research study from UCLA. I feel it was a thoughtful thing to do on his part because it tries to place the discussion on more solid ground, and because it tries to look at the facts behind everybody’s claims. It aims to get to the truth at what we are trying to figure out together and not simply the partisan rhetoric. I think that in some ways the study has made its point and there is some rightness that I have to acknowledge in the point the study is making and the point that Mike is trying to make by bringing the study up. Yes, there is media bias, in some cases from the left and in some cases from the right, and that this will work against the Republicans in some cases just as it will work against the Democrats in the others. The somewhat surprising rankings of the various media outlets the study produces are probably accurate given the standard against which these outlets are being measured. I believe that in all this, the researchers and Mike have an excellent point and one which is well worth taking into account. The suggestion that Mike makes that because the article was published during a Republican administration and that we are now in a Democratic administration the conditions now are worse, I must disagree with. First, the big example of the most liberal news outlet, The Wall Street Journal, is now owned by Rupert Murdock and is a very conservative news outlet; and, second, the entire method of measurement has to do with how the votes in congress are judged to fall by political orientation, to the left or to the right, so what is liberal and what is conservative in terms of news reportage (in this study) will change from one year to the next. A person’s feel for what is liberal or what is conservative, in other words, doesn’t count in this study, and what Mike might think or what I might think doesn’t affect the actual measurement. That’s both an advantage and a disadvantage. In doing a study like this, one of the biggest problems is in establishing a measurement of what is the political center. I think this study made a brave attempt to establish what the political center is. There is much that is satisfactory about the scheme they’ve come up with, but also much that simply doesn’t work. In the study, the notion of the political center changes from year to year; in one year, it might be very liberal to think of social security as a keystone government program; in another, it might be very conservative. Then, if a particular news outlet takes a solid stand for social security, in year one, it will show liberal bias and in year two it will show conservative bias — if it’s evaluated by the standards of this study. That would be with the same stance. I’ve spoken about this sort of thing before when I’ve spoken of the rightward drift of American politics and of how President Obama — for me at least — seems more like a liberal Republican than a left wing Democrat: More like an Eisenhower or a Rockefeller than an LBJ or a Ted Kennedy. To my mind there are and always have been conservative Democrats who vote with the conservatives in the Republican Party. The Republicans have been skewing their party to the right for 30 years, even funding more conservative candidates by preference over less conservative ones within their own party. This, I believe, gives us an artificial understanding of where the actual center lies in this country. And this is why I believe that the methodology of this study is flawed. It measures the political spectrum of legislators and not the population as a whole, and it makes the assumption that the legislators work for the people who voted for them rather than the people who funded the winning campaigns. I believe this assumption to be at best questionable and most likely to be false. The study was definitely worthy of publication and consideration; but I believe, because of the methodological flaw I discussed above, must be applauded as a brilliant early attempt and not as definitive. Again, I’d like to thank Mike for bringing it up. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self." - Aldous Huxley |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Occupy Wall Street protestors have received overwhelmingly positive coverage from the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) news networks, as they used their airtime to publicize and promote the aggressively leftist movement. In just the first eleven days of October, ABC, CBS and NBC flooded their morning and evening newscasts with a whopping 33 full stories or interview segments on the protesters. This was a far cry from the greeting the Tea Party received from the Big Three as that conservative protest movement was initially ignored (only 13 total stories in all of 2009) and then reviled. Where the Tea Party was met with skeptical claims of their motivations -- with some reporters claiming they were merely corporate backed puppets and others implying they were spurred on by their racist opposition to the first black president – the Occupy Wall Street crowd was depicted as an almost genial “grassroots” movement. While network reporters weren’t hesitant to describe the Tea Party as conservative, only once did a reporter attach even the “liberal” label to the overtly leftist Wall Street protestors. Network anchors like Brian Williams couldn’t be bothered with ideological labeling of the occupiers as he was, on the October 5 NBC Nightly News, too busy celebrating the arrival of the “massive protest movement” that “could well turn out to be the protest of this current era.” ABC’s Diane Sawyer was so excited she tripped herself up in hyperbole as she proclaimed, on the October 10 World News, that the movement had “spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries – every continent but Antarctica.” (Video) Sawyer would have to correct herself on a later edition of the program as she clarified it was “more than a thousand cities around the world – every continent but Antarctica.” That's still a tremendous exaggeration. Most astoundingly, the networks’ Occupy Wall Street (OWS) stories were overwhelmingly sympathetic: Protesters and supporters of the movement dominated the soundbites, with 109 (87%) to just 8 critics (6%), with another 8 soundbites from neutral sources. Five of the eight soundbites unsympathetic to the protesters were brief clips of GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain blasting the occupiers. In addition to the 109 pro-OWS soundbites, seven times guests on the Big Three network morning shows expressed sympathy for the protestors. No guests opposed the protests. http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2011/20111013100045.aspx |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Tea Party was a movement that was so peaceful, so respectful of public and private property, so familial and so powerful that leftists had to spend weeks agonizing over unrelated Lyndon LaRouche posters or in some cases, inventing incidents of racism or name-calling to attempt to smear it. So we know how President Obama and his liberal base hysterically responded to the reality of Tea Party. The question is this: how would they have responded to the following 25 headlines? Pair Living With Tea Party Protesters Arrested For Selling Heroin Tea Party Protester Defecates on Police Car More than 700 Arrested After Tea Party Blocks Traffic on Brooklyn Bridge Police In Riot Gear Clear Tea Party Protesters in California City 130 Tea Party Arrests in Chicago Police Investigating Possible Sexual Assault of Teen at Tea Party Tea Party Discourages Sexual Assault Victims From Contacting Police Tea Party Protests Go Global; Riots in Rome Muppet-Wielding Tea Partiers Occupy George Soros’ Speech Florida Mom Abandons Family for Tea Party Police Worry as Tea Party Pines for World Series Spotlight Tea Partiers ‘Defecating on Our Doorsteps,’ NYC Residents Complain Riot Police Arrest Tea Party Protesters Tea Party Occupies GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s Connecticut Front Lawn Tea Party Targets Phil Griffin’s House Tea Party Takes On NYPD at Times Sq.; Then March to Washington Sq.: 74 Total Arrests Repairing Tea Party Damage to City Hall Could Cost $400,000 Tea Party Killing Tax-Funded Grass at McPherson Square Cincinnati Police Arrest More Than 20 Tea Partiers at Piatt Park Tea Party Speaker: Violence Will Be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals NYers to Tea Party: Lay Off the Drums Tea Party Protesters Sing “F*** the USA” 98 Degrees Singer Among Tea Party Arrests Protesters Accused of Hurting NYC Economy Tea Party Gets ‘Getting Arrested’ App http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/25/over-2400-tea-partiers-arrested/ Change Tea Party to OCCUPIERS and these are actual headlines. How many have you seen discussed on the mainstream nightly news? Obama has not condemned them. Pelosi applauds them. The press leaves them alone. Coincidence? Not likely. If it were actually the Tea Party in these headlines, How much criticism do you think would come from Obama, Pelosi and the mainstream news programs? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Hmmm? I think that the Demographics of the two groups are different, aren't they? The same behavior from two different groups with substantially different Demographics can mean different things. Also, as I understand it, the Demographics of the OWS folks are considerably more diverse by age, and by economic status than the range of the Tea Party. The OWS folks would have a lot more folks on either side of the tail of the bell curve than would the Tea Party folks, so you'd get headlines about folks on the extremes of the OWS folks that wouldn't apply to the majority of the OWS folks, whereas the Tea Party, being a somewhat though not entirely more homogenious outfit might be able to have at least a few more generalizations made about them. That's speculative, because I haven't seen any hard information on the demographics of either group, but that's the impression I get. I'm open to discussion on that, and I'd be interested in hearing other opinions. No such headlines were offered about the Tea Party. The stories behind the headlines in the examples about the OWS would need to be taken one at a time and discussed. Near as I can tell, all these headlines about OWS seem to inducate that there is a large amount of critical coverage about OWS, and that you seem to be quoting some of the parts that you find damaging. If the coverage was as biased as you suggest, there wouldn't be any stories running around at all, would there? What I don't see in all this obsessional nit-picking is reference to reality. I do see a lot of concern about who's gotten the most and best publicity, but I sure don't see any concern with the economic realities of either position. Where are the references to the economists and the sociologists and the folks who can offer us some sort of information about what's happening to the economy right now, and why? The Right is making some assertions about economics and governmental policy and how these things are related to taxation and employment, and I haven't seen them prove their assertions. The OWS folks are saying that most of these assertions or many of them have led our country and perhaps the world into a major recession and possibly a depression; and the Tea Party is saying that we need to cut back on spending and allow unfettered corporate capitalism a free hand by cutting government regulation and power to the bone. It seems to me that the issue is the truthfulness of these claims by either side and not whether the party that's more or less run the country for the last 30 years is getting a fair shake in the press. If they weren't getting a fair enough shake, they wouldn't be where they are. Why not keep our eyes on the road? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, as I recall, and would be easy to prove, you were quite vocal, outraged, incensed, and accusatory concerning the Tea Party when they were getting headlines. Yet, with all of these things the above stories refer to, involving all sorts of crimes and criminal behavior, your response is "let's keep our eyes on the road". With all due respect, that appears to be the exact actions of the liberal media I have been referring to. Thank you for demonstrating it. The same behavior from two different groups with substantially different Demographics can mean different things. That's the point, Bob. We are not referring to the same behavior. We are talking crimes, up to and including felonies, being perpetrated by OWS. No demographices you can come up with makes them non-crimes. If the coverage was as biased as you suggest, there wouldn't be any stories running around at all, would there? Good point. Check out where these stories were reported...mainly from local newspapers covering the events. My question was how many of them have you seen on the mainstream nighty news? Face it. For the mainstream press to condemn actions of the Occupiers, they would be going against Obama, Pelosi, Soros and all of the biggies who have called the movement the greatest thing since the Slinky. If they actually were to report all of the things in the local headlines listed above, Obama and Pelosi would be put in a position of having to acknowledge that they were "perhaps" mistaken in their assessment and approval of the movement. Pelosi may even have to change her "God bless them" to "God, forgive them". Ain't gonna happen... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, your observations still remain subjective and wholly dependent on selective memory. As just one example, if you stop labeling reports like "grassroots" and "massive protest movement" as somehow supporting OWS, rather than simply being accurate descriptions, it would be the first step in seeing the world with less bias. I've seen plenty of negative reports on the OWS movement. More than enough to sway me, more than enough to convince me. And trust me, old friend . . . the local coverage in Colon, a village of 1200 people, hasn't exactly been impressive, either for or against. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Hmmm again, Mike. The response to "crimes" is difficult in a lawful society, where these are usually spoken about as "allegations" by folks who aren't already biased, right? That's why these things will often go through the court system, to protect us from the bias of people who already have the answers before they have the information necessary to come to a legal decision. I might remind you of the case of the Frenchman [Edited - Ron]. It seems there wasn’t enough evidence for a successful prosecution in front of a real court with real rules of evidence and a real judge and a real jury having to contend with real actual law. Some of us are fond of civil liberties and the legal system because it protects, or tries to protect, those accused from judgements like that, even at the occasional cost of allowing the guilty to go free. It's one of the things about America we are proud of. Another thing about America we tend to be proud of is that we make it a bit difficult for people to smear organizations for the activities of their members unless a clear connection between the two can be shown. I don't know that's enshrined in statute or in the constitution, but I do believe — purely on my own cranky and often mistaken intuition — that's one of the reasons that much of the law around conspiracy and criminal conspiracy has been on such contested ground for so long, at least as I understand it. But that may be headed off in another direction. If these cases are real, then the people involved should be charged. If the organization is believed to be responsible, then the organization should be charged or sued for its responsibility, much as The Republican Party has been sued on several occasions for its activities in elections and its attempts to suppress minority voters. Having had this discussion with me before, you will no doubt remember that The Republicans lost those suits, and you will find the details in one of Greg Pallast"s books. Pardon my memory, but I believe it's The Finest Democracy Money Can Buy. It's very well footnoted. So far as I know, OWS has been much vilified by the Right, though I don't know that it identifies itself by party so much as by economics. Trying to smear OWS in comparison to The Tea Party and to bring up who gets the better value out of public relations dollars spent, if OWS actually spends any, seems to me a waste of time. I said it was a waste of time in my last posting, I believe. It's a good thing I don't necessarily hate to repeat myself, because I thought I had it about right before: quote: Is there something wrong with dealing with the truthfulness of these claims by The Right. If memory serves correctly, Nixon first started talking about press bias when they started to pick up on Watergate. Bush Senior knew that this sort of economic thinking was silly. So did David Stockman, Reagan's Treasury guy, and he wrote a book about it. Bush called this "Voudou Economics." They were both right. No wonder the Right is getting hysterical about press bias, especially when we have a press that seems even remotely biased toward figuring out what the truth is about the Way the right has been playing games with the American wallet and pocketbook prior to an election. If I were a Republican, I'd be making a lot of noise about this sort of thing too. The public might wake up. [This message has been edited by Ron (12-19-2011 05:24 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Another thing about America we tend to be proud of is that we make it a bit difficult for people to smear organizations for the activities of their members unless a clear connection between the two can be shown. True enough, Bob, although you had no problem doing exactly that with the Tea Party. It's funny how one's perceptions changes depending on which side of the fence they are standing on. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, believe it or not, I didn't have a political bone in my body before Clinton....no bias, either. Then, Clinton came along (with me not caring one way or the other) and I got amazed at the coverage and what they got away with. This was also the time I get re-interested in computers and the internet. The first thing I saw was the firing of the White House Travel office. When I looked at that, it was obvious that it was a Hillary manipulation to get her friends in and the current people out. I wondered why it wasn't given any attention on the news. Then we had Clinton and the bevy of beauties, one even accusing him of attempted rape....and very little coverage. Then Monica came along and it seemed the press was in the midsts of portraying her as a dingbat looking for her 15 minutes, until the blue dress and subsequent confession came up. I saw Hillary use "I can't recall" as an excuse 15 times in 17 minutes, with the press not even finding that strange. Then, of course, things like Clinton's "It all depends what "is" is" and other comments like that that the press didn't call him on. Throughout his presidency, I kept seeing this favoritism granted anything to do with the Clintons. Remember...at that time I had nothing against Clinton and it didn't matter to me if he was president or not. But I kep seeing it. After Clinton left and Bush took over I saw the exact opposite, a mud-slinging frenzy by the same press that gave Clinton such passes. THAT'S when I started paying attention to the bias....and, from what I see, it still holds true to form. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I understand, Mike. The thing is, though, every single Clintonesque escapade you mention in your post WAS covered in the press. Often to the point where I, personally, got very tired of hearing about it. (Which is not to imply I wouldn't, at times, have welcomed more action in place of the incessant talking. The Travel Office stuff should have been criminal, even if perhaps it technically wasn't.) Apparently, you and I simply have very different definitions of "very little coverage." As for Bush getting hammered? In my opinion, Mike, he didn't get hammered near enough, and almost certainly not as hard as he'll eventually be hammered by History. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: You may be absolutely right, Mike, but I don't remember trying to say that the Tea Party was bad because individual members were bad. I'd need some reminding of exactly where I said that before I'd allow you to put such words in my mouth. And a full quotation, not out of context, to back that up. If your animus toward Democrats began with President Clinton, then why would you call President Carter "The Peanut Farmer" in such a fashion? I would also be interested in knowing what your point of view might be about the truthfulness of the economic claims made by the Republicans about tax cuts resulting in economic growth, and, if you agree with them, what your sources of economic knowledge might be? I'd be interested in knowing where all the jobs are that were supposed to be created by the Bush tax cuts? I would like to know why the Republicans are now voting for a tax raise on the working and middle classes while they fight for tax relief for the very very wealthy? The more angry and aware the American public seems to become about this, the more the Right seems to try to suppress their right to gather and to speak out about their feelings. I feel it's fortunate that the crackdown this time came at the beginning of cold weather, when maintaining a presence is as difficult today as it was at Valley Forge. I'm very interested in seeing what happens when the spring comes. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Uh, what was the topic again? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Something to do with Gingko, or Grinch, or Ostrich.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL@Ron!! Bob, when the peanut farmer was president, I was living in South America and knew even less about his presidency. When I DID get interested in politics, I began studying what had actually happened all of those years I wasn't paying attention. Interesting that you want to know where the jobs are from Bush tax cuts but don't seem to have any desire to know where are of the jobs are from Obama's stimulus. Not surprising though. Ron's point is well made. If you want to begin threads on any of that shopping list you mentioned, be my guest...not sure where they fit in here. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ron, you have a point. Since Gingrich is a Republican running in a Republican primary and most of the things being said about him are being said by Republicans to Republicans, I would suggest that Dr. Gingrich is dealing with the Republican slime machine for the most part. Whether or not the audience for the dirt is written by Democrats or published by Democrats is sort of beside the point since the Republican base is the audience that the Republican slime is being directed towards. The reality behind the various charges is beside the point for the Democrats, who are unlikely to vote for the Newtster in any event. If the Independents are old enough to remember the events being spoken about by the Man's own party faithful, they can check their own memories against the Republican versions of events and sort it out for themselves. While there are such things as young Republicans and always have been, the Demographics say there aren't a lot of them, so the young Independents will make up their own minds by getting the best facts they can. For the most part, ther whole discussion is a red herring trying to blame Democrats for an extraordinarily weak Republican field. This doesn't mean the Republicans can't win; it simply means that I think the Republican field so far looks extraordinarily weak because it doesn't even appeal to very much of the Republican base. It makes President Obama look artificially strong. This Red herring aspect also appears to apply to the inability to focus on what seems to me to be the actual issue in the campaign, and the attempt to distract from any discussion of it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And, as a reality check, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-a-newt-gingrich-comeback-wont-be-easy/2011/12/20/gIQAfMcR7O_blog.html#excerpt |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I have two grandchildren -- Maggie is 11, Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." -Gingrich |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
A secular atheist Islamic regime? He left out Nazis and communists and baby cannibals. And camel rapers. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Any downside on Jeb? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I may simply be showing that there's a great joke that's gove sailing completely over my head, John, but I have no idea who "Jeb" is and how he fits in. I'd like to know, either because I may be missing out on a joke or because you might be saying something interesting, and I'd like to respond to you as best I can if you're trying to join in. Sometimes I'm simply too stuffy and rigid to follow along and I need a little help to pick up what folks are saying. My best, Bob K |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Bob My guess would be - Jeb Bush . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mine, too; but I don't see the tie in, and I feel like I missed something thatr I probably should have gotten. If not, I do that sort of thing all the time, and no big deal. If I have, then I guess I feel a little silly, though. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/03/alan-colmes-mocks-rick-santorum-for -playing-with-his-dead-baby/ I've been thinking about it . . . The Santorums are worst than weird; they're serious. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Colmes is the weird one. Does he make dems proud, I wonder? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What was the title on that show again? Does that suggest anything about the job description in terms of the material presented? Would you expect the network to be using the show time to present long hard objective looks at significant issues of the day? There is a difference between news and professional wrestling on many channels, but on Fox it's increasingly difficult to locate. In this case, it looks like Coombs is supposed to be the bad guy and seems to be hitting Santorum with a folding chair, for which his is making a forced apology in front of the mikes. The whole thing has a scripted air to it. I was sad when the Santorums lost a child over ten years ago, yet here is a chance for Fox to use that child to help a moribund campaign along, and the dog and pony show comes out. Was it Coombs, was it Fox, was it the Santorums, was it the Party, was it some combinatioin, was it ratings, was it theater, was it show biz? I don't know. If it was the Democrats, it was pretty stupid of them. It makes them look bad at very little gain before any audience that would affect the larger election. Cui Bono? If it makes you feel better, however, by all means, blame the Democrats and Mr. Coombs. To my mind, though, it's still a Republican on Republican contest, and this little side story simply has to do with a way of distracting the Republican base with Mr. Romney's handy victory. On my was back from South Caronina this weekend, I was able to talk briefly with a very nice Censervative Republican gentleman who was reading a biography of Mr. Romney given to him by his some in law, a liberal Democrat, as it happened. Mr. Romney wasn't as conservative as the gentleman was talking to would have liked, not by a long chalk (grerat old idion), by he was reading that Romney biography earnestly anyway, and doing a lot of thinking. Could he really trust Romney to uphold those conservative values? You could yell he was doing so solid thinking. I wouldn't have agreed with the guy on almost anything, but it was clear as the day is long he was a good guy, and he had solid reasons for saying the things he was saying and he really meant what he was saying with all his heart. A good man to have as a friend. I think he was coming to grips with how much he could trust Romney, and there's something important happening down trhere that might ber worth examining, maybe, if you like, in addition to how eveil the Democrats are being about the Sabtorums. I doubt Senator Santorum will be President Santorum in the near future, though, in the same way that I doubt that the Democrats have found a way to polish off The Former Mr. Speaker Newton Gingerich. The election from the Repuyblican side seems more likely to turn on how many conservatives will be able to get enthused about Mr. Romney, and whether on not that number will overcome the country's tepid response to President Obama. And whether the country's Democrats will be able to change condidates in mid stream and try Hilary, of course. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Another front-runner - more fodder for ABC News and Brian Ross. Took less than 24 hours.. http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-surge-brings-ethics-questions-152702229.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Yep, there it goes again, Mike. People come close to the front of the pack and those newspapers go breaking all the rules and actually investigating their pasts to see if there's anything back there that might hurt them or discredit them in an actual election. Only two reasons for that I can think of, of course. They're devious Democrats who are sneakily publishing actual facts about candidates in the forlorn hope that facts matter any more in electoral politics. It's election time and people are supposed to be made aware of facts about candidates that could have something to do with the future governance of People of the United States. This being the time when the Republicans are out of power in the White House and the Republicans are running candidates, we are learning stuff nobody particularly finds thrilling about the lives of Republican front runners. Last time it was open season on pretty much everybody. The time before that, it was open season on Democrats with occasional swipes at Bush, just as we're getting occasional swipes at President Obama right now that will probably intensify as the race goes on. The attacks on the Republicans are pretty mild in comparison to what went on against Clinton, not only during the campaign but during his terms. And the attacks on Obama are shaping up to be, in some ways, worse. Would you care to inform anybody listening if the attacks that the thread speaks about are perhaps untruthful; and if they are clearly by democrats in this still Republican on Republican race. It seems to me that your concern should be whether or not the attacks, if they are in fact attacks, are truthful or not. If they are truthful, are they being reported accurately? Are the reports being slanted; are only edited versions or cherry picked versions of the truth being presented as substitutes for the whole truth? Is there some reason that you believe that a true version of these facts should not be laid before the public — that is, would it cause civil unrest, panic, or public hysteria; or would it cause harm to groups and individuals that would not otherwise be harmed by a slower or more well managed release of that information? Or is there an over-riding public interest that suggests that publication of these facts right now would be most useful? There are any number of other first amendment questions that might be chucked in there for discussion, of course. I’d love to hear a discussion of any of them and how they bear on this current question. It sounds to me like this is a pretty much solid story that deserves to be published to me. It's even a dog bites man sort of news interest, since Senator Santorum’s a family values candidate. The last word should go to a man named O’Neill, who was the benefitiary of one of Senator Santorum’s earmarks after Mr. O’Neill’s real estate company made a generous 25,000 dollar contribution to one of the Senator’s funds. Mr. O’Neill couldn’t speak highly enough of the Senator and his honesty, and the truth is that Mr. O’Neill could well be right. The truth of the matter lies someplace where I cannot evaluate it.The appearance is troublesome to me, and I can say that. I can also say that I believe that it is useful for a Senator to avoid that appearance whenever possible, and that Senator Santorum did not do that. I will say that I wish Senator Santorum Luck, not only because I bear him not animus, but also because I believe that he would be an easier opponent for the Democrats in November, and I think that helping his candidacy along would be in the best interests of my party. However, I offered Mr. O’Neill the last word, and here it is, referenced to the the quote that Mike offered above: "If he doesn't win it won't be because of his ethics," O'Neill told ABC News. "What's going to kill him is, this country wants someone down the middle." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, I don't think he will get the nomination because there are other issues that will sink him. My only point was the ABC report of "ethic questions". Why questions? What was he investigated for? What was he convicted of? Anything? Nope. It's basically sleazy journalism in action again....saying something while not saying anything. To be fair, ABC did the same thing concerning Obama and his property purchase involving Rezko. Obama acknowledged it was "boneheaded" of him and the entire incident went away. Will this go away or will it be milked for all they can get? Stay tuned...... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I don't know if it will go away or not. In the incident involving Mr O'Neill, the Senator was prompted to write a reply to accusations at the time saying that the incident simply proved what a great idea earmarks were, and that the Senator's own actions in earmarking eight million dollars in funding for Mr. O'Neill and his real estate investment company proved this. This may well be true. There may be lots are great reasons for earmarking funds, but this has not generally been the official Republican position on the practice in recent years. Senator Santorum's remarks were clearly about the appropriate earmarking of funds, but I don't understand the party position to be anywhere nearly that flexible. Each party is prone to be critical of the earmarks of the other, in my experience, and Senator Santorum is surely wise enough to know this. The other ethics question raised in the ABC article should not have to be pointed out. It involved a home loan for Senator and Mrs Santorum from an institution that was not open to the general public, but only to very wealthy investors, among which neither the Senator nor his wife qualified. These investors also had to be investors in the bank to take advantage of the special rate; neither the Senator nor his wife were. Perhaps the Senate did not believe these were reason enough to bring or investigate ethics charges against the Senator. Being 2006, and the Senate being, as I recall, in Republican hands, that might be possible. Now, however, when the Republicans are having to compete rather than cooperate for a higher office, it is possible that the question could be brought up again. It appears to have been. I think the issue was originally dropped because the Senator was defeated and the issue was suddenly moot. The Senate ethic office no longer felt much interest in the activities of a former Senator. I don’t know that the outcome would have been a conviction at any rate if the committee felt that the Senator had stepped out of line; the language is different. And you are correct to ask about the question of establishment of guilt and culpability. I certainly would, and innocence is a good basic assumption. Nevertheless, the facts are the way that ABC states them, near as I can tell. Nor are they distorted, out of context or cherry-picked. Santorum supporters won’t care. Those who will care will probably be those independents who might consider him, though I suspect that they will probably be too close to the center to care. They’re probably more open to Romney, if they can trust him; and trust would be an issue of those who would like Romney to be either more conservative or more liberal than he’s willing to be. The really conservative group there is going to have to make a tough choice, and some of them are already considering it. The more liberal end of the independents will need to see if they think he’s closer to the center than President Obama. No, he’s not. To begin with, he’s coming out of a National Republican Party this time, not Massachusetts, which has more liberal and more conservative democrats to balance a Republican Governor. I’ll leave the further details unsketched in for now. They’re likely to change rapidly enough as is. In my opinion. The issue is still where will the Republicans get a strong enough candidate to run against President Obama, whose power looks stronger than it is against a Republican field this weak. The American Electorate as a whole seems to vote closer to the center. I wish I had a better idea of the senatorial and congressional field, where I think the Republicans remain strong, though I have hopes for a backlash to will take a lot of them out of office on the state and federal levels. I’d like to hear what’s going on in Wisconsin in Michigan, in Ohio and Florida on those levels, should anybody have any ideas. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
