How Slimy Can They Get?

"In 2000, it is suspected that Rove masterminded a push poll during the South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement."
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
I'd say that attacking adsopted children is a standard practice in American politics.

 

Compare the treatment of a sitting Senator's remarks to that of an old Calypso singer's? It's directly proportional to their political importance.

As tragic as that was for the Iraqi people, he was no threat to the US or Great Britain - except for his plan to switch from petrodollars to petroeuros.

As for the OP, merely looking into something is actually what they are supposed to do - it's what they try to do with the info that will determine sliminess.

 

OldRegular.
IMDO you [attack snipped].
Mudslinging and low blows is all there is to politics in the US.
It has been that way for decades.

[ August 16, 2005, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Perhaps you have forgotten the simple fact that David Brock used to be a right-wing hit man for the American Spectator and readily admits what he has done in the past. Perhaps you have not read the book Blinded By The Right, or The Republican Noise Machine. Perhaps you are not an avid reader of mediamatters.org. David Brock knows more about this subject than ANY of us on this board.

MediaMatters takes on BOTH sides, and that CANNOT be denied. It's that simple: it CANNOT be denied. To suggest otherwise is foolishness. Here is a link to an article challenging the New York Times.

Why did Sean Hannity neglect to make a correction when Dr. Hammesfahr clearly was NOT a Nobel Prize nominee? Can you show me a retraction for a patently FALSE claim that was stated ad nauseum? A fishing expedition on Judge Roberts is not comparable to a completely false statement.

Are you really going to claim that the show is "fair and balanced?" Try the "stopwatch test," and find out who gets more airtime on that show?

Are you talking about the reporters, or the editorial board? I can use that precise argument about the "fair and balanced" FoxNews........

Regards,
BiR

 

How about this article on the AP, CNN, and the Los AngelesTimes?

Here is another article on the New York Times.

 

Compare the treatment of a sitting Senator's remarks to that of an old Calypso singer's? It's directly proportional to their political importance. </font>[/QUOTE]Not when high ranking Dem officials were there.

Also, what he said was much, much more offensive than what Lott said. Lott was brutalized because his comments might have been perceived as insensitive by some people not because he actually said anything directly.

However, he isn't the only Dem saying outrageous things with very little pressure from the press to stop. Look at Howard Dean... or Durbin. Or even look at the completely and totally baseless charges by leading liberals that the GOP was trying to "suppress" the black vote. The funny thing is that this suppression was basically sending out poll watchers to stop funny business... like the 5000 or so dead people who voted in the city of Atlanta a few years back (reported by the Atlanta Constitution-Journal- itself a very liberal paper).

 

Tiiiiiiiiiimmmmmme Ouuuuuut!!!!!

Since when is a guy risking his life to PREVENT one of those daily body count stories NOT NEWS?

Make the medal stuff secondary... but what he did to deserve the medals is every bit as newsworthy as what terrorists do when they successfully pull off one of these ambushes.

What failures? Not finding the WMDs? Not finding something not there is not exactly a failure. Abu Graib? How did the coverage of that compare with that of the capture of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi elections?</font>[/QUOTE] Poor... and very poor compared to the coverage of the discovery of mass graves.

The Americans and Brittish military officially do not keep count or release "bodycounts" as a sign of success since they were caught releasing bogus numbers from Vietnam. </font>[/QUOTE] Casualty counts are newsworthy and I am sure the information is available.

Bad news does get precedence over good in the news - always has and always will. Well, except in the old Commie propaganda papers - no one took them seriously.</font>[/QUOTE] Problem is when the bad news is presented with such complete imbalance that it directly impacts public perceptions.

Are the right-wing papers full of glory & good news? I think it's a matter of human nature.</font>[/QUOTE] Name a "right wing" paper. The WSJ is conservative on business matters and editorials but it is pretty neutral regarding the news and often follows the agenda set by others.

That is pure rightwing nonsense. It was lost because we couldn't make the South Vietnamese win and we didn't want to take over Vietnam ourselves. </font>[/QUOTE] No it isn't.

It is history. The war was run miserably by Johnson... but it most certainly was not "unwinnable". In fact, had the US used Grant's strategy for winning the US Civil War, the North Vietnamese would have sued for peace within months.

In case you don't know: The Union chased Lee around for about 4 years letting him choose the field of battle. An army that seldom had 50% of the strength of its opposition not only survived but repeatedly beat the enemy.

Grant, a notable drinker, was the only Union general sober minded enough to realize that a deliberate seige of Richmond would force Lee to put his army in front of his own. The war ended in only a few months.... but could have ended at least 2 years sooner.

What do you consider the successes and the failures against what the original goals were?</font>[/QUOTE] Historically speaking, casualties have been very light.

The threat of Saddam has been removed and Iraq no longer exists as a safe haven for terrorists and their training camps.

Saddam is not in a nuclear arms race with Iran as he surely would have been had we not acted.

Iraq no longer has a nuclear weapons program nor the means to start one.

The frightening part is that the UN said that there were weapons in Iraq.... which still haven't been found. Never mind the ones we thought Saddam was lying about.

Obviously, not everyone has learned the same lesson.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. I am sure that libs would like to dismiss the effects of media on public morale during war... but one only has to look at WWII to see that a nation can endure much worse than Iraq if the media gives a positive impression of the effort.

Or their political beliefs are shaped by what they see and experience. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes... like Cronkite said.... and their reporting of what they see and experience is shaped by the political beliefs and ambition to change the world.

 

BiR, You know that Hannity and Colmes is an opinion show... not a news show.

 

Is it really represented that way? Do you really believe that the average viewer perceives it as nothing more than "an opinion show?" Listen to some of the callers on Sean's radio program and see if they regard it as nothing more than "an opinion show" when they mention the television program.

BTW, that still does not change the fact that Hammesfahr was NOT a Nobel Prize nominee, does it? Did Hannity, who said it over and over, ever retract that claim?

Regards to you,

BiR

 

The press raked them over the coals.

It was not baseless. The GOP board of elections in Florida was, um, overenthusiastic in wiping the voter rolls clean of "criminals". There were roadblocks on election day. What were the other specific charges?

You'll have to explain this a bit further as I'm unfamiliar with the incident.

&lt;big sigh&gt; It stops being news when it happens every day. Stories of prevention never garner the headlines as the stories of [murder|mayhem|atrocities|bloody car crashes] do - sad fact of life, that.

You're right. Unfortunately, the only such stories to hit the big time were the bogus Jessica and Tillman stories.

Even the local papers don't carry much about what the people from here are doing there - I don't know why, but I really doubt "liberal bias" has much to do with it because these are our friends, our friends' kids, our neighbors, our own. What happened to the "embedded" journalists? Why don't we hear from them what the units are doing? This silence is really kind of weird.

What was poor? Was the discovery of mass graves a success?

No, look it up - bodycounts are officially not kept and not disseminated by the American or by the Brittish authorities.

That is true, it does. Do any of the soldiers send their real stories and/or photos to their local papers? Do the readers of the papers ask for more coverage of that nature? If not, why not?

I've already named some and the WSJ is considered a conservative paper.

Johnson got us into the war, Nixon got us out.

Nixon had many years to win it, but did not. It was not because of protesters at home, but because of the high-command decision/deception that South Vietnam, not America, was going to fight and win the war. The lesson many of us learned was that you cannot fight someone else's war for them.

Well, that's good, but you can't keep trumpeting it as a headline. You're refering to Coalition casualities, rather than Iraqi casualities or both?

That's only half true - Saddam has been removed. Iraq never had been a safe haven for terrorists who bombed us, but it is definitely a training ground for them now.

Saddam's removal did make the headlines for many days.

Bit of a joke, that. Iraq was effectively disabled from pursuing any nuclear arms program.

That was true since '91.

Reference?

We shouldn't be "enduring" Iraq at all. The media is not supposed to be the President's rah-rah boys.

Ok.

 

The press raked them over the coals.

It was not baseless. The GOP board of elections in Florida was, um, overenthusiastic in wiping the voter rolls clean of "criminals". There were roadblocks on election day. What were the other specific charges?

You'll have to explain this a bit further as I'm unfamiliar with the incident.

&lt;big sigh&gt; It stops being news when it happens every day. Stories of prevention never garner the headlines as the stories of [murder|mayhem|atrocities|bloody car crashes] do - sad fact of life, that.

You're right. Unfortunately, the only such stories to hit the big time were the bogus Jessica and Tillman stories.

Even the local papers don't carry much about what the people from here are doing there - I don't know why, but I really doubt "liberal bias" has much to do with it because these are our friends, our friends' kids, our neighbors, our own. What happened to the "embedded" journalists? Why don't we hear from them what the units are doing? This silence is really kind of weird.

What was poor? Was the discovery of mass graves a success?

No, look it up - bodycounts are officially not kept and not disseminated by the American or by the Brittish authorities.

That is true, it does. Do any of the soldiers send their real stories and/or photos to their local papers? Do the readers of the papers ask for more coverage of that nature? If not, why not?

I've already named some and the WSJ is considered a conservative paper.

Johnson got us into the war, Nixon got us out.

Nixon had many years to win it, but did not. It was not because of protesters at home, but because of the high-command decision/deception that South Vietnam, not America, was going to fight and win the war. The lesson many of us learned was that you cannot fight someone else's war for them.

Well, that's good, but you can't keep trumpeting it as a headline. You're refering to Coalition casualities, rather than Iraqi casualities or both?

That's only half true - Saddam has been removed. Iraq never had been a safe haven for terrorists who bombed us, but it is definitely a training ground for them now.

Saddam's removal did make the headlines for many days.

Bit of a joke, that. Iraq was effectively disabled from pursuing any nuclear arms program.

That was true since '91.

Reference?

We shouldn't be "enduring" Iraq at all. The media is not supposed to be the President's rah-rah boys.

Ok.

 

Your response is irrelevant! </font>[/QUOTE]Amen!

The point was the action of the newspaper seeking to unseal the adoption records.

What purpose is intended or would be served by such an action?

 

Sorry about my previous message. I hit the add reply before I was finished.

BiR, I don't time any show, especially talk shows whose format is debate and controversy. If Colmes gets less time, or if liberals get less time they have no one to blame but themselves. It appears to me the producers do a pretty good job of keeping the time even.

 

To set the record straight from the frustrated
people who want to skew like a drudge.

Your response is irrelevant! </font>[/QUOTE]Amen!

The point was the action of the newspaper seeking to unseal the adoption records.

What purpose is intended or would be served by such an action? </font>[/QUOTE]Judith Miller is a bush/cheney/chalabi defender ..New York Times
is defending her to the hilt..so the relevant point is that it is not a leftist/liberal conspiracy with black helicopters swooping down

 

The relevant question is what do the adoption records have to do with the qualifications of this person for the office they're being appointed to fill and what is the intended purpose of having these records unsealed.

It looks brown to me, ASLANSPAL!