RON PAUL…
“WE’RE NUMBER 2…BITCHEZ”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Right now we’re celebrating the Romney New Hampshire victory. Mitt Romney just gave a tremendous anti-Obama speech and looked very Presidential in the process. And this victory made history! Romney is the only non incumbent President to ever win both Iowa and New Hampshire. And where are Santorum and Gingrich? They are fighting for fourth place. And to the those uninformed who maintain that “all the conservatives are spliting the vote thus hepling Romney” do some math. At this point as the votes are being counted Santorum and Gingrich each have 10%. That means if one of them were not in the race and the other got all the votes he would have had 20% to Romney’s 36%. So much for that argument he would have buried either conservative!
Romney will win South Carolina, and carry that three state win into Florida, win that and then it’s all over![/quote]
NH? Who cares. NH was a given for Romney since the beginning. [/quote]
That means what? A win is a win is a win…Oh that’s right you don’t care about winning I forgot.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
RON PAUL…
“WE’RE NUMBER 2…BITCHEZ”[/quote]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
So fourth is the new second eh?
EDIT: Oh, you mean in New Hampshire? So what does that really mean? See above.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Then Herman Cain was the front runner (you liked him remember?) then it turned out that he sexually harassed most of the females in his state. (Note, Bill Clinton did the same thing but the press didn’t care as much remember?)…”
WHOA, Zeb!
From Jennifer Flowers to Paula Jones to Monica Lewinsky…(and everyone in between!)…the coverage was RELENTLESS (and it should have been)…
But to say the “Press didn’t care?”
That’s a stretch!
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s NOT a stretch it’s the truth! When did they care Mufasa? Tell me WHEN DID THEY CARE?[/quote]
Zeb…you and I agree on a lot of things…but this “MSM Conspiracy” thing is not one of them.
To think that Clinton was not extensively covered (I’m not quite sure the point you’re trying to get across by asking did they “care”???)…is showing a bias meant to bolster the theory of widespread media bias.
Mufasa[/quote]
Conspiracy? I am saying no such thing. The main stream media is very open about supporting Obama. They are not sneaking around speaking in hush tones. They wanted to elect Obama 4 years ago when he was vying for the nomination against Hillary. The media favored Obama so much so that SNL did a skit about how biased the debate Panels were. Obama made the cover of magazines (owne by the liberal media) at a rate of almost 3 to 1 over John McCain. In fact, one fitness mag that I subscribe to showed up on my doorstep with Obama’s face on the cover two weeks from election day. I quickly called the editor and asked when John McCain was given that opportunity. Surrpise HE WASN’T! There are countless examples of media bias, I could write 2000 words on it. It’s no secret at all Mufasa the mainstream liberal media wants to reelect Obama. The unbiased press was never unbiased but in 2008 they didn’t even pretend!
I will go so far as to say that if the media was actually fair that instead of only having a 50/50 chance Romney would be odds on favorite to defeat Obama in November. But it would not surprise me in the least that with unemployment at 8.5% and all the other economic atrocities that Obama is responsible for that he gets reelected. Now can you tell me how many Presidents were ever reelected with unemployment over 8%? I’ll tell you Mufasa NONE! Not one! So why are we talking close election? THE MEDIA IS IN THE BAG FOR OBAMA!
You don’t have to agree or believe me it’s okay. But if you want to respond to me don’t come back with nu uh. Show me some data where McCain was treated fairly by the press on a broad scale.
You can’t!
I think that it’s starting to sink in with many GOP voters that the “goal” is to defeat the President.
It’s unclear how many of these voters have the view that Sloth has…and that is the “goal” is to nominate the most conservative candidate possible in order to further the conservative agenda.
Mufasa
This is why I support Ron Paul.
No teleprompter.
No double speak.
No excuses.
No regrets.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s unclear how many of these voters have the view that Sloth has…and that is the “goal” is to nominate the most conservative candidate possible in order to further the conservative agenda.
Mufasa[/quote]
Enough. There’s enough of us. I predict a sharp rise in independent conservatives. Third-party time?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Then Herman Cain was the front runner (you liked him remember?) then it turned out that he sexually harassed most of the females in his state. (Note, Bill Clinton did the same thing but the press didn’t care as much remember?)…”
WHOA, Zeb!
From Jennifer Flowers to Paula Jones to Monica Lewinsky…(and everyone in between!)…the coverage was RELENTLESS (and it should have been)…
But to say the “Press didn’t care?”
That’s a stretch!
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s NOT a stretch it’s the truth! When did they care Mufasa? Tell me WHEN DID THEY CARE?[/quote]
Zeb…you and I agree on a lot of things…but this “MSM Conspiracy” thing is not one of them.
To think that Clinton was not extensively covered (I’m not quite sure the point you’re trying to get across by asking did they “care”???)…is showing a bias meant to bolster the theory of widespread media bias.
Mufasa[/quote]
Conspiracy? I am saying no such thing. The main stream media is very open about supporting Obama. They are not sneaking around speaking in hush tones. They wanted to elect Obama 4 years ago when he was vying for the nomination against Hillary. The media favored Obama so much so that SNL did a skit about how biased the debate Panels were. Obama made the cover of magazines (owne by the liberal media) at a rate of almost 3 to 1 over John McCain. In fact, one fitness mag that I subscribe to showed up on my doorstep with Obama’s face on the cover two weeks from election day. I quickly called the editor and asked when John McCain was given that opportunity. Surrpise HE WASN’T! There are countless examples of media bias, I could write 2000 words on it. It’s no secret at all Mufasa the mainstream liberal media wants to reelect Obama. The unbiased press was never unbiased but in 2008 they didn’t even pretend!
I will go so far as to say that if the media was actually fair that instead of only having a 50/50 chance Romney would be odds on favorite to defeat Obama in November. But it would not surprise me in the least that with unemployment at 8.5% and all the other economic atrocities that Obama is responsible for that he gets reelected. Now can you tell me how many Presidents were ever reelected with unemployment over 8%? I’ll tell you Mufasa NONE! Not one! So why are we talking close election? THE MEDIA IS IN THE BAG FOR OBAMA!
You don’t have to agree or believe me it’s okay. But if you want to respond to me don’t come back with nu uh. Show me some data where McCain was treated fairly by the press on a broad scale.
You can’t!
[/quote]
Two things, Zeb:
- The Beatles were covered more than the Dave Clark Five…Muhammad Ali was covered more than Buster Mathis…and Lady GaGa has been covered by more media than the White House Press Secretary.
The President was followed and covered more in just about EVERY media outlet because he was a “rock star” and more of a “story” than others…and his face on a Mag SOLD MAGS…he was interesting, with interesting things to say…to have him at ANY event assured a Sold Out event.
If you had a non-conservative Mag to sell; who would YOU put on the cover if given the choice between the President and John McCain?
You’re mixing “stardom/starpower” with “media bias”.
2)The original point of all of this you pointing out that Media Bias lead to Clinton’s troubles somehow not being covered as extensively as Cains…and that simply is NOT true.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think that it’s starting to sink in with many GOP voters that the “goal” is to defeat the President.
It’s unclear how many of these voters have the view that Sloth has…and that is the “goal” is to nominate the most conservative candidate possible in order to further the conservative agenda.
Mufasa[/quote]
One only has to take a quick look at history to see what will happen. For example, LBJ and JFK fought so hard for the democratic nomination in 1960 that some feared that it would fracture the democratic party. But what happened? After the dust settled Kennedy got the nomination and chose LBJ to be his VP. They didn’t particularly like each other but it wasn’t about loving your fellow man, it was about WINNING! They went on to win a narrow victory against Nixon who was Ike’s VP in the previous administration. The same thing (though not quite as contentious) went on between Bush (Sr.) and Ronald Reagan in 1980. In fact, Bush was the one who coined the term “voodo economics” when referring to Reagan’s economic plan. The press screamed that this would sink the Reagan candidacy–ho hum. What happened? Reagan went on to win the nomination and chose Bush to be his VP. They were victorious over Carter & Mondale and went on to win two terms. And one need not look further than the Obama/Hillary fight. Hillary attacked Obama for being naive (she was right). Remember the commercial she put together where the phone rings at 3:00am because of nuclear disaster? She went on to tear Obama apart regarding his lack of experience on every matter. What happened? She became his Secratary of State.
Romney will be the clear winner by Florida and those who were defeated will rally around the winner. And some of those who are making the biggest noise will travel around the country trying to get Romney elected. And many others will recieve cabinet posts Should Romney beat Obama.
This is is politics and this is how the game of politics is played. And this is how the game has always been played. Those who don’t get it either haven’t lived long enough to understand it, or have ignored the process.
One more point. Don’t listen too closely to any of the talking heads. “Gingrich will damage Romney beyond his ability to come back…STAY TUNED FOR MORE REALLY GOOD STUFF THIS IS GOING TO GET REALLY GOOD WATCH US WATCH US” They are there to raise ratings and create a horse race even where there is none. Rather let history be your guide.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Two things, Zeb:
- The Beatles were covered more than the Dave Clark Five…Muhammad Ali was covered more than Buster Mathis…and Lady GaGa has been covered by more media than the White House Press Secretary.
The President was followed and covered more in just about EVERY media outlet because he was a “rock star” and more of a “story” than others…and his face on a Mag SOLD MAGS…he was interesting, with interesting things to say…to have him at ANY event assured a Sold Out event.
If you had a non-conservative Mag to sell; who would YOU put on the cover if given the choice between the President and John McCain?
You’re mixing “stardom/starpower” with “media bias”.
[/quote]
I agree there was some of that but keep in mind that the media can make you or break you. Did they not vet Obama because he was a rock star? PULEASE!! And when it transcends all media it becomes obvious that they helped make him the rock star. And helped give him the nomination over Clinton and helped elect him over McCain. Granted McCain wold have lost anyway, but by a closer margin.
It simply was true. Nothing about Clintons cheating and sexual harassment came out until later. In fact, Paula Jones was screaming about Bill Clinton as soon as he announced but the media wouldn’t, and didn’t cover it. Gee do you think they looked at Clinton as a rock star too? Yeah, every democrat is a rock star and every republican is stupid. Isn’t that one more media bias that they try to drive into the brains of all the susceptable people?
Eisenhower–Stupid
Reagan—stupid
Dan Quayle–Stupid
GW Bush–Stupid
Bill Clinton a rock star and Obama a rock star…>Yeah I guess that’s just the way it um you know democrats are stars and republicans are stupid. We are the press we don’t just make this stuff up, that’s the way it really is. LOL
Mufasa you are never funnier than when you try to defend the Mainstream liberal media! But the jury is in my friend and they are as biased as they can possibly be. As we move toward the election (and if I have time) I will point out ever slight to Romney and every advantage to Obama. It will be fun to watch you scoot around trying to make excuses.
You’re funny don’t ever change.
Your Friend,
ZEB
Zeb:
We will continue to “agree to disagree” on “MSM Bias”…and your last post helped solidify it for me…
Mufasa
P.S. I look forward to having my mind changed with the next General Election!
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Churchill wrote an article referring to Jews as “bloodsucking Hebrews” O_O…
He claimes that a “ghostwriter” actually wrote the article…
Puuuuullllleeeeeaaasssse, how credible is that?[/quote]
Actually no none of that ever happened. He did make a statement early in his career suggesting some sort of link between Jews and Communism - he never claimed it was ghostwritten.[/quote]
“Every Jewish moneylender recalls Shylock and the idea of the Jews as usurers. And you cannot reasonably expect a struggling clerk or shopkeeper, paying 40 or 50 per cent interest on borrowed money to a ‘Hebrew Bloodsucker’, to reflect that almost every other way of life was closed to the Jewish people.”
But its typical of Churchillbots to be blind to why this man is unelectable.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Churchill wrote an article referring to Jews as “bloodsucking Hebrews” O_O…
He claimes that a “ghostwriter” actually wrote the article…
Puuuuullllleeeeeaaasssse, how credible is that?[/quote]
Actually no none of that ever happened. He did make a statement early in his career suggesting some sort of link between Jews and Communism - he never claimed it was ghostwritten.[/quote]
“Every Jewish moneylender recalls Shylock and the idea of the Jews as usurers. And you cannot reasonably expect a struggling clerk or shopkeeper, paying 40 or 50 per cent interest on borrowed money to a ‘Hebrew Bloodsucker’, to reflect that almost every other way of life was closed to the Jewish people.”
But its typical of Churchillbots to be blind to why this man is unelectable. [/quote]
Surprisingly you may be right orion. I have never viewed Churchill through rose-coloured glasses. After all, he organised and unleashed the black and tans for one thing. The quote I made reference to is evidence that he - on that occasion - gave credence to an anti-Semitic blood libel. Overall he was the strongest supporter of Zionism in the British parliament - he wavered in the early 50’s however. I judge the man by his entire record. Those comments, disgraceful as they were, were made in the early 20th century. The comment you cited he never made. Whether he intended to or not is another matter and I won’t argue with you. I’m no ‘Churchillbot.’
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Then Herman Cain was the front runner (you liked him remember?) then it turned out that he sexually harassed most of the females in his state. (Note, Bill Clinton did the same thing but the press didn’t care as much remember?)…”
WHOA, Zeb!
From Jennifer Flowers to Paula Jones to Monica Lewinsky…(and everyone in between!)…the coverage was RELENTLESS (and it should have been)…
But to say the “Press didn’t care?”
That’s a stretch!
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s NOT a stretch it’s the truth! When did they care Mufasa? Tell me WHEN DID THEY CARE?[/quote]
Zeb…you and I agree on a lot of things…but this “MSM Conspiracy” thing is not one of them.
To think that Clinton was not extensively covered (I’m not quite sure the point you’re trying to get across by asking did they “care”???)…is showing a bias meant to bolster the theory of widespread media bias.
Mufasa[/quote]
Conspiracy? I am saying no such thing. The main stream media is very open about supporting Obama. They are not sneaking around speaking in hush tones. They wanted to elect Obama 4 years ago when he was vying for the nomination against Hillary. The media favored Obama so much so that SNL did a skit about how biased the debate Panels were. Obama made the cover of magazines (owne by the liberal media) at a rate of almost 3 to 1 over John McCain. In fact, one fitness mag that I subscribe to showed up on my doorstep with Obama’s face on the cover two weeks from election day. I quickly called the editor and asked when John McCain was given that opportunity. Surrpise HE WASN’T! There are countless examples of media bias, I could write 2000 words on it. It’s no secret at all Mufasa the mainstream liberal media wants to reelect Obama. The unbiased press was never unbiased but in 2008 they didn’t even pretend!
I will go so far as to say that if the media was actually fair that instead of only having a 50/50 chance Romney would be odds on favorite to defeat Obama in November. But it would not surprise me in the least that with unemployment at 8.5% and all the other economic atrocities that Obama is responsible for that he gets reelected. Now can you tell me how many Presidents were ever reelected with unemployment over 8%? I’ll tell you Mufasa NONE! Not one! So why are we talking close election? THE MEDIA IS IN THE BAG FOR OBAMA!
You don’t have to agree or believe me it’s okay. But if you want to respond to me don’t come back with nu uh. Show me some data where McCain was treated fairly by the press on a broad scale.
You can’t!
[/quote]
Romney would not beat Obama today and if the Media were non biased they would be talking about the 1rst and second place finishers rather than the 1rst and 3rd in NH. I do not see how Romney can win his flip floping is to LYING levels
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Churchill wrote an article referring to Jews as “bloodsucking Hebrews” O_O…
He claimes that a “ghostwriter” actually wrote the article…
Puuuuullllleeeeeaaasssse, how credible is that?[/quote]
Actually no none of that ever happened. He did make a statement early in his career suggesting some sort of link between Jews and Communism - he never claimed it was ghostwritten.[/quote]
“Every Jewish moneylender recalls Shylock and the idea of the Jews as usurers. And you cannot reasonably expect a struggling clerk or shopkeeper, paying 40 or 50 per cent interest on borrowed money to a ‘Hebrew Bloodsucker’, to reflect that almost every other way of life was closed to the Jewish people.”
But its typical of Churchillbots to be blind to why this man is unelectable. [/quote]
Surprisingly you may be right orion. I have never viewed Churchill through rose-coloured glasses. After all, he organised and unleashed the black and tans for one thing. The quote I made reference to is evidence that he - on that occasion - gave credence to an anti-Semitic blood libel. Overall he was the strongest supporter of Zionism in the British parliament - he wavered in the early 50’s however. I judge the man by his entire record. Those comments, disgraceful as they were, were made in the early 20th century. The comment you cited he never made. Whether he intended to or not is another matter and I won’t argue with you. I’m no ‘Churchillbot.’[/quote]
What, judging a man by his overall record?
I am pretty sure that this is not how it is done.
Churchill was the ‘right man at the right time’
The right time being March 1940
There’s a reason Labour won a landslide in 1945
ANYWAY
Question for Zeb/Mufasa: Any Chance Obama will pick Hillary as his VP and Biden will have an ‘early retirement’?
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Churchill was the ‘right man at the right time’
The right time being March 1940
[/quote]
Is that so?
So who would be the right man for a broke country trying to keep an unsustainable empire going?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Churchill was the ‘right man at the right time’
The right time being March 1940
[/quote]
Is that so?
So who would be the right man for a broke country trying to keep an unsustainable empire going?[/quote]
Yes Churchill was the right man in the right place when we were under threat of invasion. He would have been the absolute worst person possible to encourage decolonisation and the creation of the nhs that Attlee undertook. He did great things but he was also a backwards reactionary even by the standards of his day.
As for the broke empire comment, no idea. Someone who isn’t keen to leap into war with Iran and send the world economy off another cliff would be my first choice.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Churchill wrote an article referring to Jews as “bloodsucking Hebrews” O_O…
He claimes that a “ghostwriter” actually wrote the article…
Puuuuullllleeeeeaaasssse, how credible is that?[/quote]
Actually no none of that ever happened. He did make a statement early in his career suggesting some sort of link between Jews and Communism - he never claimed it was ghostwritten.[/quote]
“Every Jewish moneylender recalls Shylock and the idea of the Jews as usurers. And you cannot reasonably expect a struggling clerk or shopkeeper, paying 40 or 50 per cent interest on borrowed money to a ‘Hebrew Bloodsucker’, to reflect that almost every other way of life was closed to the Jewish people.”
But its typical of Churchillbots to be blind to why this man is unelectable. [/quote]
Surprisingly you may be right orion. I have never viewed Churchill through rose-coloured glasses. After all, he organised and unleashed the black and tans for one thing. The quote I made reference to is evidence that he - on that occasion - gave credence to an anti-Semitic blood libel. Overall he was the strongest supporter of Zionism in the British parliament - he wavered in the early 50’s however. I judge the man by his entire record. Those comments, disgraceful as they were, were made in the early 20th century. The comment you cited he never made. Whether he intended to or not is another matter and I won’t argue with you. I’m no ‘Churchillbot.’[/quote]
Oh, the irony.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Zeb:
We will continue to “agree to disagree” on “MSM Bias”…and your last post helped solidify it for me…
Mufasa
P.S. I look forward to having my mind changed with the next General Election![/quote]
The next general election will most assuredly NOT change your mind. Unless we literally strain to see otherwise, we see what we want to see.
The following facts mean nothing to you as you want to skip down your merry lane thinking that everything is fair and there is ZERO bais. But I’m posting them anyway for others who may want the truth and actually be open to it:
81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media eliteâ??s vote.
Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”
“Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right â?? a margin of seven-to-one.”
â??Where I work at ABC, people say â??conservativeâ?? the way people say â??child molester.â??â??
â?? ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.
â??The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions…Weâ??re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. Iâ??ve been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.â??
â?? Washington Post â??Book Worldâ?? editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Postâ??s â??daily in-house electronic critiques,â?? as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005 article.
Newsweekâ??s Evan Thomas: â??Is this attack [on public broadcastingâ??s budget] going to make NPR a little less liberal?â??
NPR legal correspondent Nina Totenberg: â??I donâ??t think weâ??re liberal to begin with and I think if you would listen, Evan, you would know that.â??
Thomas: â??I do listen to you and youâ??re not that liberal, but youâ??re a little bit liberal.â??
Totenberg: â??No, I donâ??t think so. I donâ??t think thatâ??s a fair criticism, I really donâ??t â?? any more than, any more than you would say that Newsweek is liberal.â??
Thomas: â??I think Newsweek is a little liberal.â??
â?? Exchange on the June 26, 2005 Inside Washington.
â??There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think itâ??s very dangerous. Thatâ??s different from the media doing itâ??s job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.â??
â?? ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.
â??I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil.â??
â?? Wall Street Journal political editor John Harwood on the April 23, 2005 Inside Washington.
â??I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith…I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism…You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you donâ??t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think thatâ??s one of the faults.â??
â?? Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNNâ??s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005.
â??Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News…But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.â??
â?? Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.
Joe Scarborough: â??Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?â??
Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: â??Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word â??liberalâ?? came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesnâ??t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of whatâ??s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with whatâ??s happening.â??
â?? MSNBCâ??s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.
â??Does anybody really think there wouldnâ??t have been more scrutiny if this [CBSâ??s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?â??
â?? Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBCâ??s Hardball.
â??The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now itâ??s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP [American Mainstream Media Party] was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBSâ??s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixonâ??s fate as the first President to resign. The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.â??
â?? Newsweekâ??s chief political reporter, Howard Fineman, â??The â??Media Partyâ?? is over: CBSâ?? downfall is just the tip of the iceberg,â?? January 11 , 2005.
â??Most members of the establishment media live in Washington and New York. Most of them donâ??t drive pickup trucks, most of them donâ??t have guns, most of them donâ??t go to NASCAR, and every day weâ??re not out in areas that care about those things and deal with those things as part of their daily lives, we are out of touch with a lot of America and with a lot of America that supports George W. Bush.â??
â?? ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin during live television coverage immediately before John Kerryâ??s concession speech on November 3, 2004.
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/archive.aspx
The following is an article that talks about Obama getting more favorable articles over John McCain last time around–Oh wait you’ve already rationalized that one didn’t you? It’s because Obama was a rock star and John McCain was just an ordinary person.
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_12_2_08.htm
“Study Finds Obama Got Best TV News Coverage Since 1988”
Okay, okay let’s not even count Obama after all he’s so black and cool that the liberal media couldn’t help but fall all over him.
What about John Kerry is he a rock star too?
“The report reveals a strong negative cast to ABC, CBS and NBC news coverage of the president thus far in 2004. Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry, Bush’s certain opponent for November, has received more positive coverage by the same three networks.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/18104/media_runs_hot_for_kerry,_cold_for_bush/
And was Al Gore a rock star? How about Bill Clinton? Oh yes he was a rock star so we can’t count his 2-1 favorable news coverage over Bush Sr.
That anyone would even doubt in 2012 that the media is bias toward the democratic party and liberalism in general is absolutely laughable!
Please Mufasa stick to the many things that you do know about and leave this one alone. Because on this topic you are truly clueless!
Thank you,
Zeb