Democrats routinely lie about being heroes

[The Emperor Fabulous]

It also doesn't prove, like you said, that Kerry's heroism is bogus.

[Ned]

Ramo, just because I do not recall does not mean that no one in the press carried the Nation's story. I just do not recall.

The fact that Bush served in the National Guard and that Kerry served in Vietnam does not justify an anal exam by the press of only Bush.

Your chart does show an anal exam -- not of Kerry, but of the Swiftboat people. This is very CONSISTENT with my thesis.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
It also doesn't prove, like you said, that Kerry's heroism is bogus.

I think that the charges are very serious and have to be refuted point by point by Kerry or people who were there.

Instead, Kerry simply says they are a smear. This is not a pursuasive response.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
The issue here, Molly, is not Bush's war record, but the FACT that Democrats get a pass from the press but the Republicans get an anal exam. This double standard permits and even encourages outrageous exaggerations by Democrats who know that they are immune from being anally probed.

Even Republican media hacks call the 'liberal dominated media' phrase a useful lie.


'' And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue.

"I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

Nevertheless, Kristol apparently feels no compunction about exploiting and reinforcing the ignorant prejudices of his own constituency. In a 2001 pitch to conservative potential subscribers to his Rupert Murdoch-funded magazine, Kristol complained, "The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias.... There's too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes." ''

Eric Alterman

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030224&s=alterman2

But I suppose, Ned, the more you say it, the more true you hope it will be.

I wonder how much coverage there was of Savings and Loan, say, versus Monica's blowjob?

Fraud and insolvency and political machinations versus sex in the Oral Office......hmmm, what would sell better in a country where a naked t!t on television causes a huge stir?


Keep me abreast of what you conclude.




(Edit: spelling, smiley)

[Ned]

Molly, in terms of public interest, sex gets more attention that does accounting fraud -- except in the case of Enron or Halliburton, of course.

Last year and early this year, Michael Moore and others labelled Bush a deserter. The press was all over that story from the point of view that Bush was a AWOL until he proved that he was not.

The press angle on THIS story is that this is a Bush smear.

The consistency of the press is obvious.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
You know, the press has a double standard here. In 1996, members of the press went after Dole's combat record and openly questioned HIS purple hearts.

Really? For about what, five minutes?

And how about the slobber-fest over Ollie North and his decorations? That was at least the same level (actually far more) of promotion of North's war service to create a hero-image than so-called conservatives claim they find disgusting when done by Kerry.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ned, don't feed the troll.

8/10, Ned. You've got almost everyone thinking that you actually believe all that ridiculous crap you write.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Last year and early this year, Michael Moore and others labelled Bush a deserter. The press was all over that story from the point of view that Bush was a AWOL until he proved that he was not.

The first mention of the AWOL story in the main press was when Peter Jennings asked Gen. Clark in a debate if he disavowed Mike Moore's calling Bush a deserter (not merely AWOL). Clark wouldn't, IIRC, and that's when, after several months of the story circulating, it finally got picked up in the media.

From the beginning, the television news sought to downplay this. Rather then do any serious investigation, as had been done by The Boston Globe, most media simply took every scrap of paper Bush handed out and said, "This proves our president didn't go AWOL," despite huge gaps being in the records and nothing being proved at all.

It went away pretty quickly too. A couple weeks and then it was over when Bush released 400 pages of documents that said what we already knew.

There is a double standard. If it had been Clinton who was accused of deserting, you can bet that Ken Star would have been investigating it and feeding grand jury info to the press.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by debeest




8/10, Ned. You've got almost everyone thinking that you actually believe all that ridiculous crap you write.

Naaah, Ned was obvious long ago, and he even admitted it. It's just entertaining to counter-troll in kind.

I'll be too busy to counter-troll for the next week though, so I won't be back online until Wednesday next week. Maybe there will be version four or five of these threads to troll with then.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It went away pretty quickly too.

Hmmm... I guess some people around here haven't gotten the message yet, since it still gets repeated over and over again

[Ned]

Not only here, but it is standard talking point of the Democrat campaign today. On Crossfire just now, the Democrat representative refused to answer any question about Kerry or whether the Swiftvets had any First Amendment rights, but simply referred to Bush and National Guard, etc.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmm... I guess some people around here haven't gotten the message yet, since it still gets repeated over and over again

Are we the media?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
On Crossfire just now, the Democrat representative refused to answer any question about Kerry or whether the Swiftvets had any First Amendment rights, but simply referred to Bush and National Guard, etc.

This is probably hwo they should have handled it from the begining. Kerry's wisdom in this campaign has been to turn every criticisim of himself back on Bush and the Republicans, and it worked. The one time he stops using this method, it blows up in his face.

The rule of politics is not to deal with smears directly. If you try to clean up a smear, you still get dirty. Better to duck and let it pass by.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Undecided voter? Next you'll be telling me you believe in the Easter bunny.

Don't they represent about 50% of your population?

Heck, seeing the campaign, I now understand why so many people don't bother to vote in your country: The only reason to pick one clown over the other is because of a party identification, that is arbitrary and often doesn't correspond to your own ideas. Those devoid of party identification have no incitement to vote.

Heck, had Chegitz not seen the light years ago, by understanding the Reps were completely opposed to what he stands for, he would be praising Bush right now (while standing for the exact same principles).

In Europe, absurd and arbitrary support can be seen for football teams. It leaves room for somehow interesting politics.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Don't they represent about 50% of your population?

No. You're confusing the non-voter with the undecided one. I will say though you're making me want to see if I can dig up the college paper I did on this subject (party systems and the strength or weakness of democracy).