|
Gack! The dems just threw Virginia (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
How would the media treat it? |
Clarify: Media and the other side of the aisle. For starters I'm sure there would've been an investigation demanded by now. It is something that, if the tables were in fact turned, would bring shame to the Bush administration. No question, the media and leftists everywhere would be on the issue like white on rice. Instead we mostly have a dismissive attitude saying things like, "oh, it's just fiction, it doesn't mean anything." As if it doesn't provide the slightest bit of insight into the mind of Webb. It may not be as big as some (like me) are making it out to be right now, but I certainly think it's more than you and others are willing to admit.
Are you telling me that you honestly believe that it wouldn't be handled differently? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Edit: Riddle me this: If the tables were turned and it were George Allen that had written this stuff and Webb who had made the disparaging remarks, tell me the media would treat it the same way. No way in hell. |
Are you kidding?
The name, "Bush" would be in there like a dirty shirt; that's just a MSM perquisite... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Clarify: Media and the other side of the aisle. For starters I'm sure there would've been an investigation demanded by now. It is something that, if the tables were in fact turned, would bring shame to the Bush administration. No question, the media and leftists everywhere would be on the issue like white on rice. Instead we mostly have a dismissive attitude saying things like, "oh, it's just fiction, it doesn't mean anything." As if it doesn't provide the slightest bit of insight into the mind of Webb. It may not be as big as some (like me) are making it out to be right now, but I certainly think it's more than you and others are willing to admit.
Are you telling me that you honestly believe that it wouldn't be handled differently? |
Ummm yea I think it would be handled in the exact same light given similar context. Of course if it had been someone like Bush there would a lot more nonsense raised but that's because he's a much bigger figure politically. Can you provide any evidence whatseover that if it had been Webb who said "macaca" and George Allen who wrote the book it would have been treated any differently? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Since it seems to be open-season, gloves coming off in Virginia, I'm curious if we might be able to understand why Allen quickly sealed his divorce records and refuse to hand them over to reporters. Word has it that more than a handful of reporters are inquiring about this. Highly unusual.
Allen also has two arrest records from the 1970's that seemingly disappeared from the court files as well.
I mean, if we're going to go after someone's fictional writing in the past, wouldn't it seemingly be fair, if not more called for to go after someone's nonfictional past as well? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Smear Boating 2.0. Classic as always. |
yeah, Marines aren't politicians, or administrate anything noteworthy in any civilian capacity.
Marines are trained in the very ugly art of killing people.
reach again. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yeah, Marines aren't politicians, or administrate anything noteworthy in any civilian capacity.
Marines are trained in the very ugly art of killing people.
reach again. |
Nothing to reach at. As I outlined in the other thread:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=6
Not only does this have all the same marking as the Smear Boaters, but Allen even has a former Smear Boater organizer on his team along with a coupla other infamous -slingin' good-ol' boys. Are you going to contend the lack of similarity between the two campaigns, or do these boys previously mentioned not even exist other than in our librul imaginations? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| i really dont see the problem. i am constantly amazed at the things that score a spotlight in the US media. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Ummm yea I think it would be handled in the exact same light given similar context. Of course if it had been someone like Bush there would a lot more nonsense raised but that's because he's a much bigger figure politically. Can you provide any evidence whatseover that if it had been Webb who said "macaca" and George Allen who wrote the book it would have been treated any differently? |
Well obviously you're asking me to speculate on something that didn't happen so nobody can say with exact certainty, but it seems to me that often times the media is much more eager to jump all over anything that makes republicans look bad while more willingly taking a pass on scrutinizing anything unscrupulous on the other side. Perhaps that changes when you have Dems running the asylum but I still believe there is a liberal media bias.
For example, what ever happened to "Roll Over Rove?" Everyone was so certain that Karl Rove was the source of the leak in the whole Plamegate affair. Maureen Dowd wrote about it extensively, Paul Krugman wrote about it extensively. I'll bet David Gregory liked to masturbate to the thought of it at night. Michael Moore had the whole "Roll Over Rove" banner on his websit for months. Then lo and behold we come to find out it was Richard Armitage that ed up the whole thing and not Karl Rove and nary a mention of the fact that they were wrong. No apologies for mis-reporting the whole incident. There is no interest in reporting stories that might cast the GOP in any positive light. Not that I think Rove is a great guy, but that's certainly one example where I think the media's position was much less ambiguous.
I watched a TV show on PrimeTime the other night. It was some gay drama called Brothers & Sisters (and it sucks by the way). However, it struck me that most of the show seemed to harp on how bad Republicans are. I watched TV for an hour and my primary takeaway was that Republicans are greedy, wealthy, selfish s, while Democrats are innocent and good (though they couldn't run a simple business to save their ass and had to have some evil republican businessman come in and bail them out). That still didn't change the fact that he must've been a bad guy, even though he saved Sally Field's pathetic ass.
SNL which loves to lampoon all sides of the political spectrum (and rightfully so), takes a much more harsh and vigorous stance against the GOP than I've seen them take against political parties in the past. I usually laugh because it's just comedy, but the amount of spite and hatred cast on Republicans seems more heavy handed than I remember. Daily Show, Colbert Report...much more heavy handed towards the GOP than a balanced criticism. If it could show GOPers more positively, it is generall under-reported.
So you ask me if I have hard evidence that the media would handle it differently were the tables turned--no I don't have "hard" evidence, but I have made enough observations from watching way too much TV and reading way too many articles that seem more critical of one side when they up, while sweeping nasty things about the other side under the rug when they occur that I can say with a decent amount of confidence that the media would be in a bigger uproar right now if the tables were turned.
Yeah, maybe it is just fiction and we shouldn't read anything else into it, but in the age of the Mark Foley's and the focus that has brought to the subject of pedophilia, incest, etc., had this happened to the GOP, I think the media would've been much more outraged and would've said this is just one more example of how sick, twisted, perverted and untrustworthy the evil republicans are. There seems to be a much broader brush-stroke used to criticize one party over the other. The only broad brush stroke I can think of off the top of my head that is used to criticize all Dems is that they all want to raise taxes and that they're all a bunch of "cut & run" pussies, when I don't believe that's an accurate characterization of every democrat. But yes, my opinion is that favorable news to the GOP tends to be underreported whereas embarassing things are harped on and pushed around in the public eye much more aggressively.
Again, could just be because they control both houses of congress and the news is a function of the good ole 4th wing of government being more scathing in their review of said policies, but that doesn't change the fact that it still seems to be more unevenly covered when there is good news vs. bad news. Same thing with Iraq--it's hard to find the good news being reported even though there have been many positive developments over there. It is generally overshadowed by negativity which is then used to make the GOP in general look worse.
Rabble, rabble, rabble. You probably disagree with me, but maybe news is reported differently in your neck of the woods. |
|
|
| CranberryJuice |
ead the article on cnn yesterday and actually wthout judging or tryin to judge im just shocked by the ways used to defeat someone ....i think it's pretty low....to use some lines of books the candidate wrote against him ....and especially to use them saying statement he is against woman or degrades woman ....i think it's dangerously mixing the fiction of a book and what is thinking the candidate......
so i dunno but i think to use such low methods is just pathetic.....a battle of ideas debates.....yes but a battle trying by every way possible to defeat the other person is just disappointing |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
this whole story smacks of the crap the GOP heaped on Upton Sinclaire during his 1934 California gubunetorial campaign. in that campaign, the republican party claimed that Sincalire himself said some unpopular things, when in fact, those things were said by characters in some of his books.
this reeks of desperation. pheeeew!
i'm confident that the virginia voters are intelligent enough to see through this GOP charade. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Again, could just be because they control both houses of congress and the news is a function of the good ole 4th wing of government being more scathing in their review of said policies,
|
I'm more of a fan of this part of your argument. News sells better if it generates a scandal. There's nothing more scandalous than improprieties on the part of those in power in Washington. I can recall a lot of hot air with respect to attacks on the Clinton administration when it was in power, and I've seen the same with the Bush administration. However, I'd like the to think that I've learned to segragate legitimate ups ... like the check scandal of democrats in the 90's or the whole Iraq debacle, with stupid like this fictional novel or some of the more absurd conspiracy theories. |
|
|
|
|
