Ron Paul pwns his fellow Republicans [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

QUENTIN

05-22-2007, 05:22 PM

I don't agree with this guy on some important social issues, but he seems to be the only Republican candidate that knows what he's talking about and has a good understanding of what makes for succesful and unsuccesful foreign policy. I was really pleased that even on a Fox News poll, where the viewers aren't just Republicans, but primarily arch-conservative super-Christians, Paul was tied with Romney for having "won" the debate, which those clips make clear he did.

The second clip also proves that Sean Hannity is an utterly ignorant idiot who tries to put words into people's mouths. Understanding 9/11 and wanting to prevent future terrorist attacks is NOT the same as saying it was "our fault", the fucking morons.

If it came down to a Paul v. Hillary ticket, I'd much sooner vote for this guy.

Scarfather

05-22-2007, 07:14 PM

Giuliani is a prick. The audience is a stampede of zombies.

Ron Paul will never win, but he's geting my vote anyway, by the grace of God, Jehovah, Allah, Shiva the detroyer, Buddha, the flying Spaghetti monster, Xenu, or whoever the fuck, we might actually have a good presidential candidate in Ron Paul, but the public is too fucking podunk retarded to see it.

Thrizzle

05-22-2007, 07:36 PM

I would vote for him but i dont know where he stands on social issues and the environment. Bloomberg is looking good to me right now. I'd say he's the most qualified to run the country...but that eliminates him immediately.

Lynn7

05-23-2007, 10:04 AM

Maybe Ron Paul should run as a Dem since he seems to represent that side of the aisle better than he does the conservatives.

As far as Bloomberg goes, he does not appeal to me at all. I only know what I have seen of him in New York but I don't have a good feeling about the guy. I'm not up on him as he stands on all the issues but I think he comes across as a cold guy.

QUENTIN

05-23-2007, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Maybe Ron Paul should run as a Dem since he seems to represent that side of the aisle better than he does the conservatives.

He's far from a democrat, he's actually a model classical conservative. In the past 20 years, the religious right has turned most of the Republican party into the "Christian Morality" party, and most of the Republican candidates are just molding themselves in Bush's model, but that's not what being a Republican has meant for the past 200 years. Paul is for all truly Republican things though, he wants very limited government, zero income taxes, no federal interference in people's lives, he's for state's rights and is a strict constitutionalist. He is probably the only real conservative running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

jeo4

05-23-2007, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by QUENTIN
He's far from a democrat, he's actually a model classical conservative. In the past 20 years, the religious right has turned most of the Republican party into the "Christian Morality" party, and most of the Republican candidates are just molding themselves in Bush's model, but that's not what being a Republican has meant for the past 200 years. Paul is for all truly Republican things though, he wants very limited government, zero income taxes, no federal interference in people's lives, he's for state's rights and is a strict constitutionalist. He is probably the only real conservative running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

You just saved me a lot of trouble with this post.

QUENTIN

05-23-2007, 03:57 PM

For anyone (oh, who am I kidding? It's only one person here and maybe 200 nationwide) who doesn't think Fox News is ridiculously, hilariously, fiendishly biased, here is there spin on Ron Paul's win in the debate according to a Fox News poll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4e_ckSjyq0&mode=related&search=

They simply have ZERO ethics.

Lynn7

05-23-2007, 08:06 PM

Too bad Fox news has more than double the viewership of CNN and the other cable news channels. Pretty impressive when up against NBC and Microsoft.

Too bad those pesky morality Christians make up such a big part of the Republican party. It must be the way it is for the Dems who have to appeal to their pro-abortion and prounion groups. The parties can choose to appeal to who they will and then accept the consequences.

So this guy ran as a Libertarian. Sounds like he thinks like one. He is not in step with the majority view of the Republicans at this point. That poll that voted such a high approval for this guy after the debate was an MSNBC poll- that is not an objective poll. An internet poll that is conducted by any of these cable networks is going to be weighted toward who happens to watch them. Not exactly a scientific poll.

electriclite

05-23-2007, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Too bad Fox news has more than double the viewership of CNN and the other cable news channels. Pretty impressive when up against NBC and Microsoft.

Too bad those pesky morality Christians make up such a big part of the Republican party. It must be the way it is for the Dems who have to appeal to their pro-abortion and prounion groups. The parties can choose to appeal to who they will and then accept the consequences.

So this guy ran as a Libertarian. Sounds like he thinks like one. He is not in step with the majority view of the Republicans at this point. That poll that voted such a high approval for this guy after the debate was an MSNBC poll- that is not an objective poll. An internet poll that is conducted by any of these cable networks is going to be weighted toward who happens to watch them. Not exactly a scientific poll.

So your idea of what's right is if its the majority's favor? I know you don't preach that logic to your kids.

By that logic all the sex and immorality you condemn is just fine and dandy cause the majority practices it and the majority rules.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Maybe Ron Paul should run as a Dem since he seems to represent that side of the aisle better than he does the conservatives.

What exactly makes the man more Democrat material in your eyes then Republican, or less conservative? The fact that he doesn't spew some sort of rant verging into "Divine Right of Kings" territory, or he's not thumping a Bible hard enough for the religious folk?

"Moral Majority" or not there is far more to being a Republican than swearing up and down that Jesus is your homie. These parties, especially Republicans need to get back and read up on what it is that defines what their party stands for, because so far the Republican Party is paying hard for forgetting, and losing allies..... and voters.

QUENTIN

05-23-2007, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7

That poll that voted such a high approval for this guy after the debate was an MSNBC poll- that is not an objective poll. An internet poll that is conducted by any of these cable networks is going to be weighted toward who happens to watch them. Not exactly a scientific poll.

Not true. I don't know if you're speakers are still out or not, but that video I posted has some spinner trying to explain away the fact that according to a FOX NEWS text-messaging poll conducted immediately after the debate, Ron Paul was leading the pack with 27%. During the clips of Paul speaking to Hannity and Colmes right after the debate, there's a scrolling list of results which listed Ron Paul tied with Mitt Romney at 27%. That means more FOX NEWS voters were voting for Paul as the winner of the debate than any other of the nine candidates. By the next day, the poll had Romney pulling ahead by 2%, but Paul was still close behind with 27% and higher than Giuliani or McCain. And every other news poll also had him as the winner. Yes, these tests aren't scientific, but you can't dismiss it as "liberal" MSNBC (I've still seen no evidence they're a biased network) poll, since Fox News voters seemed to really like Paul too.

As for your argument about Fox News, all you're saying is that since Fox News is popular it doesn't matter what they do, because I guess might makes right. And that Republican candidates should have to abandon the traditional conservative principles that have been the cornerstone of their politics for 200 years to pander to the religious right. By that rationale, too bad Bill Clinton is obviously a wonderful man, because he's beloved by most Americans.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-23-2007, 10:28 PM

I don't really see how this guy isn't a Republican. He believes in a decentralized government and more rights....something that traditionally Republicans claim to stand for. These conservative Republicans who claim they want small government, yet have been responsible for the huge expansion that has taken place in the past six years, are the ones at loss.

And we end up in the same place we were. They tell us they want to make government smaller, yet they want to outlaw gay marriage, abortion, naughty lyrics, and pushed for the PATRIOT Act. Ron Paul is a Republican in the truest sense of the word, and maybe that's why he won that debate.

jeo4

05-24-2007, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Too bad Fox news has more than double the viewership of CNN and the other cable news channels.

Yeah, that is pretty much a huge misrepresentation. (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005)

Lynn7

05-24-2007, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
Yeah, that is pretty much a huge misrepresentation. (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005)

I actually read the entire article and I was thinking wow- they protest too much- so I looked up who they are and this is one thing I found:
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
From SourceWatch
(Redirected from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a group that criticizes the fairness and accuracy of the news media from a left-leaning standpoint. It produces press releases and reports that document and criticize conservative media bias and censorship.

FAIR was founded in 1986. In some respects, it provides a counterbalance to Accuracy in Media, an older, right-leaning media watch group.

[edit]Projects
Counterspin, a weekly radio program.

Extra!, a bimonthly magazine.

[edit]People
Jeff Cohen, cofounder
[edit]Contact
FAIR
112 W. 27th Street
New York, NY 10001
Tel: 212-633-6700
Fax: 212-727-7668
E-mail: fair@fair.org
Web: http://www.fair.org/

and when I clicked on the link about the founder he produced Donahue on MSNBC- of course Donahue is well known for his objective reporting, lol!

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fairness_%26_Accuracy_In_Reporting"

Lynn7

05-24-2007, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by electriclite
So your idea of what's right is if its the majority's favor? I know you don't preach that logic to your kids.

By that logic all the sex and immorality you condemn is just fine and dandy cause the majority practices it and the majority rules.

What exactly makes the man more Democrat material in your eyes then Republican, or less conservative? The fact that he doesn't spew some sort of rant verging into "Divine Right of Kings" territory, or he's not thumping a Bible hard enough for the religious folk?

"Moral Majority" or not there is far more to being a Republican than swearing up and down that Jesus is your homie. These parties, especially Republicans need to get back and read up on what it is that defines what their party stands for, because so far the Republican Party is paying hard for forgetting, and losing allies..... and voters.

We all know how this works. The people who show up to vote in the Repub primaries will decide who the candidate will be. If it is this guy then we will decide who to vote in the general election. Maybe he would win the Repub vote against Hillary. Who knows? I have not heard anyone taking his candidacy seriously.

Teh Christian Right has the right to be in this party just like NOW is in the Dems and the Rainbow Coalition is with the Dems too. So why are you picking on our special interest group? Do only certain groups have the right to assert their power? If the Repubs deserted the Christian Right then I would not be voting for them anymore. I only choose my votes based on who most closely follows Christain teachings. And sometimes we can't get a candidate that is a Christian or who lives a great life but then I will vote on who comes closest. That's just me as a single voter.

jeo4

05-24-2007, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I actually read the entire article and I was thinking wow- they protest too much- so I looked up who they are and this is one thing I found:
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
From SourceWatch
(Redirected from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a group that criticizes the fairness and accuracy of the news media from a left-leaning standpoint. It produces press releases and reports that document and criticize conservative media bias and censorship.

FAIR was founded in 1986. In some respects, it provides a counterbalance to Accuracy in Media, an older, right-leaning media watch group.

[edit]Projects
Counterspin, a weekly radio program.

Extra!, a bimonthly magazine.

[edit]People
Jeff Cohen, cofounder
[edit]Contact
FAIR
112 W. 27th Street
New York, NY 10001
Tel: 212-633-6700
Fax: 212-727-7668
E-mail: fair@fair.org
Web: http://www.fair.org/

and when I clicked on the link about the founder he produced Donahue on MSNBC- of course Donahue is well known for his objective reporting, lol!

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fairness_%26_Accuracy_In_Reporting"

And everyone knows that any other news channel but Fox is completely biased. :rolleyes:

From Wikipedia:

Fox News currently leads the cable news market in the United States, earning higher points ratings than its chief competitors CNN and MSNBC combined by average viewership.[12][13][14] While more people are actively watching Fox News Channel at any given time, CNN still remains the leader in unique viewers.[15]

The BBC reported that Fox News saw its profits double during the Iraq conflict. By some reports, at the height of the conflict they enjoyed as much as a 300% increase in viewership, averaging 3.3 million viewers daily.[16]

In 2004, the gain in ratings became more apparent. In September, Fox News Channel's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.

However, starting in late 2005, Fox began to see a slight decline in the ratings. One of the most notable decline in ratings came in the second quarter of 2006, when compared to the previous quarter, Fox News had a loss in viewership for every single primetime program but retained their lead in the market. One of the most noteworthy losses of viewership was that of Special Report with Brit Hume. The show's total viewership was down 19% compared to the previous quarter. However, several weeks later, in the wake of the North Korean Missile Crisis and the 2006 Lebanon War, Fox saw a surge in viewership and managed to easily remain the #1 rated cable news channel.[17][18] Fox still held eight of the ten most-watched nightly cable news shows, with The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes coming in first and second places, respectively.[19]

In August 2006 figures were released showing that in the period August 2005 - August 2006, Fox news lost 28% of its prime-time viewers and 7% of its total day viewers. This loss in viewers occurred during a time where rival networks CNN and MSNBC gained 35% and 26% respectively in their total day viewers.[20]

Yeah, I'd say that little ratings lie is still just that...a lie.

EVILxxx

05-25-2007, 01:12 AM

I think her point is don't complain when she links right-wing outlets (as you sometimes do) and she won't complain when you do it.
A lot of times on this board people dismiss articles or reports as soon as it comes from a possibly biased source. While such things should be taken with a grain of salt, no one should reject an article outright just because it comes from crooksandliars.com or freerepublic.com. Just because something is biased doesn't mean it is untrue.

jeo4

05-25-2007, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I think her point is don't complain when she links right-wing outlets (as you sometimes do) and she won't complain when you do it.
A lot of times on this board people dismiss articles or reports as soon as it comes from a possibly biased source. While such things should be taken with a grain of salt, no one should reject an article outright just because it comes from crooksandliars.com or freerepublic.com. Just because something is biased doesn't mean it is untrue.

Fair point, but she outright dismisses anything that isn't from Fox news or with a steep Republican slant.

electriclite

05-25-2007, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
We all know how this works. The people who show up to vote in the Repub primaries will decide who the candidate will be. If it is this guy then we will decide who to vote in the general election. Maybe he would win the Repub vote against Hillary. Who knows? I have not heard anyone taking his candidacy seriously.

Teh Christian Right has the right to be in this party just like NOW is in the Dems and the Rainbow Coalition is with the Dems too. So why are you picking on our special interest group? Do only certain groups have the right to assert their power? If the Repubs deserted the Christian Right then I would not be voting for them anymore. I only choose my votes based on who most closely follows Christain teachings. And sometimes we can't get a candidate that is a Christian or who lives a great life but then I will vote on who comes closest. That's just me as a single voter.

The problem is that the republican party has, for last 5 years, been acting and spending like the Democratic party and abandoning its core characteristics, and in order to make up for the loss of its classic base, as far as I can gather, they're making up for it by increasing their pandering to the Moral Majority, thinking they can coast by with just that demographic and the new religious/spiritual resurgence.

Now obviously the previous election has proven that wasn't a smart idea, But if that hadn't happened and the Republicans continued on with this what could they turn into? A Theocratic party?

The Christian Right has the right to be in the party, just not the right to hijack it and boot its original principles out the door. And this goes for any other group in any party.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-25-2007, 05:22 PM

I can't see the Republicans nominating someone like Ron Paul. Although, to be fair I can't see the Democrats nominating anyone worthwhile either. The main problem with this election is that the Republicans are looking for their new Reagan and the Democrats are looking for their new Clinton; but they fail to realize that it's not gonna happen.

I would be interested to see it be Giuliani vs. Clinton (which the polls seem to indicate) just to see who would win New York. At first I didn't think such a match up would occur, but Giuliani seems to be gaining more ground with Republicans and Clinton's lead is increasing every day.

Lynn7

05-27-2007, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
Fair point, but she outright dismisses anything that isn't from Fox news or with a steep Republican slant.

That's not true. I read a lot and I read from many sources. I don't mind reading articles from the left but I like to know where they are from to see what their bias is, cause we all have them. Ijust thought that in that article there was way too much explaining going on. If the point the guy was trying to make was true it would be easily explained in few words. They are using figures incorrectly- they are using the X figures instead of the Y figures blah blah blah.

IF it was true that Fox had low ratings I would still watch it. I am so thankful to have an alternate news source out there from the one dominant media viewpoint. It allows the other side to get it's voice out there.

Lynn7

05-27-2007, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by electriclite
The problem is that the republican party has, for last 5 years, been acting and spending like the Democratic party and abandoning its core characteristics, and in order to make up for the loss of its classic base, as far as I can gather, they're making up for it by increasing their pandering to the Moral Majority, thinking they can coast by with just that demographic and the new religious/spiritual resurgence.

Now obviously the previous election has proven that wasn't a smart idea, But if that hadn't happened and the Republicans continued on with this what could they turn into? A Theocratic party?

The Christian Right has the right to be in the party, just not the right to hijack it and boot its original principles out the door. And this goes for any other group in any party.

I think President Bush has overspent. He has really tried to find common groung with the Dems and thinking it would be good to open up the coffers to be liked by the Dems he has alientated a lot of Repubs who are mad at his spending.

The Christian Right has the right to assert itself and the party can assess if they can risk losing their vote or not. People can vote however they want and certain positions the party takes will gain or lose voter turnout. I have a feeling that when push comes to shove most of the Christian right will put a premium on security as opposed to social issues but I may be wrong. If it was Hillary against Rudy, then the Christians would have 2 candidates with the same view on social issues but very different views on security. Will they come out and vote for Rudy or will they sit home? We won't know until that day. I won't sit home for Rudy but I would sit home if it was Bloomberg.

electriclite

05-27-2007, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think President Bush has overspent. He has really tried to find common groung with the Dems and thinking it would be good to open up the coffers to be liked by the Dems he has alientated a lot of Repubs who are mad at his spending.

The Christian Right has the right to assert itself and the party can assess if they can risk losing their vote or not. People can vote however they want and certain positions the party takes will gain or lose voter turnout. I have a feeling that when push comes to shove most of the Christian right will put a premium on security as opposed to social issues but I may be wrong. If it was Hillary against Rudy, then the Christians would have 2 candidates with the same view on social issues but very different views on security. Will they come out and vote for Rudy or will they sit home? We won't know until that day. I won't sit home for Rudy but I would sit home if it was Bloomberg.

Whoa, whoa whoa there. Bush didn't spend alone. He needed permission from Congress to spend the way he did, and at that time that Congress was run by a Republican majority, and I didn't hear much bitching from their end, especially from any of the main players.

And considering how powerless the Dems were at that time, why the hell would Bush extend such an extreme olive branch that ended up putting the country into an even deeper debt? Makes absolutely no sense you make Bush look like a fuckinng moron which I'm sure wasn't your goal.

jeo4

05-27-2007, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by electriclite
Whoa, whoa whoa there. Bush didn't spend alone. He needed permission from Congress to spend the way he did, and at that time that Congress was run by a Republican majority, and I didn't hear much bitching from their end, especially from any of the main players.

And considering how powerless the Dems were at that time, why the hell would Bush extend such an extreme olive branch that ended up putting the country into an even deeper debt? Makes absolutely no sense you make Bush look like a fuckinng moron which I'm sure wasn't your goal.

Good points. And every one of them is a fact.

jeo4

05-27-2007, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
That's not true. I read a lot and I read from many sources. I don't mind reading articles from the left but I like to know where they are from to see what their bias is, cause we all have them. Ijust thought that in that article there was way too much explaining going on. If the point the guy was trying to make was true it would be easily explained in few words. They are using figures incorrectly- they are using the X figures instead of the Y figures blah blah blah.

IF it was true that Fox had low ratings I would still watch it. I am so thankful to have an alternate news source out there from the one dominant media viewpoint. It allows the other side to get it's voice out there.

You say that, yet you dismiss CNN as "liberal". Thaty's a lie, of course. And you said it yourself...you consider Fox News "fair" and others like CNN biased. Your words, not mine.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-27-2007, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
You say that, yet you dismiss CNN as "liberal". Thaty's a lie, of course. And you said it yourself...you consider Fox News "fair" and others like CNN biased. Your words, not mine.

I wouldn't say CNN isn't 100% unbiased, though. It's run by Ted Turner and most of the commentators are left-leaning. I wouldn't call the basic news biased, but as far as the commentary goes it definitely tilts to the left.

Lynn7

05-28-2007, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by jeo4
You say that, yet you dismiss CNN as "liberal". Thaty's a lie, of course. And you said it yourself...you consider Fox News "fair" and others like CNN biased. Your words, not mine.

I have said many times that Fox is right leaning. Fox and Friends is a show that is decidedly to the right. CNN is left. Fox at least has a good amount of Dems (intelligent ones) who represent their side of the argument whereas CNN often has very moderate Repubs (sometimes more liberal than most Repubs) to represent the Conservative side- or else they have people like Buchanon who is dismissed by the left as soon as they look at him. Not fair treatment by this newschannel. When I watch CNN I don't see my side of the argument presented and they don't even show a lot of things that are being reported on Fox- they seem to edit (cleanse) the news to suit their agenda.

jeo4

05-28-2007, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have said many times that Fox is right leaning. Fox and Friends is a show that is decidedly to the right. CNN is left. Fox at least has a good amount of Dems (intelligent ones) who represent their side of the argument whereas CNN often has very moderate Repubs (sometimes more liberal than most Repubs) to represent the Conservative side- or else they have people like Buchanon who is dismissed by the left as soon as they look at him. Not fair treatment by this newschannel. When I watch CNN I don't see my side of the argument presented and they don't even show a lot of things that are being reported on Fox- they seem to edit (cleanse) the news to suit their agenda.

And Fox doesn't? You are looking at your side of the story only and I might add through rose colored glasses. Fox puts HUGE slants on almost everything they report.

You've also said many times that CNN is biased and that Fox is "fair" and you've even used the word objective on one occassion. I found that ridiculous, considering the way they rather viciously attack most liberals.

Lynn7

05-28-2007, 04:03 PM

All the other channels do the same. The words they choose to describe what the Bush administration does carry negative connotations. Many times I will see a story on Fox and go over to the other news shows to see how that story is being presented and it won't even be shown! A news event that will not even be covered because it may be interpretted in a positive way for the war or the Bush administration.

Don't watch Fox- you will be doing what Moveon wants you to do. Moveon.org is running an anti-Fox campaign right now which is having the Dem condidates afraid to appear on Fox due to possible mobilization by the moveon people. Freedom of the press? Not anymore!!! The "liberals" again aren't free enough to allow different voices to be heard. They would have us shut off opinions that are different than their own. Look at Chavez- so popular with some liberal activists- and yet he is shutting down news outlets that are critical of him. Yup - that's the way it goes. Aiming at getting rid of Fox news is the first step to communism.

Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/washington/27fox.html?hp)

Brando @$$ Fat

05-28-2007, 04:14 PM

Lynn7

05-28-2007, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
All the other channels do the same. The words they choose to describe what the Bush administration does carry negative connotations. Many times I will see a story on Fox and go over to the other news shows to see how that story is being presented and it won't even be shown! A news event that will not even be covered because it may be interpretted in a positive way for the war or the Bush administration.

Don't watch Fox- you will be doing what Moveon wants you to do. Moveon.org is running an anti-Fox campaign right now which is having the Dem condidates afraid to appear on Fox due to possible mobilization by the moveon people. Freedom of the press? Not anymore!!! The "liberals" again aren't free enough to allow different voices to be heard. They would have us shut off opinions that are different than their own. Look at Chavez- so popular with some liberal activists- and yet he is shutting down news outlets that are critical of him. Yup - that's the way it goes. Aiming at getting rid of Fox news is the first step to communism.

Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/washington/27fox.html?hp)

Since I linked to a story by the left leaning NYT here is one from the right Newsbusters:

Sheehan's Democrat Party Exit Ignored: Are Media Antiwar or Just Anti-Bush?
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 28, 2007 - 13:44.
It’s been a full 48 hours since antiwar icon Cindy Sheehan publicly announced that she was leaving the Democrat Party due to Thursday’s bipartisan agreement on an Iraq war funding bill.

Yet, Google News and LexisNexis searches have identified that not one major media outlet has covered her announcement.

Not one.

Given the media’s fascination with this woman since she traveled to Crawford, Texas, in August 2005 to picket near President Bush’s ranch, one must wonder why they have abandoned her now?

Does this suggest that the media’s antiwar proclivities are only important when they shed a negative light on the Administration and Republicans, but not when events such as this speak poorly about Democrats?

Before you answer, consider the following data. Since August 1, 2005:

CNN has aired 511 segments which included Sheehan’s name
ABC has aired 92
NBC has aired 75
CBS has aired 63
The Associated Press has published 280 articles which included Sheehan’s name
The New York Times has published 147
The Washington Post quite coincidentally has also published 147
The Los Angeles Times has published 122
USA today has published 40.
Please be advised that this data is un-audited, and unchecked for duplications. However, it is quite clear that Sheehan, when she served a function of embarrassing the Bush administration, got a lot of attention.

In fact, as you might imagine, many of the 1,447 reports referenced above included actual interviews with Sheehan. And, if we broaden our search to include all major American press outlets, we find a total of 2,272 articles or transcripts referring to Sheehan since August 1, 2005.

Yet, when she made a major announcement concerning her departure from the Democrat Party for antiwar reasons, not one media organization thought it was newsworthy.

What’s the only logical conclusion?

Cindy Sheehan only had value to the press when her antiwar sentiments embarrassed the President. But, when she attacked Democrats for betraying their antiwar campaign promises, she became persona non grata.

How disgraceful.

Lynn7

05-28-2007, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
The thing about Fox is they're fishing for compliments to give while CNN is just saying whatever information comes to them before showtime. That is, when Lou Dobbs isn't talking about illegal immigration for the 3,200,333,878th (by my last count) time. I've grown weary of CNN but refuse to watch Fox, not necessarily because of the bias but I hate how flashy they make everything.

And I seriously doubt that Moveon has any impact on what the Democrats decide to do. Despite having the Moveon vote in 2004 the Democrats still lost the White House and the Senate. I can't say I blame them. While the Democrats had Moveon, the Republicans had those extremely effective Swift Boat ads. Sure, the Swift Boat Vets were totally full of shit, but Kerry lost a ton of votes because of them. Moveon, on the other hand, has proven ineffective for the Dems and they realize this.

Those swift boat ads simply gave another side to the story. The media was pushing him as a war hero and the swiftboat guys simply gave some extra info the media chose not to reveal (which is a real scary thing for our media to edit what it wants us to know about a candidate). Kerry lost the election for himself though, cause the swiftboat guys did not come out the last week before the election (like a Dem hit would've done- like the George Bush DUI story released a few days before the election). Kerry said things like I voted for the war before I voted against the war or whatever. He showed himself to be a major boob time and time again. I still can't beleive he was ever nominated to begin with cause he is such an elitist snob.

In my travels on bias, I noticed they said how google decorates its logo for all these holidays but there is nothing on its logo for Memorial Day. Bias? No flag or anything? Just another day for them I guess.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-28-2007, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
In my travels on bias, I noticed they said how google decorates its logo for all these holidays but there is nothing on its logo for Memorial Day. Bias? No flag or anything? Just another day for them I guess.

Considering how many places are open on Memorial Day, I doubt it's because they're Democrats who have an obvious HATRED FOR AMERICA.

Thrizzle

05-28-2007, 06:39 PM

Lynn that Sheehan article didn't mention one network: Fox News. I bet it's because they ran more stories on Sheehan than CNN did.

And the swiftboat assholes weren't giving another side of the story, they were lying about Kerry. What they did to Kerry was absolutely disgusting, and a slap in the face to the men and women in our armed forces. It was a political hit job based on lies, and they got rewarded by the republican party with money and power. Makes me sick just thinking about it.

Lynn7

05-28-2007, 10:35 PM

They were not lying about Kerry. What they said was true. There are tons of stories in Mass about this guy. Gee, just a few months ago. ED Hill was saying how she had gone to interview Kerry many years ago and as she was leaving his home there had been a man who had been injured in front of his home. She ran back to ring the bell to tell the senator about it. He told someone to call for help I think but then when he left the house he walked right by the injured man and never even glanced over to see if he was OK. she was shocked by his insensitive behavior. He really does not care about anyone but himself. He is also the one who does not pay for his meals when he goes out to restaurants. When asked to do so, he signs the checks and leaves, In other words, he does not pay. And he is a rich man thanks to his two rich wives at least.

Kerry does not need you to defend him. He would not care about you. And even if he was a Republican I would despise who he is as a man.

And since he is no longer a candidate no one has said anything nice about him- the Dems are glad to be done with him. They had to even tell him to forget about running again cause he still had aspirations.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-28-2007, 10:42 PM

I don't doubt that Kerry isn't the kind of guy I'd want to get a beer with, but the Swift Boat Veterans did say a lot of horribly untrue things. Their main criticism was of how Kerry accused others of killing Vietnamese citizens, which DID happen. My dad fought in Vietnam and he said that it happened quite frequently. They were basically selling a lie to the American people and, as a result, the man lost a lot of votes.

Lynn7

05-28-2007, 10:48 PM

That was one thing that happened. It was not that people did not know that bad things happened in Vietnem it was that when he got home he was portraying the soldiers in a really bad light (it reflected on all the soldiers not the few who were involved in being bad). And the soldiers returned home and were spit on and called baby killers etc. He used them to lift himself up politically and many years later he paid the consequences for his betrayal. He was not for the soldiers at all but during that last election he portrayed himself as if he was.

Thrizzle

05-28-2007, 10:56 PM

Lynn that story about Kerry has nothing to do with hiss vietnam service. Just because a guy might be a jerk doesn't give republican lackeys the right to insult his military service.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-28-2007, 11:01 PM

I don't think Kerry ever said "The troops are horrible people," but he did testify to Congress and said that there were crimes against humanity due to the war in Vietnam. People were spitting on the troops long before Kerry testified. After all, the sixties counterculture was not exactly pro-military. The Swift Boat Vets attacked his testimony, especially what he said about killing citizens. I guess the Swift Boat Vets themselves killed a bunch of citizens themselves, otherwise they wouldn't get so uptight about someone saying something that was a known fact.

Whether he meant to use it as a way to enhance his political career, I don't think it's fair to say if we know for sure. Only Kerry knows what goes on in his own head. I could easily say that Bush went into Iraq to get patriotism at a high enough level to get him reelected, but I don't know that for sure, now do I?