"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
You've heard of Norman Hsu -- why not Robert Lichfield?
As of 11 a.m. today, a Nexis search for "Norman Hsu AND Clinton" returns 1,252 hits. The nation's leading news organizations provide a substantial portion of those results:
The New York Times: 26
Los Angeles Times: 20
The Washington Post: 16
USA Today: 2
Chicago Tribune: 9
The Boston Globe: 8
Associated Press: 47
Newsweek: 2
Time: 1
U.S. News & World Report: 2
CNN: 45
Fox News: 29
NBC News: 14
NPR: 14
ABC News: 6
CBS News: 5
MSNBC: 6
(The actual number of news reports by those organizations, particularly the television outlets, is certainly higher than the Nexis results indicate.)
To date, 137 different newspapers have written about Hsu and Clinton in a total of 591 articles, according to Nexis, and 132 broadcast and cable news transcripts mention Hsu and Clinton.
By contrast, a Nexis search for "Alan Fabian AND Romney" yields a total of only 21 hits. Here's how they break down for the news organizations listed above:
The New York Times: 0
Los Angeles Times: 0
The Washington Post: 1
USA Today: 1
Chicago Tribune: 0
The Boston Globe: 0
Associated Press: 0
Newsweek: 0
Time: 0
U.S. News & World Report: 0
CNN: 0
Fox News: 0
NBC News: 0
NPR: 0
ABC News: 0
CBS News: 0
MSNBC: 0
That's a whole lot of zeros. Of those 21 results, seven are reports that also mention Hsu. The Washington Post report, for example, contained 97 words about Romney and Fabian in the midst of a 1,457 word front-page article about controversial donors to presidential campaigns. Those 1,457 words included the grand total of 137 about Romney donors. No other Republican candidate was mentioned. The vast majority of the article focused on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. So, even when Fabian has been mentioned, it has often been only in passing, as part of a report about controversial donors to Democratic campaigns.
Given the disparate media coverage of Norman Hsu and Alan Fabian, you probably know who Hsu is. But by now, you're probably wondering who Alan Fabian is. Alan Fabian was a Romney bundler until his recent indictment on 23 counts of fraud, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice. At his arraignment today, Fabian pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.
The indictment of a top Romney bundler has resulted in essentially no coverage from the same news organizations that have obsessed over the controversy surrounding a Clinton bundler. And remember, when the media first began focusing on Hsu, it was not yet known that he had any legal woes, so they don't explain the media's interest in Hsu and disinterest in Fabian.
But maybe Hsu and Fabian aren't perfectly comparable. Sure, Fabian has been indicted on 23 counts of fraud, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice, while Hsu wasn't known to have been charged with a crime when the media frenzy about him began. But Hsu, for reasons that may relate to his name (The American Spectator's R. Emmett Tyrrell charmingly referred to "The Clintons' Chop Suey Connection"), was immediately seen as a sexy story. Mail fraud is just so very dull, particularly in comparison to a donor with a Chinese surname.
But there's nothing dull about allegations against Robert Lichfield, who until recently was Romney's Utah finance co-chairman and helped organize a February event that raised $300,000 for the campaign.
On June 20, The Hill reported:
In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 133 plaintiffs have alleged that Robert Lichfield, co-chairman of Romney's Utah finance committee owned or operated residential boarding schools for troubled teenagers where students were "subjected to physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse."
The complaint, which plaintiffs amended and resubmitted to the court last week, alleges children attending schools operated by Lichfield suffered abuses such as unsanitary living conditions; denial of adequate food; exposure to extreme temperatures; beatings; confinement in dog cages; and sexual fondling.
A second lawsuit filed by more than 25 plaintiffs in July in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York alleges that Lichfield and several partners entered into a scheme to defraud them by operating an unlicensed boarding school in upstate New York. The suit does not allege physical or emotional abuse.
These are two active lawsuits against Lichfield. Several others suits have alleged child abuse on behalf of dozens of plaintiffs, but judges have thrown out the suits for procedural reasons. As a result, the merits of the allegations have not been weighed. In some suits, plaintiffs have settled their cases for undisclosed amounts of money.
News reports about Clinton and Hsu have often featured various reporters or pundits expressing incredulity that Clinton's vetting operation didn't raise red flags about Hsu or about the ability of donors connected to Hsu to make campaign contributions. But campaigns don't have access to donors' bank records, making some of that criticism unfair.
Romney's campaign, on the other hand, would only have had to spend a few moments with Nexis to discover allegations against Lichfield. Among the news reports that Romney staff could have easily found prior to the February fundraiser that Lichfield helped organize:
- An April 21, 2005, Deseret Morning News article reported on "persistent allegations of child abuse and claims of questionable business practices surrounding the World Wide Association of Speciality Schools (WWASPS) founded by Robert Lichfield."
- An August 19, 2005, Deseret Morning News article reported that a school connected to Lichfield "has been ordered to refund more than $1 million to parents and stop misrepresenting itself." The school had no authority to issue high school diplomas, but issued 113 anyway, and falsely claimed to have been accredited by the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools. An Associated Press article the same day also covered the order.
So: How much media coverage has there been of the troubles facing Romney's (now-former) Utah finance co-chairman?
A Nexis search for "Robert Lichfield and Romney" returns only 27 hits. None in The New York Times. One brief mention in The Washington Post. Nothing for USA Today or the Associated Press. Nothing for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC.
I can already hear the excuses for the wildly disparate coverage of controversial campaign fundraisers connected to Clinton and Romney. Foremost among them will no doubt be the old standby: Republicans just push these stories more, so it's only natural that there are more media reports about Democrats.
Nonsense.
First, journalists shouldn't be stenographers for political parties and other partisans any more than they should be stenographers for war-hungry presidents. If the indictment of a Romney bundler on 23 counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and fraud is newsworthy if the DNC sends out a press release, it is newsworthy if the DNC doesn't send out a press release, too.
Second, the DNC did send out a press release. In fact, of the 14 Nexis hits for "Alan Fabian AND Romney" that do not mention Hsu, eight of them are Democratic Party press releases, fact sheets, or other materials. Eight press releases, out of 14 hits. The "Democrats aren't pushing this" excuse doesn't hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny. The Democrats are pushing it. Reporters aren't covering it.
To be perfectly clear: I am not suggesting media shouldn't have reported the Norman Hsu story (though some of the coverage went overboard and seemed to be more about embarrassing the man than providing the public useful information). There does, however, appear to be a troubling disparity in the amount of coverage given controversial supporters of Republicans.
And that disparity is not new. Looking back over the last few presidential elections, there are numerous examples of wildly disparate coverage of analogous controversies. Bill Clinton's draft record received a huge amount of coverage in 1992; George W. Bush's was given little attention in 2000. A years-old investment in which the Clintons lost money was hyped as Watergate and Teapot Dome and the Kennedy assassination all rolled into one, then the media completely ignored newly revealed evidence during the 2000 campaign that suggested Bush had insider information for a stock sale in which he made about $800,000. Al Gore's lies, which weren't, were a dominant theme in campaign coverage that year, while George W. Bush's, which were, were ignored. Same for flip-flops in the 2004 campaign.
During a recent washingtonpost.com online discussion, Post reporter John Solomon was asked about his paper's failure to cover Fabian's connections to Romney. Solomon replied, in part, "[I]f you have any doubts about the Post's commitment to vet and examine leaders of both political parties, you only need to examine the front pages of the last few weeks that have included stories by myself and my colleagues exposing Karl Rove's 'asset deployment team,' the role of Dick Cheney's chief lawyer in pressing anti-terrorism policies that troubled some in government and our extensive coverage of the attorney general and Larry Craig controversies."
It is perhaps telling that none of the examples Solomon gave had anything to do with anyone running for the Republican presidential nomination.
Yea sure, this would mean something only if Romney was one of the front runners for the GOP. Oh. Uhhhhh. I would really love to sit down with some of the editors of the big media outlets, pour a nice round of coffee for everyone, lay out this article and have them explain exactly why this is.
Romney not a front runner?
OK, then why isn't Giuliani being covered in as much as what the Fire Dept and Police Depts think about him or what the average New Yorker (who lived in NY while Giuliani was mayor), or the fact that against the advice of experts Giuliani placed the Command Control Center in the WTC? There is some coverage but not really very much and very fleeting. And, the radio screw up caused by Rudy because he ordered radios for the FD on one frequency and the PD on another, He had years to fix it and did not.
Oh, did you know that Rudy left his former wife for his current wife while the first wife was in the hospital being treated for cancer and that she had no knowledge that he was going to leave her until he did it? Maybe that's why his son doesn't support his campaign.
There's your front runner.
I think Romney is the most likely nominee at this point. If it gets close in the primaries the Romney people will make damn sure that every religious right voter gets to see some good pics of Rudy in his finest evening gowns. The GOP race could really become a split between the religious and secular right. It would be very interesting to see how they would mend those fences for the general election.
The main reason the Democrats should take a pass on Hillary 08 is that she is probably the only factor the GOP might have to pull together their base and get them to the polls. Never underestimate the power of fear and hate when you're talking about the modern GOP. Maybe it could be their motto?
Never underestimate the power of fear and hate when you're talking about the modern GOP
At the same time, don't overestimate the present size of what we'd call a GOP "national base".
That base has shrunk to a relative minimum in the past several years, thanks to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their administration; and guys like Dennis Hastert and tom delay and bob ney and mark foley; and ted stevens and david vitter and bill frist and rick santorum and george "Macaca" allen.
And oh yeah, Iraq.
The single most rock solid indisputable indication of how minimal that base has become, is evidenced by the 2006 mid-term elections (which were only just 11 months ago).
And in recalling how startling was the poor showing nationally of Republicans in that election, I'd note also, that the U.S. History making results of that election (true!) is one of this worthless "media's" most ignored story. Because that "media" immediately went into a spin mode when those election results came in, and soon after went into ignore mode about it.
Of the 468 seperate elections held on November 7, 2006 (435 House seats and 33 Senate seats), the Republican Party failed to capture even one open seat nationwide!
Nationwide coast to coast North and South town and country in the mountains and on the plains and by the lakes and rivers and the oceans, Republicans failed to win a single open Congressional seat that day: That was a first in U.S. History!
Also (and quite different), every single Democratic House or Senate incumbent that day, who stood for re-election, was re-elected: And that too was a first in U.S. History!
Obviously this means that every single incumbent Congressperson who failed to get re-elected that day (was fired that day!) was a Republican. And while that includes (I think) 23 or so Republican House Members (which doesn't include those who didn't even try and get re-elected, such as delay and ney and foley and katherine harris and others), the fact is that on 11-07-06...
...SIX INCUMBENT U.S. SENATORS FAILED TO GET RE-ELECTED (WERE FIRED!)...
...and it's extraordinary that ALL SIX WERE REPUBLICANS!
As I had said, do not overestimate the "base" that you mention (and do not expect to see much in the "media" about it's having shrunk to such a relative minimum).
And do not think also, that those voters who we often characterize as Evangelical or Christian or even simply Religious, remain in any large part a part of that "base" we're talking about.
Because even they have seen the Light (or perhaps the darkness), and left that "base" in extraordinarily large numbers, and rather swiftly; contributing to a great degree, to the Republican's failure in the 2006 mid-terms to capture even a single open seat nationwide (History making!)...
...which of course includes every State we would say was in the South, and every Congressional District we would say was rural, and in the country.
And the Republican Party nationally, has only to thank George W. Bush and all those others whose names I mentioned (and many more I didn't), for the sorry status they have presently, with the American People nationwide.
And oh yeah, Iraq: They can thank themselves, for Iraq
"That was a first in U.S. History! " - DEM -
EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS ...
The biggest FIRST in U. S. History!
You heard it here first! From yours truly, -Sam I Am- of Sams Computer at the Media Matters WebSite. A Far Left Swamp Pit & Gestapo Smear Joint. (as called by dark side)
Hillary Rodham Clinton ... President of the United States of America and William Jefferson Clinton, best gentleman. Vice President Obama or Edwards.
Republican hatred for Hillary is miminal when compared to America's love for Bill Clinton. It's minimal in comparison to the country's huge hatred for George W. Bush and his Republican Iraq War.
It's all about the War you stupid pinheaded loonybird fool. Mickey Mouse could win.
You heard it here first.
- Sam I Am -
Let me ask you a few questions.
Bush's current support is around 28% of the country or thereabouts. How many of those 28% vote?
And if they haven't abandoned the Republicans by now, will they ever?
Of the 72% who hate Bush, how many vote?
And how many of them are disgusted with the system or too busy to participate?
A President Giuliani is a real possibility in 2008. He represents the next step in the evolution of the GOP: discarding the Bush veneer of folksy, religious geniality in favor of naked corporate rapine and brute fascism.
He is a pure distillation of everything wrong with the current administration, and he appears to be a moderate to the uninformed.
The Bush style is wearing thin. Most moderate voters won't fall for another folksy, grinning idiot like Thompson. But they might go for an articulate, "socially liberal" former mayor of NY. Especially if the media continues to call him the hero of 9/11.
As for the 28-percenters, they'll vote for whom they're told. They won't have any more trouble pulling the lever for Rudy than they would for Fred, especially once it becomes clear that Rudy will keep the scary dark-skinned people in line. (Putting Fred in the VP slot would seal the deal!)
Add that to Hillary's careful triangulation and a healthy dose of GOP vote manipulation, and we're looking at another closely contested election, with Hillary coming out the loser by a nose.
It's far from over.
"Hillary coming out the loser by a nose. It's far from over." - steve k -
Very thoughtful points. And I agree for the most part. Here's the decisive factor giving the White House to President Hillary R. Clinton ... In One Word ... Bush!
Bush will have to go hide in a corner. The Republican nominee will have to clear out the memorys of every voter except for the 28%. I for one, shall never forget.
Second Factor ... This country loves and trusts Bill Clinton and so does most of the planet Earth ... Obvious to this one casual observer. Especially in contrast to the sorry lineup of Republican alternatives.
I'm kidding! I have some due respect for them and i'm not overconfident but they just won't win this thing.
Hillary is very vulnerable on the war. She won't apologize for her vote for the IWR. She's vague about how quickly she'll withdraw from Iraq. She's hawkish on Iran.
Rudy will simply out-terror Hillary. She has to sound tough but, being a Democrat, she can't talk too tough. So she gives carefully nuanced and measured answers that satisfy no one.
Rudy can and will promise the moon. He has no compunction about making s**t up no matter how ridiculous it is. He can easily dissociate himself from Bush's failures in Iraq by pledging to end the war quickly with a more efficient military policy. Then he'll say that we can't afford anything less than victory in the war on terror. And Hillary won't call him out on his B.S.
In the next year or so, the GOP will try to force the congressional Democrats into a series of votes on the war. This is a minefield for Hillary. She's voted several times to continue funding the war (now she's said she won't vote for more funding). She voted to classify the entire Iranian army as a terrorist group.
During the general, she'll be attacked again and again on the war, called a flip-flopper for her funding votes and Iran hawkishness. There will be not-so-subtle insinuations that maybe a woman isn't tough enough to be commander-in-chief in wartime. And Hillary will respond with the same measured equivocations she's giving now, angering the anti-war voters who want her to come out hard against the war.
Many moderates will be so confused and/or disgusted that they'll sit it out.
And the crypto-fascists among them will vote Rudy. I was at a Democratic forum where the topic of discussion wandered to immigration. Several women, to my surprise, said very angry, resentful things about immigrants that bordered on outright xenophobia.
Those women might call themselves faithful Democrats. They might even call themselves big Hillary supporters. But I suspect that in the privacy of the voting booth, they might be more than a little tempted to pull the lever for Giuliani.
True, Hillary might win in '08. But then again, she might not.
Steve K posted:
"Hillary is very vulnerable on the war. She won't apologize for her vote for the IWR. She's vague about how quickly she'll withdraw from Iraq. She's hawkish on Iran. "
__________________________
You are correct. One thing I would add is she said she'd not pull troops out until 2013. Said so in the Dem debate last Sunday. In fact all of the Dem front runners said the same thing.
How will that play with anti-war voters who rose up in '06? I'm willing to bet they become a tad hawkish is Clinton is elected.
Hopefully, it will drive us into the heart of a candidate who truly opposes the Iraq debacle.
I am so sorely disappointed in the big three Dems.
I'm going to send my $10 monthly campaign budget alottment to Kucinich from here on out. He'll do more with it and appreciate it more anyway.
One thing I would add is she said she'd not pull troops out until 2013. Said so in the Dem debate last Sunday. In fact all of the Dem front runners said the same thing.
Now you're misinforming, Pigprint. They didn't say they wouldn't start getting out until 2013. What they said was that they could not guarantee that the troops would all be out by then.
I'm not happy with Hillary, but please don't put words in her mouth.
Transcripts from the Dem debate (if you can call it that!):
"CLINTON: Well, Tim, could I just clarify that, you know, I saidthere may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it stillexists, will be aimed at Al Qaida in Iraq. It may require combat,special operations forces or some other form of that. But the vastmajority of our combat troops should be out.EDWARDS: But, can I just say that my only point is -- I don'thave any doubt that Senator Clinton wants to take a responsiblecourse. There is a difference, however, in how we would go aboutthis. And I think Democratic primary voters are entitled to know thatdifference. And the difference is really very simple. I would have ourcombat troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I wouldnot continue combat missions in Iraq.Combat missions mean that the war is continuing."
______________________________
Doesn't look like Johnny Edwards agrees with your assessment. Troops will be on the ground there after '13. You can bet on that.
Doesn't look like Johnny Edwards agrees with your assessment.
I didn't make any assessments, Pig. You're not a very good liar. Anyone browsing this site can scroll up and read your post. You said:
One thing I would add is she said she'd not pull troops out until 2013.
But the very transcript you quote puts the lie to your assertion. In it, Hillary is quoted as saying:
I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaida in Iraq. It may require combat, special operations forces or some other form of that. But the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.
Indeed, if you read the earlier part of the NY Times' debate transcript, you'll see that Hillary does intend to start withdrawing troops ASAP:
[CLINTON] But I think it is fair to say that the president has made it clear. He intends to have about 100,000 or so troops when he leaves office -- the height of irresponsibility, that he would leave this war to his successor. I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated.
Now, if you'd said, "she'd not pull all the troops out," we'd be in agreement. But you did not, and what you said was highly misleading.
Hillary is very vulnerable on the war. She won't apologize for her vote for the IWR. She's vague about how quickly she'll withdraw from Iraq. She's hawkish on Iran.
Rudy will simply out-terror Hillary. She has to sound tough but, being a Democrat, she can't talk too tough. So she gives carefully nuanced and measured answers that satisfy no one.
Rudy can and will promise the moon. He has no compunction about making s**t up no matter how ridiculous it is. He can easily dissociate himself from Bush's failures in Iraq by pledging to end the war quickly with a more efficient military policy. Then he'll say that we can't afford anything less than victory in the war on terror. And Hillary won't call him out on his B.S.
In the next year or so, the GOP will try to force the congressional Democrats into a series of votes on the war. This is a minefield for Hillary. She's voted several times to continue funding the war (now she's said she won't vote for more funding). She voted to classify the entire Iranian army as a terrorist group.
During the general, she'll be attacked again and again on the war, called a flip-flopper. There will be not-so-subtle insinuations that maybe a woman isn't tough enough to be commander-in-chief in wartime. And Hillary will respond with the same measured equivocations she's giving now, angering the anti-war voters who want her to come out hard against the war.
Many moderates will be so confused and/or disgusted that they'll sit it out.
And the crypto-fascists among them will vote Rudy. I was at a Democratic forum where the topic of discussion wandered to immigration. Several women, to my surprise, said very angry, resentful things about immigrants that bordered on outright xenophobia.
Those women might call themselves faithful Democrats. They might even call themselves big Hillary supporters. But I suspect that in the privacy of the voting booth, they might be more than a little tempted to pull the lever for Giuliani.
True, Hillary might win in '08. But then again, she might not.
Darn it Steve ...
I was just about to say ... Show me the money. Put your money where you keyboard is, but you went and said Hillary may win this thing.
I'm willing to bet my farm that your R J - Man won't even be the nominee. I like McCain, Romney or Thompson to get nominated. They look more like presidents. I haven't even looked at the poles for who's favored.
Rudy just won't make it because he's too short and just doesn't have the look. Maybe that's being too simple minded , but our country wants the right look. Plus is Rudy conservative enough for the base block of Conservative voters? No!
You're in for a disappointment if you want Rudy to be president. Not going to happen.
I'm not a Republican! Does this sound like I want Rudy to be president?
He represents the next step in the evolution of the GOP: discarding the Bush veneer of folksy, religious geniality in favor of naked corporate rapine and brute fascism
He is a pure distillation of everything wrong with the current administration
But I think his chances of winning are being seriously underestimated.
Contrary to popular belief, Rudy's not doing too bad with the religious right. He won't interfere with their insane agenda, and that'll be enough for them.
But more importantly, Rudy's the only GOP candidate who gives the fundies what they really want: an authoritarian bully who will f**k up anyone whose skin is a shade darker than theirs.
And there are plenty of so-called "moderates" who find this thought appealing. This country's got a surprisingly large number of closet racists, homophobes, and xenophobes who want to turn the clock back to the 1800s, and Rudy's the man they'll look to to keep the rabble in order.
Here you can check out how close Hillary and Rudy match up one-on-one in the polls. In the most recent polls Hillary's winning, but never more than by 7% and in others it's even closer. Some of them even have Rudy winning by a few points.
This is without vote caging and Diebold machines. Put them in, and we're looking at a very close election. We may see it go to the Supreme Court again. Do you trust Roberts and Alito to choose our next president?
If it's Hillary vs. Rudy I'm voting for Hillary, but it will be with a heavy heart, and little hope of victory.
i agree you were not promoting rudy. and i think it's quite likely he would make the strongest candidate, though he comes with a ton of baggage. but if you actually look at those polls, hillary beats him in every one. that is not true of obama, who loses or is tied with rudy in some.
to be clear, it's the september polls where she leads rudy. she was slightly behind in some of the july polls.
Good Morning Steve ...
I think you're Republican? - - - Hillary is vulnerable on the war? - - - Rudy gets nominated?
No, No, and No.
Sorry Rudy ... America wants a president who looks like a president. Also too short.
While I agree with most of your analysis, it's all about the War Blunder. This war has ONE BIG LABEL on it. Bush and the Republican Congress created and dragged it out for an unwinnable victory. THEY are extremely more vulnerable than HRC.
Bush and Republicans have the deaths of thousands to answer for. There are thousands seriously wounded and disabled. All in Vain? -YES!-
Hillary's weakness on the war is pale in comparison to Republicans. She isn't my first choice, but she'll be nominated and ...
I am hereby Endorsing and I am Voting for... The First Woman President of the United States of America. YeeeHaaa!
Howard Dean where are you? Please do your Rebel Yell.
Of course Hillary would try to end the war while Rudy would extend it into the whole Middle East and beyond. That doesn't matter--the media will use her ambiguities and her funding votes against her.
Unlike Hillary, Giuliani doesn't have to vote on the war, so doesn't have a record that can be used against him. He can say whatever the f**k he wants and not be called on any of it.
Rudy's against withdrawal from Iraq now. But he hasn't won the nomination yet. After he does, he'll no doubt start saying he wants to pull out--but only after the job of fighting terrorism is done.
The media will decide on a narrative on the war: It was Bush's war, but he's not running. As for the GOP Congress, they'll say: Well, the Dems are in control now and look, they didn't end the war either!
The memes on Hillary will be simultaneously contradictory: she won't be able to guarantee a full and immediate pullout! See, she's no better than the Republicans!
The other meme will be: she wants to pull the troops out immediately! See, she's not serious about victory!
Except for the readers of this site, people will fall for one or the other without seeing the contradiction. Hillary will give her usual carefully measured and detailed explanations which will satisfy no one. And Rudy will make sweet promises of peace with honor and victory in Iraq in a very reasonable sounding voice.
Americans may hate the war, but we're still too damned proud to admit we've lost.
The people who have paid the heaviest price in the war live in small rural towns. They're usually poor and undereducated.
White middle-class Americans might say they hate this war, but ultimately, they won't go out of their way to oppose it as long as it isn't their kids dying on the battlefield.
If Rudy promises to end the war quickly and honorably, they may listen to him--especially if he also promises to keep them safe and rich, two things they do care very much about.
What scares me most about Rudy, more than any of the other GOP candidates, is that he appeals on a very basic level to so many of the worst aspects of our nature. Hillary, so far, is unable to appeal to the better angels.
There is one man who could bring out that better part of us, but at the moment, he is not a candidate.
"There is one man who could bring out that better part of us, but at the moment, he is not a candidate." - STEVE / Sunday
Are you begging the Qustion? OK ...
Who may that be? And ...
Pleeezz don't say Newt! I hope you haven't fallen for his lies about bringing us all back together, (Repubs & Dems). Newt is Bush.
Bush had a similar lying tactic. His promise of compassionate Conservatism and promise not to divide this country against itself. He lied on both counts.
Michael Bloomberg seems interesting although Independents are faced with major disadvatages put in place by both Dems and Repubs.
George Pataki met with Fred Thompson in New York. A Thompson/Pataki ticket?
I told you, I'm not a Republican! The man of whom I speak is a Democrat. There's one obvious answer.
OOOHH!! Steve...
You must mean Al Gore. I wish he would run with Obama, Edwards or Hillary as his Vice President. After Gore my choices are in this order...
(#2-John Edwards) * (#3-Dennis, Bill, Barack, & Hillary)
It will take Republicans 6 to 10 years to rebuild their party for a comeback effort. No i'm not overconfident. Just determined!
Am I the pinheaded fool? Sam, doesn't it give you pause even a little bit to be repeating the same overconfident line from the past two presidential elections? How many times did I have to talk to a Nader voter in 2000 who said Bush could never be president because he was such a freakin moron. Wait, I remember the same thing being said about Reagan. Now I have to take the Ronald Reagan Tollway to get to my parents house.
Let's get it done and then start celebrating the fall of the Right Reich.
Sunny One ...
No, didn't mean you, was just joshin. Who me, overconfident? I ain't ganna stop working till it's done. Did you miss this ...
I'm kidding! I have some due respect for them and i'm not overconfident but they just won't win this thing.
- Sams Computer / Saturday September 29, 2007 10:04:15 AM EST
We didn't lose to GWB. We lost to his daddy's Supreme Court, but I guess that's still losing to the Bush crime family. Then we lost to the Swift Boat Crew and Kerry's failure to blow them out of the water.
I hope the election runs smoothly without any ugly incidents or irregularities in the voting proccess and touch screens.
your right....a black man would give them no ammunition at all.
Pete....I think you mean Newt Gingrich told his wife he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital with cancer:
"Ex-wife: Newt knew I was ailing
By BRIAN BLOMQUIST
WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich won't be winning the Mr. Sensitivity Award any time soon.
The former House Speaker and his ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich, are in a bit of a dispute over whether Newt knew that she might have multiple sclerosis when he told her on Mother's Day 1999 that he wanted a divorce.
For the ham-handed Newtster, breakups are a touchy issue.
He notified his first wife, Jackie Battley, that he was divorcing her in 1981 after she was hospitalized with cancer.
Marianne's lawyer said Newt knew in September 1998 - eight months before he notified her that he was ditching her - that Marianne had been diagnosed with a neurological condition that might be a "forerunner of multiple sclerosis," according to the Atlanta neurosurgeon who treated her.
But Newt's lawyer, Randy Evans, said yesterday Newt didn't know that Marianne might have had MS when he broke the bad news to her.
Evans said he and Newt learned later - sometime during the divorce case that started in May 1999 and ended in April 2000 - about Marianne's condition.
.........................................."
I like that the Post reporters response to lack of coverage of Romney's dirt is that his paper has reported on several lame ducks and Larry Craig. That evens everything out.
MSM: The Pushed, The Pushers or Both?
Jamison,
I repeatedly re-read your "Republicans just push these stories more, so it's only natural that there are more media reports about Democrats" trying to figure out if you were being sarcastic or redundant.
Regardless of what you intended, I'm going with sarcastically redundant.
Drafted....Read again. Jamison is saying that he can imagine the excuses, and lists this as one:
"I can already hear the excuses for the wildly disparate coverage of controversial campaign fundraisers connected to Clinton and Romney. Foremost among them will no doubt be the old standby: Republicans just push these stories more, so it's only natural that there are more media reports about Democrats."
He THEN states that the Democrats ARE pushing stories but the media is not covering them. What part of this is "sarcasm, or redundancy"?
"......The "Democrats aren't pushing this" excuse doesn't hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny. The Democrats are pushing it. Reporters aren't covering it......"
It's not a matter of who specifically is "pushing" stories. It's a matter of an imposed mindset that has been in place for over 25 YEARS.
The "media", in the guise of "reporting news", has become instead the propaganda arm of the GOP. From the New York Times to CNN, from the Washington Post to Tim Russert, the bias of the media has been consistent.
Democrats are routinely demonized. Smears against them get great publicity, bereft of any supporting evidence. Democrats are asked the most loaded questions.
At the same time, Republicans are lionized. Their praises are sung, while their discrepencies are ignored or excused away. Any scandals involving Republicans are turned into stories about Democrats who are desperate and resorting to the "politics of personal destruction". Most stories damaging to Republicans are downplayed and ignored by "our media". Bush lost the election. The Downing Street Memo revealed a longstanding plot that the Administration denied. The run-up to the Iraq war was pure stenography from Karl Rove, with ZERO investigative input from the media. There are literally THOUSANDS of examples which show clearly our media has abandoned any pretense of objectively reporting the news, and instead have become partisan PR operatives for the Republicans.
And this says NOTHING of FOX news or talk radio, which are unabashedly partisan cheerleaders for the rightwing. This is the "mainstream" media which reliably gives us, day after day and for hours a day, panels of "experts" to discuss "the issues", all of whom present rightwing spin as "reality". Even the sham of "balance" is laughable, with the likes of Alan Colmes and Juan Williams presenting "the left's view", neutered and ineffectual, and endlessly sympathetic with the "opposing" side's views.
So it doesn't matter a whit what the DNC is pushing or not pushing. The formula is set in stone, and any consumers of "mainstream media" today is assured of a torrent of rightwing propaganda, while there is nary a trickle of leftwing thought or advocacy to be found.
Huge rightwing scandals, buried and ignored by the mainstream media? That's their JOB ... damage control for their masters. And they are very well paid.
Now, let's talk about REAL stories, like Edward's haircut...
I guess it was my sarcasm that was not very well done.
I meant to suggest that Jamison's "Republicans" and his "the media" are too often indistinguishable.
The media just has a slew
Of articles on Mr. Hsu
They're not culpable, see?
For the disparity
So more stories for Hsu, we are due
No fair. You're using math.
It's offensive that John Solomon is even in a position where he can be asked questions about media bias. Solomon got bumped up to the Washington Post from the AP right after he'd written a series of articles about Sen. Harry Reid with ridiculous ethics allegations.
MMfA currently shows nineteen Solomon articles in its archives.
Probably the reason for the seeming disparity in coverage by the media is the preceived idea that the Ds should be above any type of underhanded dealings, while the Rs are all "pond scum" and it is expected of them to be dealing with nefarious characters.
You've just described reality, which has a liberal bias. Repubs are demonstrably much more corrupt than Dems.
All you can do is state that Dems aren't 100% completely pure and perfect, which of course everyone already knows, and doesn't change the facts as I've stated.
Steeve, If we look back through history, we find that as politicians gather power, they tend to gather shady characters as groupies, if you will, people who think that those in power will be a great help to them. The Hsus, Fabians, Abramoffs (sp?), etal of the world are symptoms of much larger problems. The corruption does not follow party lines, but will tend to follow the party in power, from Sherman Adams in the DDE administration, through Abscam, the House Banking fiasco, to the present. It is our duty as concerned citizens to condemn (and prevent, if possible) such corruption at all levels.
You've heard of Norman Hsu -- why not Robert Lichfield?
By George, I think the above poster nailed it!
Truly, that is the answer to the question: The reason why so little has been made of the integrity (or legality) of the donor to the Republican candidate, versus the same question about a donor to a Democratic candidate, is the present context of Republican and Democratic fund-raising, and the integrity and ethics and even legality of that context.
True, that in that context of so many ethics violations and indictments (and convictions even) of Republicans in this matter (see randall "duke" cunningham and bob ney and tom delay and ted stevens and john doolittle and jack abramoff and I don't know just where to stop typing their names...)
It's true, that in that context, the ethics violation (or whatever it is) of the Romney donor, seems like little more than shoplifting, among the many bank train and armored car robberies we have seen committed so much of late, by a slew of Republicans.
And conversely, in the same context and by a Democratic standard, we might consider the ethics issues of the Democratic donor to stand out, almost like the robbery of a bank, next to...
...next to little or nothing really, compared to the so many ethics violations and indictments and crimes and convictions of Republicans in this matter.
By George, I think the above poster has answered the question!
It's all about the context, and the standard we measure by, in these matters...
By George (and Dick and tom and ted and jack and bob and john and larry and dennis and randall "duke" and whoever else I haven't the strength to keep typing)...
...it's all about the standard you measure by, and the context you consider these things within.
Fabian? Wasn't he a pop star in the 60's? Maybe even the John Edwards of his time (fixation on his hair).
"Liberal" Media? What "Liberal" Media?
No question about it...
The press is out to get Democrats. The Republicans will be given a free pass. You couldn't have more conclusive proof than the way they let Bush slide on the insider trading.
Can you imagine if a Democrat had done that? They would have dug through every record, all the right-wing talking heads would be chattering about it every night. The questions would be non-stop. If it had been a Democrat, the candidate very likely would have been in jail before the election was even held.
The Re-puke just walks away--given a free pass. They're not going to cover anything in any vigorous way that's going to damage a Republican.
Reporters, like John Solomon of the Post, are simply lazy, celebrity-seeking mediocre writers who are fascinated by themselves. The incompetence issue that has consumed the Bush administration is also reflected in most of the MSM who prefer the pose as "hard-hitting reporters" in 30 second soundbites at press conferences to the reality that they find being stenographers makes for a more relaxed work schedule so they can socialize with the scum they report on.
They are pack animals that (sic) follow the lead. Too lazy to hunt the facts themselves, too cowardly to risk their careers on a story that might displease those from whom they curry favor. Pathetic. They dishonor a vital and formerly honorable profession.
Repubs/Dems/corrupt? Whats the difference? They both bow down to the corperations, the people that control them, and the god of the allmighty dollar. They are both driven by greed and the desire for power over the middle class and poor. If theres a difference why are all of them filthy rich? If they were sincere they would sub-divide their mansions into housing for the homeless, dem mansions alone(Kennedys,Clintons,Edwards, etc.) could house hundreds of families. And don't even get me started on the Rep side. REAL liberals anen't rich fat cats making their money off the little man./ And every dollar they have was earned by the labor of the commen workers of this country, taken by hidden taxes on everything we need to surive.
Here's the difference. Those uber-rich Democrats advocate policies that will actually COST them money (i.e. higher taxes on the very rich), while the Republican rich advocate polices that will protect them (and ONLY them) from paying taxes in support of this great country that provided them with the opportunity to earn such wealth. The Republicans are a bunch of greedy bast##ds.