Gore: now that's a story

[Lefty]

Can you blve it? The press libs, the tv libs, the libs on this board rant and rave about the vp's hunting accident and how they should have been notified forthwith. Meanwhile former vp ALGORE disses the U.S. bigtime over in Saudi Arabia and all's quiet on the western front!

[mainardi]

Can you blve it? The press libs, the tv libs, the libs on this board rant and rave about the vp's hunting accident and how they should have been notified forthwith. Meanwhile former vp ALGORE disses the U.S. bigtime over in Saudi Arabia and all's quiet on the western front!
Lefty... come on now, you know how "mainstream" (liberal) media tends to tilt in a particular direction. Besides, we should be thankful that Gore "invented" the Internet... :D

[Tom]

See the bullet we dodged in 2000?

Gore is a disgrace and a POS.

[NoDayJob]

:D Who's Al Bore????????????????????? :D

[GaryG]

See the bullet we dodged in 2000?

Gore is a disgrace and a POS.As I have said, he couldn't carry his daddy's briefcase. He should be made to change his name.

[Steve 'StatMan']

As I have said, he couldn't carry his daddy's briefcase. He should be made to change his name.

But Leslie Gore was already taken.

[Secretariat]

I have to laugh when you speak of the lib press. This press is far from lib, Lefty.

FOX News is almost a propaganda piece for the right wing. Rush Limbaugh's show is broadcast over radio networks far far more than Air America's progressive voice reaches. in fact it doesn't play in my area, but Rush is on two stations.

The amount of investigative journalism done today by the TV media is almsot zilch. If there had been a "lib" meda in place (as there was during Watergate) there would have been a torrent of many more questions regarding the Downing Street memos, Diebold, Plamegate, the failure to find Bin Laden, Sibel Edmonds, and hundreds of other stories which the only way you really get any information on is by reading print media or searching the net.

The majority of the media (excluding FOX which is incredibly right wing) is neither liberal or conservative IMO. They are interested in sensationalism stories without concern for investigative journalism. Stories like the missing girl in Aruba, or Michael Jackson trials. The formula for the Nightly News is sensationally predictive as follows:

1. Create a teaser of something in Washington, something international generally the Mid East, and a notable person story( some singer who died or an old journalist)

2. Show a guy who attended a press conference, and then show WH footage or Congressional hearing footage of 5 to 10 seconds.

3. Show some work on a new drug.

4. Have someone talk about the war situation, and show some pundit giving his opinions so we really learn nothing.

4. Then end up with some kind of feel good story about an old guy who can't hear anymore but is entering a marathon.

Most of it is crap, not lib or conservative, but sensational and safe for the most part. It is disinfected and generally meant not to offend anymore. I do give kudos to FOX on that part. They don't mind offending. But only if it is the left.

[Lefty]

I have to laugh when you speak of the lib press. This press is far from lib, Lefty.

FOX News is almost a propaganda piece for the right wing. Rush Limbaugh's show is broadcast over radio networks far far more than Air America's progressive voice reaches. in fact it doesn't play in my area, but Rush is on two stations.

The amount of investigative journalism done today by the TV media is almsot zilch. If there had been a "lib" meda in place (as there was during Watergate) there would have been a torrent of many more questions regarding the Downing Street memos, Diebold, Plamegate, the failure to find Bin Laden, Sibel Edmonds, and hundreds of other stories which the only way you really get any information on is by reading print media or searching the net.

The majority of the media (excluding FOX which is incredibly right wing) is neither liberal or conservative IMO. They are interested in sensationalism stories without concern for investigative journalism. Stories like the missing girl in Aruba, or Michael Jackson trials. The formula for the Nightly News is sensationally predictive as follows:

1. Create a teaser of something in Washington, something international generally the Mid East, and a notable person story( some singer who died or an old journalist)

2. Show a guy who attended a press conference, and then show WH footage or Congressional hearing footage of 5 to 10 seconds.

3. Show some work on a new drug.

4. Have someone talk about the war situation, and show some pundit giving his opinions so we really learn nothing.

4. Then end up with some kind of feel good story about an old guy who can't hear anymore but is entering a marathon.

Most of it is crap, not lib or conservative, but sensational and safe for the most part. It is disinfected and generally meant not to offend anymore. I do give kudos to FOX on that part. They don't mind offending. But only if it is the left.

sec, you are out in left field alright. I'm laughing now. Btw, Rush is a bad example. He is a pundit, not a journalist, and makes no secret about being a conservative. Most left wing pundits have to buy their own airtime.

[Suff]

The CEO of Cheveron spoke at the Same Conference Gore Spoke at. He called George Bush Crazy and said he was unkowledgeable on World Energy Issues.


That was just an FYI.


More Importantly, that same day that Gore "supposedly" diss's his county, it was revealed by the Special Prosecuter that Dick Cheney authorized Scooter Libby to disclose the identity of a CIA agent to the press. A CIA agent who was working on WMD issues with respect to IRAN (by the by). And I suggest it led to the ROLL-UP of most of our CIA agents in IRAN. (another story with greater impact than Al Gore's).

Selective Nationalism...........................again.

[Lefty]

But the Chevron guy is not a a former Vice President Of the United States!

[Lefty]

Of course the sprecial prosecutor will have to prove that won't he? Maybe not to you, but to the rest of us.

[betchatoo]

But the Chevron guy is not a a former Vice President Of the United States!

The key word being former. I disagree with the quotes I read from Gore but as an independent American he has the right to say it. Or don't you believe that, Lefty?

[JustRalph]

The Vice President can legally Declassify anything he wants. There is an executive order to that effect...............if he wants to declassify info.........he can.

[Lefty]

Gore is a spokesman for the Dem party. Nobody in that party has spoken up and told him to shut up.

[ljb]

Gore is a spokesman for the Dem party. Nobody in that party has spoken up and told him to shut up.
Well then please do so Lefty, if it will make you feel better.

[Lefty]

lbj, I'm not in the Dem party. So Al Gore is a disgrace, but the mainstream press concentrates on the non-story of Cheyney. And sec says there's no lib bias. Un*&blvlble!

[chickenhead]

lbj, I'm not in the Dem party. So Al Gore is a disgrace, but the mainstream press concentrates on the non-story of Cheyney. And sec says there's no lib bias. Un*&blvlble!

The big bias is towards selling papers....let's see....sitting Vice President guns down big shot lawyer hunting partner........Former VP Mr. Roboto gives boring speech. Tough call.

Change the characters to sitting VP Gore blasting say Alan Dershowitz on a moose hunt the same weekend former VP Quale (Quail?!) gave some boring speech and tell me if you think the coverage would be much different. Blood sells, page one above the fold.

[Lefty]

chick, it's not that blood sells; it's that the dems get a big ol pass from the biased media. That's the bottom line.

[chickenhead]

what exactly is Al Gore anyway nowadays? Does he have some sort of title I'm not aware of? Of course what he says must be important to someone...just not me. For all I know he and Dan Quale could be running a nudist colony in Arizona together, or have joined a religious cult....more power to them, but I personally could care less.

Being a former President at least kind of means something...being a former VP, eh, not so much. JMHO.

[Secretariat]

The Vice President can legally Declassify anything he wants. There is an executive order to that effect...............if he wants to declassify info.........he can.

That executive order was created during this administration 5 days after the Iraq War began, and AFTER the leak in the Plame case.

While that particular order may have constitutional issues on it, it doesn't relate to the Plame issues from what I understand as it is post facto.

To say Cheny can declassify anything he wants to when current agents are out in the field so he can save his ass is as low as it gets.

[Secretariat]

sec, you are out in left field alright. I'm laughing now. Btw, Rush is a bad example. He is a pundit, not a journalist, and makes no secret about being a conservative. Most left wing pundits have to buy their own airtime.

OK, since you want Rush out of the mix fine.

Here's some examples of how the mainstream media frames things in a GOP perspective from the Huffington blog. Quite interesting.

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush and Cheney are infallible --- EXAMPLE: ABC News covered the Cheney hunting incident by downplaying the significance of the weapon itself. ABC reported that "the vice president accidentally shot prominent Texas lawyer Harry Whittington with a pellet gun while hunting for quail." Cheney used a shotgun, not a pellet gun. ABC later altered the story to read, "a shotgun loaded with birdshot." This exemplifies a common tendency of the media, namely, to play defense for Bush and his team, downplaying negative news or polls.

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush strong, Dems weak --- EXAMPLE: CNN's Bruce Morton used the VP's shooting to repeat the tired GOP spin that Republicans are tougher than Democrats, and specifically tougher than war hero John Kerry. Morton commented that Bush and Cheney are avid hunters, and contrasted the observation with 2004 Bush campaign talking points by saying Sen. John Kerry "spent time posing with guns" two years ago, and that "voters probably saw more of him pursuing exotic sports, windsurfing and so on." The truth is Kerry has been hunting since the age of 12. As Media Matters points out, "Morton's jab echoed language Cheney used during the 2004 campaign to attack Kerry as effete and elitist."

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush and Cheney are infallible --- EXAMPLE: NBC News quoted ranch owner Katharine Armstrong as saying Cheney's pre-hunt picnic may have included "a beer or two." The MSNBC website has since been scrubbed to remove the quote with no explanation for readers.

++ ISSUE: Abramoff scandal --- NARRATIVE: Dems do bad things too --- EXAMPLE: The Associated Press continues to help the Republicans' drive to make the Abramoff scandal bi-partisan with additional reporting that plays up a dubious link between the disgraced GOP lobbyist and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Despite widespread debunking of the original report, the AP ran a follow-up piece that suggests "further confirmation of such a link but, in fact, casts additional doubt on whether such a link exists."

++ ISSUE: Warrantless domestic spying --- NARRATIVE: Dems politicize everything/Dems are whiners --- EXAMPLE: The Washington Post recently stated that "some Democrats argue that Bush is breaking the law by spying on people in the United States without a warrant and without congressional or judicial oversight." This spin mirrors the GOP effort to paint this as a partisan controversy, but that dog won't hunt. Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have raised serious questions about the program's legality.

++ ISSUE: Abramoff scandal --- NARRATIVE: Dems do bad things too --- EXAMPLE: The Associated Press has picked up on the Republicans' drive to make the Abramoff scandal bi-partisan with a major report on alleged ties between the disgraced GOP lobbyist and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. There's only one problem: the AP report is wildly misleading. As MyDD's Scott Shields explained, "For a variety of reasons, some of which I still don't get, the old fashioned media wants very badly for this to be a bipartisan scandal. This is only the latest attempt to make it so. But by leaving out such key information as the fact that Reid never supported the Republicans on the Marianas, the whole story is called into question."

++ ISSUE: Warrantless domestic spying --- NARRATIVE: Bush strong/Dems weak --- EXAMPLE: Fox News and the Washington Times predictably embrace White House terminology -- "terrorist surveillance program" instead of "warrantless wiretapping" being the latest example. Late last week, the AP bought into the narrative and described Bush's warrantless domestic spying as the "anti-terrorist surveillance program."

++ ISSUE: Warrantless domestic spying --- NARRATIVE: Dems are weak --- EXAMPLE: In its coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the warrantless domestic spying scandal, Reuters framed the hearing exactly the way the administration likes: by making the Dems look weak and ineffectual. The headline says it all: "Democrats frustrated by Gonzales on eavesdropping." A more accurate headline would have been, "Gonzalez Refuses to Answer Questions on Warrantless Spying." (Thanks to reader Dr. Funkenstein for the tip)

++ ISSUE: Majority Leader Boehner --- NARRATIVE: Never allow a criticism of Republicans to go unchallenged --- EXAMPLE: CNN's Jack Cafferty asked viewers if they saw any problem with Majority Leader Boehner renting an apartment from a lobbyist whose clients have business before Boehner. He got over 700 responses, nearly all of which questioned the arrangement. Wolf Blitzer stuck up for Boehner, telling Cafferty, "But you did hear Ed Henry say it is a basement apartment, which is not necessarily all that desirable, and he's paying the fair market value."

++ ISSUE: Boehner replaces DeLay --- NARRATIVE: Republicans are tough --- EXAMPLE: A Reuters article on John Boehner titled "New House Republican leader is canny, tough" says the following: "Boehner has shown he can be tough. Last year he approved one of the more controversial provisions of a spending-cut bill: $12.7 billion savings in student-loan programs, raising costs to borrowers, despite student protests." Undermining students is now a measure of toughness?

++ ISSUE: Iraq/Cindy Sheehan --- NARRATIVE: War protesters are unpatriotic --- EXAMPLE: The Associated Press, noting Cindy Sheehan's arrest before the State of the Union, reports, "Sheehan's T-shirt made reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: '2245 Dead. How many more?' ... Young's shirt had just the opposite message: 'Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom.'" Several bloggers took the AP to task for this blatant propaganda, including Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, and Carpetbagger. Greenwald writes, "As we all know (because George Bush said so, followed by his followers, followed by the media), opposition to the war in Iraq is the "opposite message" of supporting the troops and defending our freedoms. That's a totally appropriate premise on which to base a news article. A mini blogosphere firestorm erupted over this, and I have no doubt that the e-mail inbox of the AP reporter (Laurie Kellman) was stuffed with objections. As Jane Hamsher reports, that sentence was thereafter altered to a more neutral formulation."

++ ISSUE: The federal budget --- NARRATIVE: Bush is fiscally responsible, the deficit is someone else's fault --- EXAMPLE: This New York Times report on budget cuts to Medicaid, welfare, child support and student lending, offers a decidedly pro-Bush spin: "The vote helped President Bush deliver on his promise to rein in federal spending." In reality, Bush has boosted federal spending more than any president since LBJ.

++ ISSUE: Free Speech --- NARRATIVE: War protesters are law-breaking extremists --- EXAMPLE: After Cindy Sheehan's arrest, major media outlets got several elements of the story completely wrong, including the notion that Sheehan unfurled an anti-war banner (reported falsely on CNN) and that Sheehan's T-shirt was illegal. Somehow, one knowledgeable blogger managed to do what the major outlets couldn't, namely, get the facts straight.

++ ISSUE: SOTU/Energy policy --- NARRATIVE: Bush has a credible policy agenda --- EXAMPLE: On ABC's Good Morning America, Charles Gibson embraced the administration's spin and said, "[I]f there was anything new in the [State of the Union], it was his call for an end to America's addiction with foreign oil, a calling for a reduction on America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil of 75 percent in 20 years." The truth is, there's nothing new in Bush's proposal except slightly different rhetoric.

++ ISSUE: SOTU --- NARRATIVE: Dems are whiners --- EXAMPLE: CNN's Jeff Greenfield chided Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) on the air for issuing a rebuttal to Bush's SOTU before it was delivered, telling viewers, "There wasn't a chance in the world that this congressperson had seen the speech." He failed to note that the White House made excerpts of the speech available well before it was delivered, which is why Wexler's statement was fully justified.

++ ISSUE: State of the Union --- NARRATIVE: Bush firm despite "challenges"/Dems are whiners --- EXAMPLE: The Associated Press hands us a quintessential example of pro-Bush and anti-Dem narratives. The headline reads, "Bush Confident Despite Mounting Challenges," and the lead paragraph captures the White House talking points practically to the letter: "President Bush, opening the fall campaign season, is painting Democrats as defeatist for criticizing his march to war in Iraq and protectionist for questioning new trade deals and tax-cut extensions. Grumbling Democrats looking for advantage in Bush's weak poll numbers and burgeoning scandals in GOP congressional ranks refused to cede center stage as the president laid out his 2006 priorities Tuesday night in his fifth State of the Union address." [Update: The AP has already changed the headline and portions of the text. We have a screenshot of the original on file.]

++ ISSUE: State of the Union --- NARRATIVE: Bush strong, Dems weak, irrational --- EXAMPLE: Immediately following Bush's State of the Union speech, MSNBC's Chris Matthews and his guests delivered the usual Bush-propping and Democrat-bashing themes. Matthews said Bush was "at the top of his game," and that he delivered "a very powerful speech." He added that Democrats are "afraid to take on the president." Matthews' guest, Newsweek's John Meacham, described Bush as "unusually compassionate," and "just as fluid on domestic and foreign issues." Meacham criticized the left for an "irrational hatred of Bush." Matthews also repeated Bush talking points on the warrantless domestic spying scandal.

++ ISSUE: SOTU/Energy policy --- NARRATIVE: Bush has a credible policy agenda --- EXAMPLE: Several major dailies feature headlines that mischaracterize Bush's discussion of energy policy in the SOTU. The New York Times headline said, "Bush, Resetting Agenda, Says U.S. Must Cut Reliance on Oil." The Los Angeles Times headline said, "Bush Calls for Cuts in Oil Reliance." Neither acknowledges just how narrow the Bush plan really is.

++ ISSUE: State of the Union --- NARRATIVE: Bush is firm --- EXAMPLE: MSNBC started their 11am (eastern) hour with "Bush standing firm," one of the most ubiquitous pro-Bush narratives of the past half-decade. To understand why this is favorable to Bush, imagine what his poll numbers would look like if the word 'stubborn' had replaced 'firm' in all those reports.

++ ISSUE: State of the Union --- NARRATIVE: Of course we're balanced, who you gonna believe, us or your lying eyes? --- EXAMPLE: CNN's coverage of the SOTU featured one voice from the left (Paul Begala) and three from the right (Bill Bennett, Victoria Clarke, and J.C. Watts). The network later added Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, but the right still outnumbered the left when offering commentary on the president.

++ ISSUE: State of the Union --- NARRATIVE: Democrats weak on national security, have no message --- EXAMPLE: CNN's coverage of the SOTU also featured Paula Zahn reading from the GOP script, claiming that "a lot of people out there" are saying that "if you vote for a Democrat, that basically you want to be bombed." Zahn also purported to identify a "perception" that Democrats are "reactive, not proactive, that they have no agenda of their own, and ... that basically the only thing they're good at is blasting the president."

++ ISSUE: Warrantless spying --- NARRATIVE: Terrorism helps Bush --- EXAMPLE: Rather than deal with the warrantless domestic spying scandal with the gravity it deserves, MSNBC's Chris Matthews tells his viewers that Bush is "turning the NSA surveillance question into a winner politically."++

ISSUE: Bush approval ratings --- NARRATIVE: Americans trust Bush --- EXAMPLE: Rather than acknowledging the fact that Bush's approval rating is at its lowest level ever in the LA Times poll, the LA Times runs the headline, "Bush's Ratings Sink, but Trust Remains." Similarly, though the latest Washington Post poll shows Dems enjoying big leads over Bush on the direction of the country, the WaPo goes with this headline: "Bush's Midterm Challenge: Rebuilding Public Support May Bolster GOP Candidates."

++ ISSUE: Tim Russert/ MTP --- NARRATIVE: Democrats guilty by association --- EXAMPLE: Last week, Meet the Press's Tim Russert inexplicably asked Sen. Barack Obama (D) to respond to controversial remarks made by Harry Belafonte. Yesterday, just two days after Ann Coulter made headlines by calling for the assassination of Justice John Paul Stevens, Russert neglected to raise the issue in his interview with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R).

++ ISSUE: Abramoff scandal --- NARRATIVE: Everybody does it/Democrats are just as bad as Republicans --- EXAMPLE: A number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post's ombudsman to NBC's Katie Couric, have declared that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. Paul Krugman notes today that there's nothing bipartisan about the Abramoff scandal, which is all about the use and abuse of Republican connections. "[T]he reluctance of some journalists to report facts that, in this case, happen to have an anti-Republican agenda is a serious matter. It's not a stretch to say that these journalists are acting as enablers for the rampant corruption that has emerged in Washington over the last decade."

[Lefty]

The Huffington blog, now there's a source! LOL
There have been many studies that show that the mainstream press is liberal.
But just look at how the White House Press Corp treated the Clinton Admin and how they treat This administration. Who am I to blve, you? Huffington? Or my lying eyes?

[hcap]

Sec, you will never convince Lefty of anything he is not programmed to believe.

I am beginning to think that although we were correct all along, and it is becomming more and more evident that we were, and now that the rest of the country agrees, the diehards on this board will only dig their heels deeper and salute their emperor with more zeal. Some exceptions perhaps

Conservatism has been hijacked by a cult of personality. The bush/cheney worshippers. I really thought the wirertapping scandal would bring real conservatives and liberals together. Big brother is alive and well. All hail the king. :p :p

[JustRalph]

That executive order was created during this administration 5 days after the Iraq War began, and AFTER the leak in the Plame case.

While that particular order may have constitutional issues on it, it doesn't relate to the Plame issues from what I understand as it is post facto.

To say Cheny can declassify anything he wants to when current agents are out in the field so he can save his ass is as low as it gets.

RHIP! ever heard of it?

[ljb]

Sec, you will never convince Lefty of anything he is not programmed to believe.

I am beginning to think that although we were correct all along, and it is becomming more and more evident that we were, and now that the rest of the country agrees, the diehards on this board will only dig their heels deeper and salute their emperor with more zeal. Some exceptions perhaps

Conservatism has been hijacked by a cult of personality. The bush/cheney worshippers. I really thought the wirertapping scandal would bring real conservatives and liberals together. Big brother is alive and well. All hail the king. :p :p
hcap, very astute and precise. Perhaps this explains why right leaning avatars are accepted on the other side ? ;)

[ljb]

The Huffington blog, now there's a source! LOL
There have been many studies that show that the mainstream press is liberal.
But just look at how the White House Press Corp treated the Clinton Admin and how they treat This administration. Who am I to blve, you? Huffington? Or my lying eyes?
Lefty, while the Huffington blog was used to get the information, the actual data was from various msm sources. Open up your eyes Lefty and try to see what is really going on here.

[hcap]

President Gore has been warning us all along 'bout the gang that can't shoot straight.

Cheney, nuff said

OK the latest poll numbers show 55% think Iraq was a mistake, 42% think it wasn't. If Mr Gore had been duly sworn in and not just duly elected, we wouldn't be in this mess. All hail AL, the real prez. :lol: :lol:

[lsbets]

There are just as many, if not more, examples of the media tilting to the left - if that's how you want to perceive it. In general, I don't see it that way, but that is based on personal experience with reporters.

Reporters are lazy - they don't want to dig, they don't want to think, and they don't want to research. They want to put up the first thing that they think will get them ratings or a headline. So, its easy to feed them a line and have them take it, if that line sounds good.

Reporters want the sensational. They want something snappy, that they think can resonate, that can move their story either to the front page or to the start of the broadcast. That hard charging journalist who wants to get to the bottom of things simply doesn't exist for the most part anymore.

Editorial pages are a different story - opinions are supposed to be there. Same thing for editorial type shows - so when Huffington (who has always been a loon by just about any standard, even when she was on the right) points to Chris Matthews as an example of bias, that shows how utterly laughable her take is. For one, Matthews is a hard core Democrat, even though he does not subscribe to the hate Bush mentality. Two - his show is an opinion show - hence, he is supposed to give his opinion. Duh!

Like I said - my feelings on the media are based on personal experience. I've seen top correspondents from major networks who don't even know basic information about the subject they are supposed to be experts in - hey, do a tiny bit of background research! I've seen folks hope that bad shit happens, because that will get the story up front. I've seen discussions broken up into sound bites because it "Sounded cool", even though it was totally out of context. I used to think there was a large bias tilting left, but now I don't think there's much bias in the media (at least intentional). Most of it is due to laziness, ignorance, and sensationalism.

[Lefty]

hcap, i'm prgmed? LOL. If I don't agree with the left i'm programmed...Let's see the VP has a hunting accident. The former VP trashes this country on foreign soil. The first story is everywhere. The 2nd story is almost nowhere. Outrage about the first; no outrage about the 2nd. And I"M PROGRAMMED? Boy, howdy.
You boys forget how CBS tried to sway the electiomn with false documents? And do you also remember the mainstream media completely dissed and would not give the Swift Vote Vets the time of day? Let's say it together now, There is a leftwing bias and that is why FOX News has gotten all dem dere viewers. The old adage is find a need and fill it. Obviously there was a need and Fox has become very successful by filling it. Now go back to your blogs where they tell you to say the right is programmed and socialism is a good thing and defending our country is bad, veddy bad.


Bo

[betchatoo]

Democrats bad, Republican good. Ah, McGoo, you've done it again!

[GaryG]

If Mr Gore had been duly sworn in and not just duly elected, we wouldn't be in this mess.How IN THE HELL was Gore duly elected? Are you still looking for swinging chads? Yes, he would have been one of the great presidents. He couldn't get elected in his home state under any circumstances. We know him too well. This is laughable...:lol: :lol:

[Lefty]

Yeah, hcap, If Gore had won we wouldn't be in this mess, but a much greater one. We wouldn't be at war but we prob wouldn't have many buildings left in NYC either.

Bet, wow, what a comeback. Q? What Republican EVER trashed this country on foreign soil?

[Tom]

Two things:


"Media" bias - probably not so much bias as unproffessionalism, profit-driven rather than news-driven (there is a huge difference) and a major goal of being first rather than correct. You see it everyday on CNN - turning a live camera on a situation and speculating on the phone is NOT news reporting - it's like Weather-Cam. Sec - all those varying reports about the gun used just show you how stupid it is to believe anything you see on TV news....wait until Tuesday when Time and Newsweek come out - at least by then, someone might have actually triped over the truth.

Hcap - your assertion that you have been right all along is not my take on it at all. Granteed, Bush is a failure in most areas, probably a bit lost in space mentally, and totally out of touch with both reality and Earth, but even at that low level of performance, he stands high above the other two dems he ran against in 2000 2004. Gore has once again proven this week that he is not qualitifed to be an American, let alone president. Yeah, yeah, free speech and all that aside - his coments were unapproriate, potentially inflamatory and dangerous, and , IMHO, in time of war, spoken where he did, just grounds for Bush to deny him re-entry into the USA. I would fully support slapping his butt in Gitmo for a "debriefing" period! :eek:

[Secretariat]

Reporters want the sensational. They want something snappy, that they think can resonate, that can move their story either to the front page or to the start of the broadcast. That hard charging journalist who wants to get to the bottom of things simply doesn't exist for the most part anymore.


We agree on something for a change. This was my point. The press seeks the sensational story not the thought proviking one. The Michael Jackson, the Aruba gal missing, the Cheney shooting, the Clinton affair. It's easy to get swallowed up (no pun intended) by this crap.

These are really not at the forefront of what's happening out there, and I read about more real issues than anything shown on TV media which is pablum.

But it sways voters and hence it is important. Why a station frames language a certain way in their reporting must be debated? How much does a corporation that owns a network affect the way news is reported on that network? It used to be that the news organizations were given more leeway from the philosophy of their owners. That is no longer the case. We have to realize that. Some do, some do not. in other words just like horse racing - do your own due dillgence, and don't trust a so-called expert who may have his own personal or corporate agenda.

I begin trying more to listen to the news than watch it as you're seeing a selcted clip anyway or a talking model head. I ask why was the language framed or stated that particular way. It's quite revealing on the POV that is being pushed.

[Secretariat]

How IN THE HELL was Gore duly elected? Are you still looking for swinging chads? Yes, he would have been one of the great presidents. He couldn't get elected in his home state under any circumstances. We know him too well. This is laughable...:lol: :lol:

Gore received the mandate of the people. He received more popular votes than Bush. Go to the elections figures and look them up for yourself.

As to whether Gore won Florida or not. We will never really know because the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Florida State Supreme Court.

[Suff]

We will never really know because the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Florida State Supreme Court.

Those SOB activist Judges! (oh? Thats right, this was a good example of the SCOTUS interpreting law wasn't it?..:D )..


Yea... the SCOTUS picked the President. I'm still having a hard time finding that one in the Constitution.

:eek:

[Tom]

You guys are a GAS.

Delusional, but a GAS nonetheless. :lol:

The SC did NOT pick the president - they ruled on a matter of law.
Now, if the Fla SC ruled differently, and Gore ended up in the WH, you have no problem with a lower court picking the president.

Like I don't say the SC said go suck your unborn baby to pieces with a vacuum cleaner, I agree it ruled on a matter of law and as aresult abortions are legal.

[Suff]

You guys are a GAS.

Delusional, but a GAS nonetheless. :lol:

The SC did NOT pick the president - they ruled on a matter of law.
Now, if the Fla SC ruled differently, and Gore ended up in the WH, you have no problem with a lower court picking the president.

Like I don't say the SC said go suck your unborn baby to pieces with a vacuum cleaner, I agree it ruled on a matter of law and as aresult abortions are legal.

Bush was ahead by 1700 votes when the POLLS closed and they tallyed the vote. By Florida law, a Mandatory Machine recount is required. That narrowed Bush's win in Florida to near 1000. Gore asked for a manual recount that would have included roughly 10,000 ballots that were not counted by the machine. (for whatever reason??.....They're machines!.) You ever had a seemingly fine piece of paper cause a paper jam in a Copy machine?

The Florida Supreme court agreed with Gore that ALL ballots should be counted.

Bush counter-sued to the SCOTUS who overturned Florida's ruling because it Violated George Bush's 14th Amendment Rights. Specifically the "Equal Protection Clause. *seen below


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


You see anything in there about not counting votes? Bush argued that because Florida had no statutory guidelines for a manual recount that it could not possibly be fair. His Attorney called a manual recount--Standardless.

Although we counted votes by hand for a years, suddenly it was standardless and the Supreme Court ruled that George Bush's individual CIVIL RIGHTS would be violated by a manual count.

A big Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch if you ask me.

[GaryG]

Hey Suff, don't forget that a bunch of the dems were not smart enough to use the machines and voted for Pat Robertson...:rolleyes:

[Suff]

Hey Suff, don't forget that a bunch of the dems were not smart enough to use the machines and voted for Pat Robertson...:rolleyes:

And you don't forget that Al Gore was born in Tennessee, but was raised in Washinton DC and was never considered a true Tennessian to begin with. So when you say he could'nt win his "home" state...its misleading.

[GaryG]

Gore received the mandate of the people. He received more popular votes than Bush. Go to the elections figures and look them up for yourself.

As to whether Gore won Florida or not. We will never really know because the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Florida State Supreme Court.Since when does the popular vote elect a president. Did I miss something?

[Steve 'StatMan']

As to whether Gore won Florida or not. We will never really know because the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Florida State Supreme Court.

How many times must people be remined (only to be forgotten when they talk amongst themselves and listen to Jay Leno) that the major newspaper in Florida, was it the Miami Herald, took the ballots and manually counted them to completion, and under all recount scenarios, Bush was the victor in every one of them. You can do a search, I know someone posted here about that.

Here's a link to CNN's story. Many of us know Bush actually won Florida the 2000 election. Some day, maybe you and your clique will be willing to know it too.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/

[Suff]

How many times must people be remined (only to be forgotten when they talk amongst themselves and listen to Jay Leno) that the major newspaper in Florida, was it the Miami Herald, took the ballots and manually counted them to completion, and under all recount scenarios, Bush was the victor in every one of them. You can do a search, I know someone posted here about that.

Let me get this straight? Bush did'nt trust the Florida Elections Authority to Count Ballots Properly. (Kathrine Harris -Republican) But you expect me to trust a Newspaper?

Seems odd that a monitered recount is a dangerous thing, but an unmonitered recount has you all warm and cozy.

The Miami Herald is the National Enqurier of Major American Newspapers btw...

Think Jose Santos and Buzzer!

[Suff]

From the Same piece by the way.


Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three votes, the newspaper reported.

[Steve 'StatMan']

It took many months to count the ballots, much longer than the Election Statues allow. Sec frets that we'll never know who won Florida because the votes weren't counted. Well, they were, 2 papers according to the CNN article.

Yeah, I still don't like the Miami Herald and the Jose Santos incident.

I know you got over the 2000 Election Suff. Sec obviously never has.

[Steve 'StatMan']

From the Same piece by the way.

Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three votes, the newspaper reported.

I missed that, or forgotten about that. That's funny! So many of Gore's team and the Dem's were pushing so hard to count as many ballots as possible, with all the various odd-chad sceanarios, and the only way for them to have gotten the victory was to have let the recount happen, do it the stricter way the Republicans had advocated, and they'd have won by 3 little votes, assuming the votes could have been counted in time - made impossible by all the time lost bickering about the dimpled and 1-2-3 corner chads.

Ah, but then that means having to trust a Miami Herald story, in a combined effort with U.S.A. Today.

[Suff]

I know you got over the 2000 Election Suff. Sec obviously never has.

Of course I did......It was a Jump ball. #### happens.

However, what gets my goat..and agitates me to no end is that it was GEORGE BUSH that was the sitting President when we were attacked on 9-11. I concede that other administrations and Govt Agencys dropped the ball to get us to that point.

But in August 2001 in Presdential Briefing Bush was told "BIN-LADEN determined to use Planes to attack an american city. Yet people insist he is the Security President...??:confused: Further, all the Tools we needed to prevent 9-11 were in place prior to 9-11. So I don't think we need'd the Patriot Act, or the IRAQ war or a whole number of other things that have gone on since 9-11. We only needed the people to do what they are paid to do and we would have stopped it.

And more......No one can claim that Conservatives, or more specifically George Bush represents a CLEAR MAJORITY of America. Its a Jump Ball.

It is inaccurate to say that Democratic Americans do not make up a very significant chunk of mainstream america.

[Secretariat]

Since when does the popular vote elect a president. Did I miss something?

In almost every Presidential election the popular vote (the actual vote of the people) selects the same person as the electoral vote. In this case it did not. Although, as stated previously and as Suff illustrated we will never honestly know what the total count was. In actuality GW may have won the popular vote, but he choose not to find out thanks to SCOTUS.

Comment by Steve is interesting in saying i never got over the 2000 vote, but Suff has. I made one comment on Gary's post. Suff has answered in detail.

I'm over it. I'm looking forward to 2008. It will be a positive for the country to end this sad moment in America and look toward a new leader.

[GaryG]

I'm over it. I'm looking forward to 2008. It will be a positive for the country to end this sad moment in America and look toward a new leader.I'm looking forward to it too sec....

[Steve 'StatMan']

I think Suff's analogy is very good - it's been like a Jump Ball. Jump Ball in 2000 and a lot of elbows and shoulders were flying. 2002 didn't seem too bad. 2004 seemed like a Jump Ball at the X-Games, elbows, shoulders, fits, crash helmets, knee pads and goggles. 2006 will be an important election as well. Non-Presidential election, so the battles will be confined to the state level for the Senate, House of Representatives, Governors and other state offices.

I really hope 2008 is less of an X-Games Jump Ball than 2004, but I fear it might actually get worse.

Definitely no clear majority, both sides and all issues, past, current and future, will play a big role, and a lot of voices on both sides will be heard from, no doubt.

Glad to learn you're over 2000 Sec, sorry I got upset. Kind of a hot button isses with me - I keep hearing over and over from the Infotainment sources (Leno, Letterman, Stewart) and too many demo-aligned sound-byte types that Bush didn't really win Florida nor legally win in 2000, and that talk is not only misleading, but keeps trying to dig at our country's difficult divisions. I don't know if the politicians are as divisive as all the pundits and commentators are sometimes.

[lsbets]

I don't think anyone would argue that elections aren't pretty much a toss up and that Democratic leaning Americans constitute a large portion of voters. What I would argue however, is that the activist base of both parties is out of touch with mainstream America, and if forced to choose between the fringe of either side, voters will tilt right. Whichever party appears to be closer to the center wins, with the possible exception of Reagans first win, which can really be attributed to the horid economy and overall lack of optimism in the nation. Since then - Reagan vs Mondale, Bush vs Dukakis, Clinton vs Bush and Dole, and then Bush vs Gore and Kerry, the winner was the one who appeared to be more towards the center and more in touch with the average American (although I would argue none of them know what its like for Mr. and Mrs. Middle America, because when you spend your life in politics you live in a bubble).

[Tom]

2000......