Posted on 03/26/2002 9:23:02 PM PST by LarryLied
But then, I tend to be cynical about these things...:)
Check out the majorities Democrats needed under FDR and LBJ to get their agenda enacted into law: Congressional History from 1789 to 2000.
In 1979, Democrats had more of a majority in the House than the GOP had seats. In 1994, Clinton's party had a 7 seat lead in the Senate and an 82 seat majority in the House. Even with that, liberals did not get everything they wanted.
Then when the counter offer is submitted, you appear to be compromising by agreeing to less than was contained in your initial offer. However, the fact remains, you have still acheived your original goal.
With regard to the media, you couldn't be more correct. The illusion in our country is that gov't controls the media, when in fact, the gov't is little more than a franchise of the media (imo). Politicians are wholly dependent on the media for their politicial lifeblood- election + reelection. Should the media decide that you don't meet certain criteria they (media)have, then the subtle smear campaign begins.
The American media is now under the complete control of about 4 or 5 umbrella corporations, none of which, despite the illusion that FoxNews is to the contrary, believe that individual autonomy and local solutions are what is best for us. You want a conservative point of view, the media will decide who will represent that POV via who they hand pick as commentators or pundits. Those chosen, will still be proponents of centralized, big government solutions. Solutions which the media deem appropriate, not which is in the best interests of the individual or our country.
It is an ongoing, relentless propaganda campaign that cannot be countered as long as we think we have a choice because there are different names to the political parties.
Yup. Did any major newspaper write an editorial opposing censoring political speech? Any of the networks, aside from FOX, even mention that is what CFR was all about and what power it gave to the media?
It's all part of the master plan to exert further control over their subordinates, the politicians. You couldn't ask for better evidence than their silence on this issue.
Logically, one would assume that they would have lobbied long and hard against CFR from a purely economic point of view. The revenues lost will be huge. Ultimately, revenues are secondary to power. Total power.
Winnick cut his pal in at the takeoff and McAuliffe reaped up to $18 million on an investment of $100,000. McAuliffe's good fortune was shared by other early investors like the AFL-CIO-affiliated Union Labor Life Insurance Company, which also made spectacular gains from Global Crossing and, according to BusinessWeek, cut in some union officials. His problem is, Global Crossing looks a lot like Enron: The insiders sold early; the employees, ordinary investors and pension funds got trashed big-time. Global Crossing is the fourth-largest bankruptcy in U.S. history but lacks the sophisticated artistry of Enron's complex financial deceptions.
Good article. Thanks Larry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.