"I love it when a plan comes together!"
Posted on 09/26/2004 12:12:03 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Yeah....
I guess so....
< /sigh>
Pat makes a great deal of sense sometimes, and this is one of them.
Another case where Pat was right was Kosovo.
There is a universal truth in Presidential Elections: US Senators DON'T do very well, as a rule. There are a few exceptions, however.
Large state Governors, high-ranking generals, etc. have been the best candidates.
That was then... This is now. The American People have seen 9-11 and I don't think Conservatives will ill-afford to have their vote split with a third-party candidate or Ever present an unelectable candidate for some time. The GOP really has it's act together these days and the grass-roots support has never been better. We are winning. It will just take some time, and possibly a few more appointments of Judicial Nominees who actually want to uphold the law.
I smell a big, fat Clintonian rat.
They are saving the Presidency for her, but, she will have to give up her seat in 2006 in order to run, because she is unelectable. She will then be open to prosecution for a very short period of time. If much time lapses, it will be the same old persecution crap, VRWC, partisan politics, etc...She should pay for her crimes.
sad, but true
Yes , yes and yes.
They really are rats aren't they?
Try to remember the context of the times. In 1992, nobody had any reason to expect 43% of the people to vote for a draft dodger who cheated on his wife or 19% to vote for a lunatic, leaving 38% for the president. At that time, the MSM was still the only game in town, and that was pretty much the case in '96, too. Dole was a great candidate, but unless you saw him in person, you'd never know it. The MSM won the '92 and '96 elections, not Clinton, and a lot of people jumped on the media-driven bandwagon.
While it tends to be true that Buchanan gets most excited when hunting Mexicans or Israeli lobbyists, he does stay on radar on some common-sense conservative issues on occasion. The current CBS brouhaha, for instance.
"While CBS probably did not know the documents it used were blatant forgeries...."
I don't know what the undefined CBS is that he refers to, but Rather and Mapes had some big fat clues staring them in the face that these things were phony, or maybe he just means they thought they were "clever" forgeries and therefore not "blatant." The rest I pretty much agree with.
Um...gee...I think we've already found that out.
Dan Rather is piloting his own swiftboat (full of cbs staffers) up a river called Denial.
SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY (MSNBC) 9/20/04:
FINEMAN: I can imagine a couple of reasons.
First of all, we reported in “Newsweek” last week that one reason why these documents were so important to CBS is because Ben Barnes, the former lieutenant governor of Texas, who has said that he used influence to get people into the National Guard in Texas, was being reluctant to go on “60 Minutes.” He didn‘t want to go on “60 Minutes” alone just to retell his story.
Mike Isikoff, my colleague, dug up the fact that Barnes was telling the people at CBS, I am not going on unless you have another element to this story. So CBS was determined to have another element, and, of course, that‘s what the memos were all about, and I think it‘s possible that the producer here, in order to kind of curry favor with and be pals with this guy Burkett was basically trying to do for him what Burkett was unable to do for himself, which was namely get through Max Cleland to the campaign.
But, again, alarm bells should have gone off at that point. You don‘t steer a source to a campaign for the campaign‘s own use to attack the other side. You just don‘t do that, because then you are not being a journalist. You‘re being a political operative.
a) Too many disillusioned (Read my lips) American conservatives throwing away their vote on a nutcase like H. Ross Perot, who stood absolutely NO chanceof winning;
Damned right, and Perot's entire scam was based on a personal hatred of George Bush. Perot was successful, where Rather has not been, yet.
I voted for Perot, and stand before Free Republic and the World fully revealed as a complicit A$$HOLE and sucker.
Pat B. is a good one to write this column. He has enjoyed of late an almost McCain like status with the media for his new Bush bashing book. For this reason his column may be commented on by some in the media. I predict the Sunday shows will almost ignore Ratherfilthyfakeryforgeryf'nGate completely.
Colin Powell's son is head of the FCC. It has a majority of Republican members. They do indeed have great reluctance to supervise editorial content. But this is a blatant attempt to take down a president in a presidential election with forged documents. That has nothing to do with Freedom to report the news. The government has no right to tell us how to spend our money. It has every right to punish us for spending counterfit money. Rather circulated counterfit news.
Stations are licensed to seve in the public interest, convienence, and necessity. There is no public interest in trying to use fraudulent documents in order to throw an election.
The annoucement by the ever so liberal Viacom President that he is going to vote for Bush shows just how high up the food chain this is going to go. It is an attempt to say.. I can't be accused of trying to defeat Bush.. I am a Bush supporter. It was the ultimate Viacom CYA.
The FCC is getting lots of complaints. Will they ignore them? Or will they hold hearings?
I would not be surprised to have Michael Powell announce hearings(AFTER THE ELECTION) to see if rule making is warrented. He could call in all the Media people and hit them under oath about this and other similar attempts. He could have an investigation of the facts made before hearings are held.
The Broadcast Media could be made to justify other suspecious stories. They could be foreced to testify before the FCC in closed hearings. And if guilty the hearings could become public.
The Supreme court in the Red Lion VS FCC case held that failure to have a broadcast confrom to the public interest was valid grounds for license revocation.
CBS is acting as if that will not happen. If they did think it would happen they would be belly up right now.
But if Powell and the FCC board are planning to go after the media, it is best to give the media enough rope to hang themselves.
It was to the Bush adminstration's advantage to not try to prove to CBS that the fake documents were fake. So they did not.
It is not to the FCC's advantage to warn CBS of the consequences of illegal activity. It is unlikley that the FCC wants to give CBS a way to get off the hook. It is likely that the FCC like most cops wants to give CBS all the rope they need to hang themselves.
This ain't over by a long shot. And after the eleciton CBS and the MSM can't say that Powell is just trying to re-elect George Bush.
The FCC has the power to cost Viacom a billion dollars in station licenses and to cost it billions more in advertising revenue.
CBS and its management is skating on very thin ice.
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.