More direct evidence of media bias...

A mellow place for Bobcats to discuss topics free of political posturing

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

User avatar
El_Gato
Member # Retired
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Kalispell

More direct evidence of media bias...

Post by El_Gato » Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:59 am

I am home sick this morning, and what is making matters even worse is watching the "traditional" media tripping all over themselves as they prepare for the opening of the Clinton Library.

That's funny, but I don't remember the same "fuss" over the opening of the Reagan Library...

When I woke up, I felt like vomitting, but what "sealed the deal" and sent me running for the toilet was watching the second-most liberal woman on the planet, Katie Couric, interview #1, Hillary Clinton. By the end of it, I felt like the 2 should "get a room".

I've always said that I'd have more respect for the media if they'd just be HONEST about their bias. Instead, they are far more sinister by trying hide under a cloak of "fairness" and almost subliminally try to influence the public that the left is good & the right is bad...

Now I know why I usually go to work at 5:30 a.m. Too much of this morning-TV-liberal-lovefest would indeed kill me.
Last edited by El_Gato on Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.


Grizzlies: 2-5 when it matters most

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23938
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:39 pm

I'm not really sure that this is such firm evidence of the liberal conspiracy. I think that pretty much any time that nearly all of the living Presidents (all except Ford, who wasn't looking very good the last time I saw him) are gathered in one place for an event, it is bound to get a little TV and press coverage. Perhaps you weren't watching TV or on the internet the day the Reagan Library opened.

Somewhere, out there, is a radical liberal whining about the right wing conpiracy media complex ruining Clinton's big day by allowing The Bush Presidents so much face time during Clinton's event.

What specific policies of Hillary Clinton qualify her as the "most liberal" woman on the planet? This is, of course, assuming that we aren't just using the term "liberal" as a euphemism for evil.



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:29 pm

El Gato wrote:
watching the second-most liberal woman on the planet, Katie Couric, interview #1, Hillary Clinton. By the end of it, I felt like the 2 should "get a room".

BAC wrote:
What specific policies of Hillary Clinton qualify her as the "most liberal" woman on the planet? This is, of course, assuming that we aren't just using the term "liberal" as a euphemism for evil.

Everyone needs to mark this date on their calendars: I actually agree to the point that BAC is making, rather than backing El Gato--sorry about that. :oops:

Hillary is not as liberal as her husband--at least not according to this chart from ontheissues.org. If you think Hillary is liberal, you should see Barbara Boxer's rating on the same site!

Okay, back to agreeing with El Gato...sorry, BAC, but it could only last so long. :lol:



User avatar
BozoneCat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:15 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by BozoneCat » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:35 pm

But can we at least agree on the "evil" part?!? :wink:


GO CATS GO!!!

Image
Image

WYCAT
Member # Retired
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

Post by WYCAT » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:55 pm

But can we at least agree on the "evil" part?!?


You can count on my vote BozoneCat. :lol:



User avatar
BWahlberg
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Missoula
Contact:

Post by BWahlberg » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:13 pm

Do conservatives fear Hillary Clinton because she's a liberal or a woman?

Kind of seems to me that it might be the 2nd. (Sorry El Gato, guess we disagree on everything).



User avatar
BozoneCat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:15 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by BozoneCat » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:37 pm

For me, it has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman - I like the nomination of Condi Rice for Sec of State. My problem with Hillary is manifold, but revolves around what happens when she opens her mouth and speaks. I also lost any shred of respect I might have ever had for her as a woman when she didn't divorce Bill. Men shouldn't treat women like that, and women shouldn't let themselves be treated like that.


GO CATS GO!!!

Image
Image

User avatar
BWahlberg
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Missoula
Contact:

Post by BWahlberg » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:17 pm

I see Hillary as one of the best shots to actually contend for being elected President someday.

I aslo see many conservatives (not saying any of you guys since I don't really know you very much) feel very threatened by her success. She is incredibly inteligent, and in the event of an election she would take both the younger vote and the women's vote.

For me the Jury is still out on Rice. If Clinton is blamed for not taking a chance to kill Bin Laden & stop 9/11 then you also have say that Rice ignored it as well (9/11).

In 4 years I could see Rice running as VP. Possibly with John McCain. That would be a little less Conservative pairing then now, and would probably lead to our 3rd straight intense election.



User avatar
BozoneCat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:15 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by BozoneCat » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:45 pm

I agree that Hillary will prove to be a strong contender for President in four years. I agree that she is undoubtedly very intelligent - I doubt many people would debate that. She would definitely take the younger vote (not that it makes much difference - see 2004 election), but I think the jury would be out on whether she takes the women's vote. She would definitely get the majority of the women's vote, but Democrats already do that. There are a lot of women out there who see Hillary as a somewhat "butch femi-Nazi," and don't really like her. I actually think Hillary would lose a few points in the women's vote, but that is just my opinion. She would prove to be a strong candidate, but I still feel she would lose, not because she is a woman, but because her ideas are just too far to the left.

I agree that the jury is out on Rice, I was just trying to point out that I have absolutely nothing against women in power. In fact, I think putting women in these positions provides a necessary balance because, as all of us stupid saps already know, women and men just don't think the same way! :wink: I don't see Rice running for office, and I really doubt McCain will get the nomination in four years.

On kind of the same note, I think Laura Bush is a wonderful example as First Lady, whether you like her husband or not. She carries herself with class and dignity, supports her husband, and has a real and genuine concern for the children in this country and for their future.


GO CATS GO!!!

Image
Image

User avatar
El_Gato
Member # Retired
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Kalispell

Post by El_Gato » Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:15 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:What specific policies of Hillary Clinton qualify her as the "most liberal" woman on the planet?


Um, let's see, "It takes a village" is her theme? um, she wanted the goverment to take TOTAL control of medicine/health care in our country (about 20% of our economy)? um, ever heard of the 2nd Amendment? Think Hill wants us kooks on the right to keep our guns?

Do you really want me to continue?

I agree that Boxer may be more liberal, but definitely LESS influential than the former first lady.

Re/Max Griz wrote:Do conservatives fear Hillary Clinton because she's a liberal or a woman? Kind of seems to me that it might be the 2nd.


Would you idiotic griz fans PLEASE stop trying to tell me what I think?? Stick to your own views/thoughts, please. I have the greatest respect for Margaret Thatcher; I'm pretty sure she was a woman...
Last edited by El_Gato on Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:21 am, edited 2 times in total.


Grizzlies: 2-5 when it matters most

User avatar
BWahlberg
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Missoula
Contact:

Post by BWahlberg » Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:17 am

E_g

I wasn't meaning to tell you how to think, thats just how I see it.

In regards to the 2nd amendment thing, I personally feel it's been blown out of proportion. I really doubt even the most liberal of presidents would successfully attempt to "take away our guns." Most Reps and about half the Dems don't think we need to do this. A measure would never get through congress.

The one thing a more democratic leadership would do is reinstate the automatic weapons ban. Which in my mind (not saying anyone else should agree) is a good thing.
Last edited by BWahlberg on Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:53 pm

Well, well. Look what I found this morning in the Op/Ed section of the Washington Times:
Hillary's Senate record

Our friends at the National Review spotted this post-election howler in an Associated Press dispatch: "For 2008, the presumptive leading presidential candidates are New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Northeastern centrist . . ." Recalling Mrs. Clinton's pre-senatorial work for Marian Wright Edelman's radical Children's Defense Fund and Robert Treuhaft's "revolutionary" and Black Panther law firm, the National Review understandably responded to this evolving new line on Hillary by exclaiming, "Whoa, whoa, whoa!"

The Washington Times editorial page would like to add its two-cents' worth by reviewing Mrs. Clinton's first years in the Senate and comparing her voting record to the record of liberalism's unquestioned standard-bearer, Teddy Kennedy, who would be proud to say that he has never been mistaken for a "Northeastern centrist." What do you know? The unquestionably liberal voting records of these two Northeasterners are virtually indistinguishable.
    • The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the self-styled premier liberal organization that issues annual congressional voting ratings by tallying the votes cast on its 20 most important issues, has given Mrs. Clinton scores (ADA cleverly calls them "liberal quotients") of 95 percent for each of her first three years. Mr. Kennedy's ADA ratings have been 100 percent (2001 and 2002) and 95 percent (2003).
    • If the ADA guards the liberal flame in Congress, the American Conservative Union (ACU) performs the same function for conservatives. Mrs. Clinton's average ACU rating (2001-2003) of 11 is not much different from Mr. Kennedy's 5 for the same period.
    • The Big Labor bosses love New York's junior senator as much as they worship Massachusetts' senior senator. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which is feverishly working to protect the gold-plated, unaffordable, bankruptcy-inducing pensions and early-retirement privileges of public workers, has given Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy 100 percent ratings for 2001, 2002 and 2003. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton's lifetime rating of 93 percent from the AFL-CIO is precisely the same as Mr. Kennedy's.
    • For the 2001-2003 period, Mrs. Clinton compiled an average rating of 88.3 from the League of Conservation Voters. That was 2 points higher than Mr. Kennedy's three-year average.
    • Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Kennedy did much for taxpayers during 2001-2003. She has compiled an average annual rating of 14 percent from the National Taxpayers Union; Mr. Kennedy's is 13 percent. Meanwhile, the National Tax Limitation Committee gave both senators a zero rating for the 107th Congress (2001-2002).
    • The one score the Christian Coalition has given to each of them since Mrs. Clinton arrived in the Senate is zero. That shouldn't be much of a surprise, considering that each of their annual ratings (2001-2003) from the National Right to Life Committee has been zero, while each has earned 100 percent marks from NARAL Pro-Choice America over the same period. Each also received identical scores from the American Civil Liberties Union for the 107th Congress.
    • Each year the nonpartisan National Journal ranks each senator on three separate liberal/conservative continuums according to dozens of votes cast on economic, social and foreign-policy issues. In 2002, not a single U.S. senator was considered more liberal than Mrs. Clinton on economic and social matters. Last year no senator surpassed her liberal ranking on social issues, while she voted more liberally on economic matters than 90 percent of her colleagues. Her composite liberal score last year was higher than Mr. Kennedy's. A "Northeastern centrist"? Compared to Mrs. Clinton's 2003 composite liberal score of 88.8, Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins received composite liberal scores of 50.5 and 50.8, respectively, establishing their unquestioned "Northeastern centrist" credentials. Mrs. Clinton isn't even in the centrist ballpark.
    • Each year the authoritative Congressional Quarterly (CQ) selects 10 to 15 "key votes." Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 2001, Mrs. Clinton cast the same votes as Mr. Kennedy on CQ-selected "key" issues in nine out of 10 cases (2001), 12 out of 13 instances (2002) and 13 out of 14 votes (2003).


Having witnessed what has happened to comparably liberal Northeastern politicians who have sought the presidency over the past quarter century, including Massachusetts liberals like Mr. Kennedy (1980), Michael Dukakis (1988) and John Kerry (2004), Mrs. Clinton will surely seek to adopt the "centrist" image over the next few years. To this end, she will undoubtedly be helped by her liberal media friends, who, like Hillary, understand how deadly the liberal moniker is to a politician nationwide. In the interest of truth, The Washington Times editorial page will occasionally take a close look at her positions in order to confirm beyond any freshly arising doubt just how entrenched her liberalism truly is. Today, we have seen that interest groups across the political spectrum consider her virtually indistinguishable from Teddy Kennedy, the widely proclaimed -- and unabashed -- lion of Senate liberalism.


There's more to disliking Senator Clinton than meets the eye...I think an apology is due from me to you, El Gato--guess I didn't research this one very well... :oops:



User avatar
BWahlberg
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Missoula
Contact:

Post by BWahlberg » Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:07 pm

I thought John Kerry was the "Biggest Liberal" now it's Hillary? I suppose in 3 years it's going to be whoever has a D after their last name.



User avatar
lifeloyalsigmsu
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1382
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:50 pm

Post by lifeloyalsigmsu » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:49 am

Re/Max Griz wrote:I thought John Kerry was the "Biggest Liberal" now it's Hillary? I suppose in 3 years it's going to be whoever has a D after their last name.


Well if the shoe fits.........


"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." --Thomas Reed

User avatar
El_Gato
Member # Retired
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Kalispell

Post by El_Gato » Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:18 am

Ree,

Would you please show where I stated that the Frenchman (John Kerry) was the biggest liberal?

Is he liberal? Absolutely.

I didn't/don't care much for W but I am VERY thankful that Kerry lost the election.

I hope Canada enjoys all those idiotic liberals who claim they're moving there...
Last edited by El_Gato on Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.


Grizzlies: 2-5 when it matters most

velochat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:29 am
Location: Bozeman

Post by velochat » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:38 am

I'm convinced. There is a right wing corporate bias to the media, in general. In the case of Fox news disease and talk radio, it's extreme right wing.



User avatar
BWahlberg
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Missoula
Contact:

Post by BWahlberg » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:21 am

E_G

Calling Kerry a Frenchmen? Why?

All I'm saying is that Reps like to play the "liberal card" for anyone who's in the spotlight for the Democrat party. It could be John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Max Baucus.

And don't worry guys, the groups that voted the stongest for Kerry were younger people, and we're not going anywhere, in fact there's going to be a lot more people turning 18 and becoming eligible to vote in the next 4 years, bringing more of us "damn liberals" into the voting scene.

One big reason why America's younger generations sees trouble ahead is this growing deficit. Who's going to pay that back in 15 - 20 years? Not someone who's 48, planning to retire in 10 years or so. An economist who spoke in Missoula on Thursday said that this deficit is probably going to change the American workforce, most workers would have to work 10 - 11 hour days, b/c of tax hikes to pay the deficit.

Before I'm questioned on my last statement, the economist was Dr. Sohn, the cheif economic advisor for Wells Fargo, he's leaving Wells this year to become the president of a Korean owned franchise of banks opening in Southern Cali.



velochat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:29 am
Location: Bozeman

Post by velochat » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:15 pm

here's a great excerpt from a commentary:
Conservatives may be happy about the shift to the right in this country and may even see it as a major victory. But I doubt it will last. History has shown us time and again that when it comes to big social issues, conservatives invariably get it wrong and eventually get left behind as society evolves. One-time hot-button subjects such as civil rights, evolution, the Earth being round and many others are now viewed as silly fights fought by those who refused to acknowledge reality and/or science. Gay rights, the right of a woman to choose an abortion and global warming are just contemporary versions of the same thing.

In the end, we have to choose. Are we to be a country dominated by religion and those who say something is so just because they say so (Iran) or a country that makes its decisions based on science and rational thinking? If history is a good indicator, we'll eventually choose the latter.

Greg James lives in Seattle.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/2 ... son22.html


I saw Kerry try to speak french to some Haitians, on the daily show; as someone who does speak french, it was hilarious. Almost as amusing as w trying to speak english (I can't imagine how hilarious his spanish must be). I finally figured out how shrub can lie about Iraq's nuclear program with a straight face: It's a trick, he never says "nuclear", he only wants us to think that it's because he isn't able. :lol: :lol:



User avatar
BozoneCat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:15 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by BozoneCat » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:52 pm

Re/Max Griz wrote:And don't worry guys, the groups that voted the stongest for Kerry were younger people, and we're not going anywhere, in fact there's going to be a lot more people turning 18 and becoming eligible to vote in the next 4 years...


Yeah, and as they grow up and mature they will learn to think for themselves instead of voting for whoever Puff Daddy and Cameron Diaz and Eminem tell them to vote for. They will get married, work at a real job, change their idealism from utopianism to realism, and vote Republican.


GO CATS GO!!!

Image
Image

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23938
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:18 pm

BozoneCat wrote:
Re/Max Griz wrote:And don't worry guys, the groups that voted the stongest for Kerry were younger people, and we're not going anywhere, in fact there's going to be a lot more people turning 18 and becoming eligible to vote in the next 4 years...


Yeah, and as they grow up and mature they will learn to think for themselves instead of voting for whoever Puff Daddy and Cameron Diaz and Eminem tell them to vote for. They will get married, work at a real job, change their idealism from utopianism to realism, and vote Republican.


Or they will become highly educated (graduate degrees) and become intellectual Democrats. It is interesting how the Democratic party skews to both the young idealogues and the very highly educated types, while the Republicans tend to do better in between.

So as long as those young kids don't get too much book learnin', they might become Republicans. Although I think it is safer to say that they will probably not abandon their social liberalism (as age and experience do nothing to make people more intolerant of people who don't look and/or act like themselves), but might become more fiscally conservative. That would just make them part of the swing voters group that doesn't have a home and think that both sides have a lot of things wrong with their platforms.



Post Reply