From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:37:17 GMT

In article <4659@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>	I think it's biased because would you think the media would cut
>from coverage from a Clinton speech to talk about Woody Allen or
>Madonna? (And the news commentators wonder why the American public
>doesn't vote.)

But, based on what you posted, they didn't cut from Bush to something else,
they just didn't cut *to* Bush.

>>Of course Bush is trying to keep the infidelity thing quiet: he's guilty
>>too*.  It *is* a non-issue.  But if one side brings it up, it's only fair
  ^^^
>>for the other side to respond in kind.
>>
>>*neither Bush nor Clinton deny infidelity.  Although it's possible they
>>aren't guilty, I think if they weren't they'd be eager to deny it.
>
>	Then do you believe Clinton is also guilty?

Yes, that's why I said "he's guilty too".

I don't really care how either/any candidate conducts his/her private life. 
What matters to me is how they conduct their public life.  Of course, in a
nation of prudes and weenies, such issues can hurt an official by distraction,
so I can't really say such things don't matter--they just don't matter to me
directly.

>>>* CBS' Dan Rather called the Buchanan speech "raw meat" for the
>>>conservatives.
>>I found it offensive, and don't think it could have helped Bush a whole lot.
>	Calling it raw mean demeans conservatives. If I called the Cuomo
>speech "raw meat" for liberals, or the Jackson speech as "raw meat" for
>minorities, it demeans the intelligence of these constituencies. That
>was the point concerning media bias, as I interpret it.

Buchanan's speech *was* "raw meat": it was full of lies and intended to play
on peoples fears.  If it demeans anyone, it ought to demean Buchanan.

>>Media bias or fact?  True or false: Reagan *really* thinks Bush is the best
>>choice.
>	That's what he remarks. I think Reagan and Buchanan really do
>believe that Bush is the best choice given what we have.

"Best" or "better"?  Obviously, Buchanan considered himself a better choice
until recently.  Sure, they prefer Bush to Clinton (big surprise)--but would
either of them pick Bush over Buchanan, Kemp, or ?? if they had the choice?

>>  Grow up: pot smoking isn't the issue here, and although it's
>>not politically correct these days, many, if not most, of us have tried it
>>at one time.  Dismissing people on the grounds that they've tried it, or
>>making silly jokes about it, isn't going to gain you any ground.
>	Well, we did that to Douglas Ginsberg.

An innocent victim in the War on Drugs.  Prudes and weenies at work, again.

>I agree it isn't a productive charge, but it was the way Clinton responded to
>those charges that have precipitated the "inhaling" jokes.

I must say that *was* rather Quaylesque of Mr. Bill.

>	Besides, we should lighten up! If Reagan can joke about his age
>(Thomas Jefferson, old age stuff), we can handle the jokes about Bush
>(silver foot in his mouth) and Clinton (didn't inhale).

It's one thing to joke, and I like humor as much as the next guy, but it has
its risks.  For example, Reagan claimed that Clinton compares himself to
Jefferson.  It's been reported that this is not true--I've never heard/read
him doing that--but many people hearing that "joke" now *do* think he did. 
That will likely turn some potential Clinton supporters off, unfairly.

>>Boo hoo.  And where's all the openess and balance in the form of expression
>>of platform-conflicting ideas such as being pro-choice?  Remember how the
>>Republicans blasted the Democrats for not letting whathisname from
>>Pennsylvania make his pro-life pitch?  Heard any pro-choicers at the RNC?
>	Answer: why didn't they bring up the debate, because they didn't
>have the support by RNC rules to bring one up.

And clearly the pro-life Democrats, likewise.  I haven't heard any Republicans
apologize for charging Democrats with the same crime they committed
themselves.

>	You need to have heard the PBS interview Judy Woodruff had with
>Barbara Bush tonight. I wish I had a transcript of it. Barbara brought
>up the question, "Why didn't you defend us Republicans during the
>Democratic National Convention when they made so many vicious charges
>against us? How they characterized Republicans so viciously? Why are you
>asking me these questions and didn't ask them?"

Probably because the Democratic convention was much less of a bashfest than
the Republican convention.  The Democrats were much more positive, talking
about their plans for the future.  The Republicans are very negative about the
Democratic ticket, nostalgic about the Reagan years, eager to blame the
Democratic congress, and their sole program for the future is to procure a
Republican congress.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle