From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:50:24 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In article <4635@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>I've already typed up the keynote speech by President Reagan.

I believe Phil Gramm is the keynote speaker, and he's speaking tonight.

>* When President Bush was giving his speech that effectually began the
>final thrust of his campaign, "a dramatic appearance carefully timed for
>the evening news", the three major news networks did not carry this
>action. "As Bush finished his stemwinder, NBC's Tom Brokaw was telling
>viewers that Woody Allen had admitted to a love affair with Mia Farrow's
>21-year-old adopted daughter.

So what?  If the media don't fall for Bush's "carefully timed for the
evening news" speech they're biased?

>* Mentions that Reagan's speech wound up getting right out of prime
>time due to schedule delays.

The media's fault somehow?

>* Resurfacing of "sleaze" issue: calls for Bush campaign manager Robert
>Mosbacher to resign or be fired because he trumpeted again the
>allegations of infidelity against Bill Clinton.
>	Bush to Brokaw: "I'm trying to keep this business out of the
>sleaze business ... [but] I cannot control what everybody says." Bush
>had not seen the comments Mosbacher made, he remarked.
>	Brokaw: "Nonetheless, it's still hanging out there."

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.

>* Peter Jennings: The Houston RNC is an attempt to "rescue George Bush's
>political career." CBS' Joe Klein: Bush turned to Reagan and Pat
>Buchanan to help him rally the faithful; the choice of Buchanan was "a
>measure of the President's desperation."

It's true.  Buchanan ran against Bush, for Pete's sake.  And Reagan hasn't
exactly been the strongest Bush supporter...

>* 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.

>* Kurtz remarks that in Reagan's speech he did not get around to
>mentioning Bush or Quayle until the end of the speech.

Media bias or fact?  True or false: Reagan *really* thinks Bush is the best
choice.

>* ABC's Jeff Greenfield: Reagan is no longer as popular as he once was
>with many voters, and his speech might remind conservatives that "George
>Bush is a guy they have to settle for" rather than their real hero.

True again.  How is this "media bias"?

>Texas treasurer Bailey Hutchison concerning the Clinton economic plan:
>	"You know something? I think he really did inhale."

Ooh, I'm sure that one-liner would've given Bush two or three points in the
polls.  Not.  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.

>Protesters want to demonstrate inside the Astrodome just like the
>demonstration by Ron Kovic during the Democratic National Convention
>then. The images you will see are going to be less positive than those
>seen at the DNC last July.

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?

>Already the television media have done more
>negative coverage in one day than the comparable first day of the
>Democratic Convention. In other words, things appear more chaotic and
>discouraging than they really are. !!!!!

I haven't seen any evidence of media bias in the coverage or in the article
you paraphrased.  Perhaps things *are* as chaotic and discouraging as they
appear.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1287 alt.politics.marrou:737 talk.politics.misc:39184 alt.politics.elections:10370 talk.politics.theory:3634