From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:04:39 GMT

In <7HgDr*rX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.230311.11857@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:

>> 
>> No you are blind. The major newspapers supported Reagan and Bush by as much 
>> as 80% to 90% in the past elections. In the San Francisco Bay Area ( a 
>> traditionally liberal area) 6 out of the 7 largest daily newspapers 
>> supported Bush in 88.

>A newspaper's bias is not always revealed by it's Presidential endorsement.  Read
>the other editorials.  Or, just read the "objective" news articles.  Whatever
>happens, the press is always demanding that the government "do something."

Let me get this straight.  All these ostensibly liberal newspapers are
almost perpetually endorsing conservatives for office?  What is there
about that 'logic' that just doesn't quite track, Jim?

>> 
>>   Just look at the election coverage.  Reporters and analysts
>> >hardly ever ask any embarrassing questions of Clinton. 
>> 
>> You mean questions like "Did you have an affair?", or "Did you ever take 
>> any illegal drugs?", or "Did you try to avoid the draft?"

>Or, "why do you keep lying about your tax policy?", or "why do you try to hide
>the fact that you are liberal?", or "why did you suddenly shift further left
>after you became the front-runner in the primary?", or "why is your state last
>in so many areas?", or "why did you lie about your position on Desert Storm?",
>or...  There are many lies and misrepresentations by Slick Willie every day.

In other words, they DO ask those questions you say they never ask.
Otherwise, you woulnd't know anything about any of those things you
mention, now would you?

>> I got news for you, the only newspapers that aern't conservative are 
>> privately owned. And they are less than 10% of circulation in the US.

>That is utter nonsense.  We have a liberal newspaper here also.  We had another, but
>it went under.  The conservative newspaper had a letter yesterday complaining about
>it's liberal bias.  You don't seem to know what a liberal newspaper is.  Could it be
>that you are so liberal that you think that they are all conservative?

Or perhaps it's that you're so conservative that anything that isn't a
direct organ of conservative organizations seems liberal to you?

>> How can the Republicans say that they are fiscally conservative when
>> they have given us the largest deficit in this country's history.

>They haven't had the power (i.e. the House of Representatives) to stop the
>Democrats from spending us into bigger and bigger deficits.  

Never heard the word 'veto' before, hey Jim?  George Bush, for
example, has never had one overridden.  That seems to say that he must
have approved of all that spending, or he would have vetoed it and
Congress would have had to override that veto to spend it.  

>You seem to believe
>that since the little spenders haven't been able to balance the budget, that we
>should just give the BIG spenders free reign.  Let's see, spend much more until
>the budget is balanced - yep, that's typical liberal "thinking."

What 'little spenders'?  You seem to think that just because someone
professes that they are conservative, prates about null-value phrases
like 'family values' that mean different things to everyone who is
espousing them, and sells you stories that even my 5 year old niece
wouldn't believe, that you should just give THEM free reign.  Yep,
that's typical conservative "thinking".

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5108 alt.politics.clinton:4950