From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Keywords: media, bias
Date: 16 Nov 92 07:37:04 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Nov3.044851.18988@umbc3.umbc.edu>
alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1104@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>><	Dan Quayle was accepted into a unit with an active waiting list.
>><The NYTimes produced several people who had been turned away from that unit
>><in the monthes before Dan Quayles was immediately accepted. According
>><to what Indiana evidance remains, the waiting list to get into that unit
>><probably had a thousand names on it. Obviously, he didn't go through
>><normal channels, or he'd have been on that list with the rest of the
>><normal people.
>>
>>How do you know he wasn't?
>
>	Dan was accepted into the guard within a week of his application,
>according to guard records. The New York times locates several other 
>individuals who applied to the same unit before Quayle, but did not reach
>the front ofr the list by the time that the war ended. While records were
>not kept for the individual units, there are records that indicate that
>as many as 10,000 people were on waiting lists in indiana when Quayle was
>accepted. 

You're missing the point here Alex.  I didn't say Quayle's Dad didn't
use his influence to get Dan a position in the National Guard.  Although
your evidence is pretty convincing, it is still circumstantial.  In
Clinton's case however, there is no doubt.  And we know Clinton lied
about it during the campaign, and all we have to do to prove that is
quote Bill Clinton.  To say that they were treated equally is absurd. 
If anything Bill Clinton should have receive more scrutiny because he
was running for higher office.

Consider something else.  In 1988, the press made a big deal out of how
young and inexperienced Quayle was, and there was still some of that
this time around.  Well Al Gore is a year younger that Dan Quayle (and
therefore just three years older than Dan was in 1988), and he has less
experience in Congress.  I haven't heard the press question his
qualifications to be "a heartbeat away" even once.  Certainly, they
didn't treat him the same way.

>	[re: Iran Contra]
>><|> Richard Secord has no evidence and Clinton wasn't making an issue of it.
>><
>><	Richard Secord is an eye witness and a former white house operatative.
>><If that doesn't qualify as evidance, what does?
>>
>>Something to back him up and make us believe he knows what he's talking
>>about and is telling the truth.  I'm not saying he isn't, but I think
>>innocent until proven guilty applies to the President too.
>
>	How about collaberating evidance from Casper Weinberger?

As far as I know, Weinberger isn't collaborating Secord's story, i.e.
they aren't both saying they saw Bush hear or say something at a
particular place and time, but rather they are both saying Bush knew
more than he is now admitting, but for different reasons.

Look, as far as I know, Bush is lying his butt off about this, but I
don't think that has been proven.  We weren't discussing that, but press
bias.  There is no question that Clinton was lying all through the
campaign, about a number of things.  Secord's book did get some press,
but it isn't comparable.

>>I note you've dropped the nonsense that Bush lead us into the worst
>>recession in 50 years.  What made you think that was true?  It couldn't
>>have been press bias (and uncritical acceptance of Clinton/Gore) could it?
>
>	I don't know, it's like of like that part about the biggest
>peacetime expansion since WWII - not bad considering that we were at
>war almost continuously the rest of the time.

WWII ended 47 years ago.  In that time, we've had two major wars (three
if you count the Gulf War) for a total of about 14 years.  If you want to
count the minor wars, it would only add a year to that. 

>Determining the "worst" is pretty subjective, from what I've seen,
>it's not too out of line. The Carter years had lower unemployment and
>higher job growth, particularly in technical fields, the Bush years
>had lower inflation.

The Carter years weren't 50 years ago, and of course there is '82-83.

>The only reports that favor your assessment are pretty obviously
>biased (going so far as to include Republican catch phrases in the
>text) so I'm not to disturbed by the whole thing.

That's why I use government figures.

>	It doesn't really matter. Bush will lose tommarow, and in doing 
>so, vindicate every Bush basher alive.

Well, you were right about Bush loosing, but I'm not sure why that
vindicates every Bush basher alive.  In any case, the list of Bush
bashers would include me (I have many times on the NET, and I didn't
vote for him, ever), as well as "National Review" (see the issue after
the 1990 budget deal, or in fact, almost any issue since -- their
indorsement of Bush was with grave reservations), and even Rush
Limbaugh. Conservatives have every reason to hate George Bush, and few
are all that upset that he lost.  George Bush richly deserved to loose.
They are just horrified that Bill Clinton won.

As to whether it matters or not, it certainly does, regardless of who
won.  In formulating policy for the future, it is important to have
accurate information on the past, to know what worked and what didn't. 
Sadly, it looks like Clinton is about the charge off and repeat the
mistakes of the past (before I get blasted, Bush didn't learn the
lessons he might have either).

>Like Carter, history will heap the economic ills for years to come on
>the failures of George Bush, and in 1996, the Republicans will have to
>overcome the idea that Conservative ideas will distry the economy. If
>Clinton has at least half a brain, the GOP might not see the white
>house until the next century.

Which the Republicans would richly deserve, if the Democrats had half a
brain.  Tragically, they don't.

I think the Democrats will be smart enough not to do all of the things
they've promised (Congress won't send Clinton some of the stupid stuff
they sent Bush knowing full well that Bush would veto it) and they may
even do some good things they didn't promise (like cut the capital
gains tax rate), but they will raise taxes, tariffs, increase
regulation, and generally tinker with the market, and the economy will
suffer as a result.  Clinton will inherit a growing economy, and it
will probably continue to grow through 1993.  After that it will depend
on how badly the democrats hurt the economy.  My guess is that they
won't be able to resist trying to improve employment and growth through
new government programs and interference, and both will get
considerably worse as a result.  In 1996, the economy will likely be
much worse that it is now, but it will get better press.

To read more about this, see "How to Increase Unemployment", National
Review, November 16, 1992, page 44.

For more on media bias, see "Here Now, The News . . . ", same issue, page
47.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d