From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:15:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug18.175024.9671@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>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.
	I heard Reagan was keynote yesterday, and now Gramm is
tonight's. I don't know. I'm so confused about that. :)

>>* 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?
	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.)

>>* Mentions that Reagan's speech wound up getting right out of prime
>>time due to schedule delays.
>
>The media's fault somehow?
	Don't ask me. This guy pointed it out lots of times. I wish I
knew what he meant too.

>>* 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.
	Then do you believe Clinton is also guilty? The charges against
Clinton has more physical evidence to confirm or refute these charges,
including the "coming out" of the woman with whom he allegedly had an
affair (albeit she didn't exactly come forth in the least suspicious
manner). She had tapes with Clinton's voice on them as well as her own
admission! What "proof" do you have to support your statement he is
guilty? The only proof is a footnoted aside in a book taken from a
former ambassador who just happens to be DEAD. The woman with whom Bush
allegedly had an affair also denies such a thing happened. Neither Bush
nor Clinton need to respond to lies, innuendo, and rumor; but if you say
one person is guilty and the other is not because the one you think is
guilty does not agree with you politically, that is an irresponsible
statement unless you have some way to confirm your suspicions. As I see
it there is more actual evidence to confirm or refute Clinton's alleged
actions as there is for Bush's.

>>* 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...
	But it sounds like the only reason they are speaking is to boost
Bush's popularity in the polls. It is portrayed as some "political
ploy." Well, news item: that's what conventions are nowadays, not just
the RNC.

>>* 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.

>>* 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.
	That's what he remarks. I think Reagan and Buchanan really do
believe that Bush is the best choice given what we have.

>>* 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"?
	I wish I had the entire statement. It sounded to me like
Greenfield was saying what conservatives feared before the speech rather
than how they felt after the speech. He probably did say this before
Reagan's speeches but I can't remember.

>>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.
	Don't worry. It never made it into prime-time. It did make PBS
coverage though. (I don't have CNN.)

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

>>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?
	Answer: why didn't they bring up the debate, because they didn't
have the support by RNC rules to bring one up.
	I HAVE heard pro-choicers, proud pro-choicers!, speak on the
podium, including Gov. William Weld of Massachusetts on today's early
prime-time (PBS) coverage! There are probably many others, but again I
don't have CSPAN nor CNN. (By the way it was Gov. Bill Casey of PA.) Oh,
the response was quite mixed when he touted the fact that he (Weld) was
pro-choice.

>>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.
	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?"

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2201 alt.politics.elections:10998 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2703