Comments on: Comments on 7390

Post number 7390

Postroad — Wed, 02 May 2001 07:51:12 -0800

the big book on the election! Unfortunately, though, Drudge highlited this--and we know his stance--and the Washington Times writer wrote it. Well, the Times is owned by the Rev Moon organization, and as Consortium News reports, Moon has many money ties to the Bush family, including big money speaking tours by Daddy Bush. Go figure the objectivity of this one.

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 02 May 2001 08:56:01 -0800

Go figure the objectivity of this one. I'd say about exactly as objective as the rest of the media.

By: jbelshaw

jbelshaw — Wed, 02 May 2001 08:58:20 -0800

The title is "At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election". Where did you ever get the idea that it was a hatchet piece about Mr. Gore. But your linking of a writer to G. Bush Sr. is as rediculous as the ultra-right's claims of Vince Fosters being murdered at the behest of the Clintons.

By: steve_high

steve_high — Wed, 02 May 2001 09:03:46 -0800

This book's subtitle makes it clear there will be no attempt at objectivity. The Washington Times writer had the advantage of reading Jake Tapper's already-published Down and Dirty--and leaving half of it out. Tapper covered the campaign for the left-leaning Salon. Despite the book's provenance, Amazon readers and most professional reviewers say the book is balanced. BTW, this is why Bill Clinton and Al Gore got waxed in the media and George Bush is getting a tongue-bath. Liberals like Mark Shields try to cover both sides; conservative shows like the O'Reilly Factor are propaganda meat-grinders. The Factor is produced by the same guy who made the Willy Horton spots for Dubya's daddy, if you can believe that. If you can't believe it, read conservative crime-writer James Ellroy's account of O'Reilly Factor in the current (or perhaps last month's GQ.

By: elsar

elsar — Wed, 02 May 2001 09:25:37 -0800

in the measured commentary section, the voice of reason, as always, belongs to The Economist. Although I think they're giving W. (who now goes by plain ol' George Bush in the pages of this weekly) a bit of an easy go, they're right to say that the proof lies in the long term implementation of balanced policies. Point 2 on the subject is the recent talk on missile defense. While I hate to say it, this has been a fairly measured attempt to put the issue out there. I know the baggage this issue carries, but strategically, w/o the baggage, it's an interesting proposal. Remember, Reagan's dream was to eliminate nuclear weapons from global realpolitik. (OK, naive, but interesting.) I know this is a bit off topic, but I thought it interesting as to how Bush has (or hasn't) been using his electoral "mandate".

By: Dirjy

Dirjy — Wed, 02 May 2001 10:01:53 -0800

I thought it interesting as to how Bush has (or hasn't) been using his electoral "mandate". Can't use it if you never had it in the first place...

By: owillis

owillis — Wed, 02 May 2001 11:35:18 -0800

Yeah, yeah Washington Times - what a bastion of impartial reporting that is.

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 02 May 2001 11:51:01 -0800

I thought it interesting as to how Bush has (or hasn't) been using his electoral "mandate". Can't use it if you never had it in the first place... He got more votes than Clinton ever did, and no one ever said Clinton had no mandate.

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 02 May 2001 11:52:03 -0800

Liberals like Mark Shields try to cover both sides That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 02 May 2001 12:00:10 -0800

He got more votes than Clinton ever did, and no one ever said Clinton had no mandate. Except that no one running against Clinton got more.

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 02 May 2001 12:13:55 -0800

Except that no one running against Clinton got more. I don't think the actual popular vote winner will ever be known for 2000, nor do I think it really matters.

By: shackbar

shackbar — Wed, 02 May 2001 12:50:26 -0800

I'm sure if you examined enough connections between people, you could "find" some link that would question any journalists' objectivity. That's because pure journalistic objectivity is a myth. The media isn't neutral and shouldn't be. Sammon and the Washington Times have their angle, and the NY Times has theirs. Let's examine the evidence Sammon uses to make his argument before rejecting it outright.

By: steve_high

steve_high — Wed, 02 May 2001 13:04:44 -0800

Shackbar, you're right; the reviews should be written a decent interval after publication. Moreover, the ad hominem attacks are out of place since the author may have worked for the Washington Times because he needed a job and may have been written up by Drudge because Drudge wanted to write about him. Still, this book has been written already, by a writer who showed pretty convincingly that BOTH sides tried their damnedest to steal it. Since Bush did a much better job, it's hard to see how it will be very interesting reading--sort of like a book on how the Cincinnati Redlegs tried to fix the 1919 World Series.

By: Rastafari

Rastafari — Wed, 02 May 2001 22:06:44 -0800

Yeah, I wonder how Gore tried to "steal" the election: 1. by getting more popular votes; or 2. having right-wing cronies on Supreme Court GIVE the election to his opponent. The real hypocrisy in this election, especially in Florida, was that Katharine Harris & co. disqualified many Democratic-leaning voters from voting. This, in addition to confusing ballots and old (broken) voting machines virtually assured a Republican victory. God bless democracy in America. Yeah right!

By: crasspastor

crasspastor — Wed, 02 May 2001 22:29:33 -0800

Thank you Rastafari. Romanoff, I think every last one of your posts here have consisted of one sentence and then you post directly afterward with another one-liner, uncannily as though Limbaugh had just come back with the punch-line of his teaser after the commercial break and you thought it worth sharing. For instance: I'd say about exactly as objective as the rest of the media. Care to explicate? Or is that supposed to speak for itself? Make your case. Don't lean on the Conservatives Guide to Argument Handbook. I mean, at least include some links. At least argue your case from ljromanoff's perspective.

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 02 May 2001 22:33:53 -0800

I'd say about exactly as objective as the rest of the media. Care to explicate? Or is that supposed to speak for itself? I'd say that one pretty much speaks for itself; thanks for playing, though.