Clinton Sells Ambassadorships -- Avoids Senate Approval

MadMax,

I wish you all my best. My comment about "my error" involved talking to a friend of mine here at the Copper Mine. She conceded there's no way in hell she's objective... because her passions predetermine the way in which she views cases (she's an enviro./geo lawyer). Rereading that part of my post, I realize why it sounded so inflammatory. Sorry.

But please... waste your time or whatever, but I want to know where the bias is that so many others readily see. It's not like I choose to 'close my ears' as you put it. I just read an article critical on Gore's budget on MSNBC. My friend's dad used to always call NPR 'NLR'... National Liberal Radio, which I never understood since I was exposed to NPR by the most conservative person I've ever met... my great-uncle, a true W. Buckley type. The fact that you can see the bias but can't prove it is the only interesting thing to note in our debate, eh?

Sorry if all of this has angered you. I admit I'm a moderate leaning democrat, but I do try to give both sides a fair chance. I spent $60K in taxes for 8 mos. of work last year. I'd hate to be spending all of that money and find out I was wrong.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Achebe (edited September 06, 2000).]

 

Achebe: all the more reason to vote for George! You won't get any breaks, and you'll probably pay more, with algore.

Jeff was right on. The newspapers, as well as the electronic media, "report" on stuff that sells; they figure their average reader/viewer is more interested in what titilates them, than what is substantive. Been that way like forever, and I don't see it changing in the near future.



------------------
"Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!

 

Bobby,

You should have seen me giving Steve Forbes my undivided attention.

------------------

 

Kagy, I swear on my mother's t*** that this is true, either for Bush or Reagan. I can't remember where I read it, but I swear I did.

Are you going to the game on Saturday?

------------------
Cheerleaders are just dancers who've gone r****ded.

visit www.swirve.com

 

Kagy, Rocketman95

according to this: http://inhofe.senate.gov/fl111799.html

Reagan made 239 recess appointments in 8 years. Bush made 78 recess appointments in 4 years. Clinton, in 7 years, made 59 recess appointments.

these figures are from Clinton's chief of staff but this website is from a republican senator so i'm sure he would have corrected the numbers if they were wrong.

 

RM95: Well, you seem fairly sure you're right. But then that's always the case.

Prove it and I owe you dinner. We oughta meet up with Achebe when he's in town (see his post elsewhere on the board).

No, I am not going to the game. A) It'll be too ****in hot. B) I didn't get tickets. C) I don't really want to watch UT put 70 points on the board against a weakass team like U-La-La. Well I mean I'll watch it on TV, of course...

------------------
There's nothing like the NET... clutchcity.net

 

Kagy, looks like you owe me dinner!

A political article would be nice instead though. That goes for you too Achebe!

BTW, I'm taking a sweater to the game. It's supposed to be a cool 91 degrees!!!

------------------
Cheerleaders are just dancers who've gone r****ded.

visit www.swirve.com

 

I done got it wrote but I ain't sent it yet. I send it to-nite on the e-mail progrum.

 

You're right...it is very hard for me to point up how I think the media is liberal. As I mentioned before, that is my perception and I'm sure it's colored with my bias. One recent event that comes to mind, though, is the uneven coverage of the conventions. CBS in particular came out and admitted they would cover more of the democratic convention than the republican convention. I find that distasteful. I probably see what I perceive as this bias more readily than others. Let me say, however, that it hasn't always been this way for me. I voted for Clinton in 1992 and believed readily that the government was capable and effective in dealing with our issues. I changed as I read and studied more about the Constitution...about the Founding Fathers...and after reading Orwell's, "1984" (my nightmare!). But I really bought into the media love affair with Clinton in 1992. He was young, energetic, and I was 18 years old. I was (and still am) a Christian, and my thought was, "hey...we should be taking care of the poor so why not give govt the power to do it??" And I think the simplicity of that logic is why liberalism does so well in the mass media. It's an easy sell that can be put into nice little buzzwords. The problem, to me, is that it allows for the government to have more power than I believe the Constitution allows. I believe it also fosters the opposite of a "can - do" approach that you see in many European countries where socialism is the norm. Ultimately I do not believe it's the job of the govt to guarantee outcomes of individual's lives. Does that mean I'm against all welfare/social programs?? Absolutely not. This is not the extent of my argument against "big govt" but you get the idea. Having said that, I'd like to think I'm intellectually honest. I typically find myself siding with individuals against the govt/police in search and seizure cases..in forefeiture cases, etc. I believe strongly in the Bill of Rights. I oppose hate crime legislation for that very reason. I make a distinction on abortion rights because I don't see at as anything but murder...but that's an entirely separate issue I'd rather not get into right now!!
I realize this a really long ramble...but I still must say I find it hard to prove up a liberal media..you are correct. It is, ultimately, my perception. I find it to be very subtle at times...it's generally in the way a story is presented, whether in print, radio or TV. Watch Katie Couric talk about gun control and see if her bias doesn't shine through!

------------------