That you for the civil follow-up. Although you have may have a right of center bias, it's apparent that you play the role of moderator in the spirit that it was intended.
Where your "liberal" press myth springs a leak is that "liberals/progressives/commies" do not see the slant,(quite the opposite) nor do we recognize the "press" as one of our own (with a few exceptions, of course: NYT ). I can not draft uninvited members into your club, nor you mine. Instead, we see only a few, vast corporate media empires that have systematically replaced traditional reporting on relevant national and world issues with gossip driven by various personality cults. (Entertainment news staffers have supplanted foreign correspondents in quite a few domains) On the other hand, the conservative presence is often quite blatant or self proclaimed (FOX,WSJ,Readers Digest,TV Guide). Further more, Squawk radio is dominated by right winger hate mongers with only a minute amount of counterpoint allowed (the liberal role is only as the rabbit for hounds). We think that too many of the neocons fall into the trap of seeing all "adversarial" reportage as "liberal".
As for the 2000 election, just like the bumper sticker "I'm not getting over it." Especially when the dirty tricksters and goon squads have already reported for spring training....."We'll gig 'em whenever and wherever we can," says one source. The idea is simple: Send an "attack mascot" to primary and caucus appearances of leading Democratic White House hopefuls to heckle and unnerve the candidates. Message 19014851
I'll sit out the next round of discussion on Clinton's bodily fluids, except that to state that I haven't a clue why Hillary is contributing to the media frenzy for new soap opera story lines. But compared to the WMD debate, well...see the above. |
