Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (167955)	8/6/2001 11:35:25 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I really have to admire the effectiveness of the constant conservative whining about a "liberal media", for which there is no evidence, unless you are to the right of Pat Buchanan and consider the whole political center leftist. You really ARE in a fantasy world!! JLA

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (167955)	8/6/2001 11:41:37 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 769667

Did the Pope lecture Bush? Press coverage of Bush-Pope visit completely bogus and biased: August 6, 2001 George's CrossApparently Europeans haven't heard they're not supposed to mess with Texas. Just before one of the protestors at the G-8 summit was shot dead, French President Jacques Chirac told the press, "One hundred thousand people don't get upset unless there is a problem in their hearts and spirits." Others chided Mr. Bush for not going along on Kyoto. And even the pope came off as yet another disgruntled European, with television gleefully broadcasting John Paul II "lecturing" the American President on the subject of stem cells. But did he? Clearly that was the spin on the reporting, which focused exclusively on the Holy Father's statements about "evils" such as the creation of embryos for research. But we happened to stumble across a copy of the pope's complete remarks in the National Catholic Register (www.ncregister.com), which tell a completely different story. Though the pope did indeed reiterate Catholic teaching on stem-cell research, he did it once -- and at the very end of a speech that, far from a lecture, amounted to a papal paean to America. The pope opened his remarks by expressing his "heartfelt good wishes" that a Bush Presidency would "strengthen" America in its "commitment to the principles which inspired American democracy" and "sustained the nation in its remarkable growth." These principles, continued the pope, "remain as valid as ever," and in this century alone rescued the world from "two totalitarian regimes." The world "continues to look to America with hope. "Even more egregiously omitted in the reporting was the pope's allusion to the just-ended G-8 meeting in Genoa. As usual he spoke of the church's concern about the effect of globalization on the world's poor. But in sharp contrast to those battling with Italian police or denouncing the hard-heartedness of the Bush Administration's pro-trade agenda, the pope did not speak of a world divided between either rich and poor or haves and have nots. To the contrary, "the tragic fault line" for Pope John Paul II is "between those who can benefit from these opportunities [for economic growth] and those who seem cut off from them." More than that, as he went on to describe what kind of globalization the world does need, he used language that could just as easily have come off the pen of Mike Gerson, Bush's top speechwriter. "The revolution of freedom of which I spoke at the United Nations in 1995 must now be completed by a revolution of opportunity," said the pope -- the same pope who in an early encyclical invoked a "right to private initiative." Hmm. Let's see. If we're talking about bringing opportunity to the world's peoples and integrating them into world markets, who has the better claim to be fostering solidarity: the democratically elected President who sticks up for the rights of Mexican truckers to come into America and pushes to open America's borders, or the Western protestors who bitterly oppose that expansion and battle police in Seattle, Quebec, and Genoa -- not to mention a European Union whose high walls aim at keeping out not only Third World peoples but what they have to sell? Now, we would not pretend to minimize the pope's unequivocal stand against stem cell research. Less still would we want to imply that in his remarks Pope John Paul II was declaring himself a Republican. But we do think it fair to say that the Holy Father appears to be one European who understands that in key tests it's often been American exceptionalism that has done most for the world -- not its willingness to go along with the pack. And for all those who reported how miserably George W. Bush fared in Europe, and how chagrined he was at the pope's rebuke of his cowboy ways, we have but one bit of advice: Next time, read the text. interactive.wsj.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (167955)	8/6/2001 11:47:14 AM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

And if the networks did Bush a disfavor at 7:50 pm, they made up for it by doing him a BIG favor at 4:00 am when they incorrectly called the state for Bush, thus setting up the psychology of the recount fight very much in Bush's favor. Regardless of what or how many votes in FL it may have suppressed, It certainly did elswhere in the Country. Think about NM with less than 200 votes making the difference. Small differences in IA WI and others. Such phenomena of reducing the loosing candidates vote count was investigated by a Democratic lead congress and thought to have merit in 1981, when Carter went splat. We will never know, if the FL Vote was suppressed, nor will we know the extent of the national vote, but make no mistake, it was suppressed, making any argument regarding the popular vote meaningless. And the networks did not incorrectly call the state for Bush at 4 am. GWB won Gore conceded, making it an accurate report. The fact that Gore challenged does not change the fact of the win, and How many people were watching? When I woke up in the morning, the only news I heard was that GWB had more votes but the election was in doubt.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (167955)	8/6/2001 12:31:39 PM
From: md1derful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Hi Nadine..sort of reminds me of St. Louis keeping the polls opened later, much to the benefit of Sore-Loserman..however, he may not have gained as much as thought..unfortunately in a close election, these small differences made all the differnce in the world doc

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (167955)	8/7/2001 8:37:53 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>I really have to admire the effectiveness of the constant conservative whining about a "liberal media", for which there is no evidence Do you and partisan Liberal Dem Dan Rather ever disagree? The NYTimes is renown as a partisan Dem paper. And I'm not just talking the editorial page. Every study of the major media has found profound Liberal bias. You can deny the Sun too, but that won't stop it from rising. It has been documented that the networks held Bush states and projected Gore states in similar situations ahead of Bush states. As for FL, Pat Caddell and others confirmed that when you look at voting patterns and history that the networks early call in FL - before the polls had closed in Bush's strongest part of the state - that it cost Bush tens of thousands of vote in FL alone. The early call for Gore in FL had a similar effect in the West. >>That's an odd thing to say, considering that Bush 43 was instrumental in running Bush 41's 1988 campaign That's an odd thing to say considering that the campaign referred to was in 1992 - in 1988 Bush ran as a Reagan Republican - something both Bush43 and McCain did in 2000. Bush41 had to run on his own Liberal record in 1992 and he lost big to Clinton, a non-entity in normal times.