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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (44323)	5/14/2004 8:51:11 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793685

I find it interesting how you keep moving the goal posts. If relatively few people even hear about what Kennedy said because most mainstream media outlets didn't even cover it or it was buried by those that did, how could they possibly have any opinion about it? And if the liberal media don't cover the outrage expressed by many politicians, etc., how can you expect there to be any reasonable debate on what the man in the street feels? FWIW, I saw Joe Scarborough try to cover it on his show on MSNBC (it gets maybe a few hundred thousand viewers - a virtual drop in the bucket). Joe was indignant about it. When he tried to get Clinton's Sec of Education to comment on it, he changed the subject without commenting on it. And unless you are clearly a partisan liberal, what Kennedy said was outrageous. "On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." - Senator Ted Kennedy

To: Lane3 who wrote (44323)	5/14/2004 8:53:55 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793685

Up until now we have expect a little higher standard in Senate debate than "normal shame reaction".

To: Lane3 who wrote (44323)	5/15/2004 9:00:41 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793685

This scenario seems typical to me. Some people are outraged and want their outrage affirmed. Most people aren't outraged and that's the way the mainstream media cover it. Which increases the outrage of the outraged This shame over-reaction seems extremely strong to me. I would ascribe it to a combination of liberal shame reaction and political opportunism, because of course, a really big outrage would help in the War Against Bush, which frankly seems to be the war that liberals are really interested in winning at the moment. I heard Sy Hersch on the radio, and he had what I thought was interested off-the-cuff reaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal, "It goes to show," he said, "that Americans are no better than anyone else when they fight wars." My reaction was, "why don't you go interview some elderly Berliners who lived through WWII and ask them if it was really all the same to them whether they were conquered by American or Russian troops, if American troops are no better than anyone else? Talk about an overreaction. If Americans are not plaster saints, if they too are capable of abuses, therefore they are no better than any other army? Even if they react to the abuses by court-martialing the offenders, instead of promoting them like some of the other guys do? I thought it was a revealing comment. Beware of liberal journalists mugged by reality, that's all I can say.