Posted on 12/04/2002 1:40:42 PM PST by Coeur de Lion
After Senator Tom Daschle created a stir by attacking Rush Limbaugh and other conservative voices in the media as somehow responsible for death threats to politicians like himself, his total absence of any evidence made him look ridiculous. However, this charge was followed within days by another attack on the conservative media by former Vice President Al Gore.
Gore named Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Washington Times as being "part and parcel of the Republican Party" and "a fifth column in the media," which apparently is otherwise politically unbiased.
This might be a joke, given the well-documented fact that 90 percent of media journalists vote for Democrats in presidential elections and that four of the top five newspapers in circulation are solidly liberal in their editorials. But Al Gore's ability to say ridiculous things with a straight face -- and without a shred of evidence -- is one of his most effective political talents.
The newspapers with the five highest daily circulations are USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. The only conservative editorial page among them is that of the Wall Street Journal.
But Al Gore projects a wholly different picture. According the former vice president, "something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others."
What Al Gore is objecting to is not simply the fact that some few media outlets express views that differ from the views expressed in the rest of the liberal media. He is claiming that there is a real conspiracy -- apparently with Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes of Fox News humbly taking orders from some Republican Party functionaries. It does boggle the mind.
When Rush Limbaugh replied with the obvious and often-documented fact that the bulk of the media is liberal, suddenly it was he who was accused of having a conspiracy theory. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post and CNN News asked Limbaugh if he thinks reporters on the New York Times "have their marching orders" and are not "independent professionals" who "think for themselves."
One of the incredible feats of media journalists is denying that there is media bias by equating it with conspiracy theories. When people share the same bias, they don't need a conspiracy. The harm comes from the fact that most of the public gets to see only that part of reality which has been filtered through the same preconceptions shared by 90 percent of those in the media.
For example, it has been endlessly repeated in the media that the United States has a much higher murder rate than some countries with more restrictive gun control laws. But the media pass over in utter silence the fact that there are other countries, such as Russia, which have more restrictive gun control laws than ours but have far higher murder rates than the United States.
The media have obviously made up their minds that restrictive gun control laws are desirable, which they have every right to do. It is when they try to make up other people's minds by filtering out information to the public that their opinion become a bias in doing their job.
When vicious, sadistic murders are committed by whites against blacks, or straights against gays, that news is trumpeted throughout the media. But when similar atrocities are committed by blacks against whites, or gays against straights (including children), there is again utter silence in most of the media.
Instead of learning that some terrible and vile things have been done by human beings of every race, color, creed, national origin, and sexual orientation -- in countries around the world -- the message of the media is that some groups are victimized by American society. That is media bias, made more insidious by the fact that it is not expressed openly as editorial opinion, but by corrupting the reporting of news.
Anyone listening to Rush Limbaugh knows that what he is saying is his own opinion. But people who listen to the news on ABC, CBS, or NBC may imagine that they are getting the facts, not just those facts which fit the ideology of the media, with the media's spin.
Today many of us on the web know we are no longer alone. We know what is happening in political races. We know in many cases, the truth. We catch the media spinning when we didn't used to not even know they were spinning. We had no other source but them.
As time goes on we will become more and more educated as to how the system works. How the media uses negative coverage to get the right to turn on its leaders. Let me explain how just one aspect works. To do anything the house and senate must pass it and the president sign it. To pass or repeal a law or provision the process is the same.
The founders make it very hard to get things through the senate. It takes 60 percent of the senators to agree to pass a bill or it does not pass. The trick is the filibuster. The senate has unlimited debate. AS long as a single senator wants to talk they can't vote on a bill. There is just one way to stop a filibuster. That is a cloture vote. That vote if carried ends the debate and the vote takes place. 60 percent of the senators to vote for cloture to get a vote on the bill. 51 votes yes can pass a bill. The trick is getting a vote. The Republicans will have at most 52 members in the senate. If just 41 Democrats refuse to vote for cloture on a bill, it will not pass. There will be at least 47 democtats in the next senate. For every bill the Democrat leadership is not in favor of, the republicans must find a way to get at least 8 Democrats to jump ship and vote for cloture.
How do you think Repubicans can get Democrats to vote against their parties leader? The short answer is Trent Lott will have to bribe them. What do Democrat senators want? Mostly they want pork for their state or some pet project... especially if it can be named after them. Lott knwows that the more he wants a bill passed the higher the price.
So time after time to get legislation passed in this coming session Lott will have to buy 8 or 9 Democrat votes. If he loses a Rino or 2 he may need to buy 10 or 11.
Yes you will read many story where LOTT allowed some Democrat to get some pet democrat project passed. Freepers will scream and call LOTT THAT DIRTY ROTTEN RINO TRAITOR. But in fact he will have paid the lowest price he could get for the Democrat votes he needed for some important bill that Dubya wanted passed. There is no free lunch. To get stuff passed you have to buy Democrats.
Why is Lott nice to Democrats? They say everyone has a price. However if you kick a Democrat in the testicles before you ask him how much, Lott has discovered the price tends to go up just a tad and will not come down.
If no deals were made, if no Democrats were bought, then nothing could be passed. Of course the major media has told the world that Dubya has total control of the Senate. And if gridlock occured it would all be Dubya's fault. Democrats could not help it if the government came to a complete halt. That is what the media would say. Dubya could not govern even when he had the house and senate and total control is what the media would claim. Many of you would believe it.
Lots of Freepers would be screaming stupid inept Dubya.. No better than his Daddy. Gore would win in a landslide in 2004. That is the set up.
But with the internet we can learn that the Senate was designed by the founders so that it was very very hard for one group to get control of the Senate. And that bipartison support is required. They founders may not have envisioned it, but buying some of the other sides senators is often the only way to get it done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.