[smiley]

Bret Hume on Fox News last evening brought up the fact that the Clinton debacle was found on page 13 of the LA Times...but the allegations against Arnold were on page 1.....kind of hard for the liberals to defend the statement that there is no bias in the media....

[finnman69]

The avalanche of last minute smears stink to high heaven and are close to reaching critical mass where there is a backlash. We are close to getting another Paul Wellstone Pep Rally(funeral) backlash.

[Support Free Republic]

Is Someone Else Carrying Your Water?
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[sissyjane]

I'd like to read the whole article, but I WILL NOT register on their site. No way-No how.

[Texas Eagle]

I would have thought that at a gathering of conservatives, .....

Stupid L.A. Times. Arnold's groupies are not conservatives. They're a bunch of Liberals like....well....like Bill Clinton groupies.

But, if this isn't proof that the Times's main goal is to do harm to conservatives then nothing is.

[finnman69]

http://www.polipundit.com/2003_09_28_polipundit_archive.html#106518198551676238

Friday, October 03, 2003
Sleazy LAT

The LAT defends itself in a sleazy editorial:
Blaming the media and charging opponents with running a dirty campaign are time-honored tactics for deflecting unwelcome scrutiny. And what better way to keep a would-be scandal from escalating than to issue a blanket apology — after his spokesman's blanket denial.
And what better way for a newspaper to abuse its readership with biased reporting, biased editorials and biased polling than to release a carefully scheduled hit piece five days before an election.
posted by PoliPundit at 4:53 AM Link to this post


Estrich On The Times

Honorable liberal Susan Estrich on the LAT's carefully scheduled hit piece:
But none of these women, as The Times emphasizes, ever came forward to complain. The newspaper went looking for them, and then waited until five days before the election to tell the fragments of the story.

What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that's wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#10_03_03_0758

Friday, October 3 2003
RECALL MANIA: We felt Gray Davis had a small chance (very small) to survive the recall if he could get his "No-on-Recall" numbers up to 45% in our RCP average prior to election day. However, only one poll has shown his numbers above 45% during the entire race (LA Times, 9/6-10) and the most recent batch of polls, inducing the Times', show Davis's numbers slipping badly. Our RCP average has the recall currently favored to pass 59-38 and at that level, with less than five days to go, Davis is all but finished.

Bustamante's only hope was for a post-debate surge by McClintock to siphon just enough conservative votes away from Arnold to give the him a shot at winning on Question 2. It's not going to happen. Arnold leads Bustamante by more than 12 points in our RCP average, and that's with McClintock polling at 16%. Given that we expect Arnold's final numbers on election night to be better than our RCP average, Bustamante should start looking for a new job.

Clearly, since last week's debate this race has broken Arnold's way. At the beginning of the week it looked as if Arnold might well outpoll Davis's recall total and even had a slight chance of reaching 50%. We'll have to wait and see if the recent stink bombs dropped by the LA Times and ABC News do anything to slow his momentum. Even if these late hits do take a toll on Arnold, odds are this will mean Schwarzenegger still wins, but in a much closer race. And there's a very real possibility - especiall when you see pieces like this (and kudos to the LA Times for publishing it) - that the media's last-minute dumping on Arnold will backfire with voters.

While there have been many twists and turns these last two months, the reality is Schwarzenegger became the heavy favorite against Bustamante as soon as he announced on Jay Leno. Overall, Arnold has run a darn good campaign and done nothing to diminish his chances. Bustamante, on the other hand, has run the pathetic campaign we anticipated from him, and whatever momentum Davis may have had was blown out of the water by the 9th Circuit's political interference with the election. Californians should get ready for Governor Schwarzenegger. - J. McIntyre & T. Bevan 7:58 am

Thursday, October 2 2003
IS THIS WHAT THEY MEAN BY LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS?: Somebody get Eric Alterman on the phone or pull one of his books out of the remainder bin. This morning the LA Times performs the slimiest, most overt political hatchet job on Arnold Schwarzenegger you can imagine.

We knew the dirt was coming. What we didn't know is that instead of just publishing some sleazy tidbit passed along by a Dem operative, the LA Times would actually go out and dig up the political dirt themselves, source it anonymously and drop it on the Thursday before the election.

If there was any doubt left that the LA Times was a liberally biased, ideologically driven "news organization" it should be gone now. Does anyone believe the Times would perform the same knee-capping of a Democrat? In fact, I suspect if the Times had devoted the same amount of energy to investigating Gray Davis's legitimate ethical problems in office there wouldn't even be a recall happening today. It would have happened last November.

Here's the good news. I don't think the ploy is going to work. By the time the polls close and voters have made Arnold Schwarzenegger the new governor of California, this story, along with the reputation of the LA Times, will be lining birdcages all across the state - which is exactly where they both belong.

[mewzilla]

I've got a new slogan for the LAT:

The LAT. For all the news unfit to print.

[doug from upland]

I don't like the fact that he "behaved badly." He owned up to it and has apologized. The DemocRATS supported a rapist and man who assaulted a woman in the White House. Now they want us to crumble because Arnold grabbed a few boobs. Sorry, RATS, you lose this time.

PS Arnold, please try to behave yourself.

[Kevin Curry]

Same behavior, another place, another time, another party:

Reports of President Clinton's sexual mistreatment and humiliation of women drew outrage here . . . . outrage at Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, not at President Clinton.

[Dante3]

There are significan difference between the Arnold and Clinton situations.

I saw no great outcry in the media when Juanita Broaddrick's rape charges surfaced. It was hardly mentioned. And allegations of Clinton groping were practically dismissed.

[B Knotts]

I'm no Schwarzenegger fan, to be sure. But I still am more than willing to excoriate the L.A. Times for acting as an arm of the Democrat Party for running these stories at the last minute of the campaign. Mulholland couldn't have scripted their behavior better if he were himself the publisher.

The L.A. Times is finished as a serious newspaper, as far as I'm concerned.

[TommyUdo]

Perhaps a note of "thanks" is in order. The Slimes, with it's over-the-top Page One yesterday, may have comfirmed their leftist bias to some people who were still doubtful.

[murdoog]

I would have thought that at a gathering of conservatives, who rightly vilified President Bill Clinton for his raunchy scandal and nationally televised lies, there'd at least be some finger-wagging at Arnold.

The issue was never Clinton's sexual behavior for me. It was the bullying,lawbreaking, and abuse of office he used to cover it up. And I repeatedly said this during the impeachment. I do wonder if this write used the words "rightly vilified" during impeachment?

There has been a lot of bad news coming out about Republicans and conservatives lately (Rush, Arnold, the whole Novak-Bush-CIA flap). I don't mind if truly guilty people of any political stripe go down. But to use all this stuff to vindicate Clinton is wrong,wrong, wrong and quite frankly it turns my stomach.

[dennisw]

LATIMES had a "team" of reporters working 7 weeks on digging up dirt on Arnold. And they came up with bupkis. (nothing)

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[Timesink]

This article PROVES the LA Times HELD the Arnold story!!!!

Actually the report was held until it could be exhaustively researched and triple verified, but why do I even bother with an explanation?

This is the Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this is a medium- to high-volume list.
Please feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of this ping list. I can't catch them all!

[Tempest]

[slimer]

conservatives, who rightly vilified President Bill Clinton for his raunchy scandal

I haven't heard this mentioned yet but when the slimes try to compare Arnold's sexcapades to Clinton's there is one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - Arnold's stuff is 20 - 30 years in the past. Clinktoon's crap was done while he was in office and one can trace his behavior all the way back to college. Arnold is not the same man today he was back then. He learned from his mistakes and became a better man. Compare Willy? There is no comparison. Slick is the same twisted scumbag he's always been.

Another point I have not heard yet is that the culture of the 70's was much different than the culture of today, particuarly in the body building and Hollywierd world. Things were not as politically correct as they are today. The FemNazi movement was in its infancy back then.

Why no one has mentioned these things yet is beyond me.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

These smears are hurting Arnold. His probability of winning the governorship, per the Iowa Electronic Markets, have fallen to 73%. The beneficiary of the slime campaign is Gray, whose probability of remaining in office has climbed to 16%. Cruz, at 11%, appears to be well out of the race, as is everyone else (a mere 0.2% for the lot of them).

The likely vote for the recall has slipped to 55%, and Arnold's likely vote on the second part of the ballot has slipped to 40% (to Cruz's 37%).

McClintock's role is firmly entrenched, as it has been from the beginning, as nothing more than potential spoiler for the Repubs.

[CFC__VRWC]

This fits you well, Mr. Lopez.