Re: confederacy of dunces*

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Bill Stoddard (
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 14:03:07 PST

> At 8:23 PM -0800 11/26/00, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ><thoughtful musings omitted for brevity>
> >
> >I've been (again) disappointed by the disdain with which our press,
> >of all types and biases, have for correcting others when the facts
> >are known and one side or another is obviously lying for the sake
> >of their own benefit.
> The press is not about reporting the news, it's about selling advertising.

There is a bit more to it than that. There is -definitely- a subtle bias to
the left in much of the press reporting of political events. I enjoy listening
to NPR on my way to work every morning but am frustrated by the bias. It is
not blatent and in your face bias, I don't believe much of it is even
intentional and it certainly is not a "vast left wing conspiracy". But the
fact is that most journalists (something like 70%, if I recall correctly) are
self described "liberals" is telling. I think they simply do not appreciate
republican (or libertarian) positions on the issues thus they cannot cover
these issues with passion or heart. I fault "the media" for not admitting to
even the possibility that bias exists (I think objectively they know it
exists) and doing nothing to stop it. Sort of like seeing injustice being done
and turning your head the other way and pretending that it doesn't exist.

> > The canvassing boards are not controlled by
> >Democrats -- the fact is that most of them are run by judges, who
> >are required to be politically impartial even when they are politically
> >appointed, and consist of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.
> >The notion that such a group could conspire for or against any single
> >candidate is ridiculous -- they are all watching each other like hawks.
> I believe, in fact, that any conspiracy is Republican, not
> Democratic. Jeb Bush, Katharine Harris (she was co-chair of Bush's
> campaign in Florida, for gawd's sake!)
> >The stupid thing about the recount was that it was only done in the
> >heavily Democratic counties.
> By Bush's choice! He had the chance to include any (or all) county he
> desired to the list, but knows if all the votes are counted, he will
> lose!

Oh malarky. Bush's team is attempting to take the shortest path to the
Whitehouse and their belief was (is?) that the hand recount is not necessary,
is inaccurate, a recount opens the possibility for fraud, blah, blah, blah and
moved to stop it. They may also have believed that the results would not
significantly change, even with a hand recount. How would the dems or reps
know beforehand how a hand recount would turn out? The Bush team choice not
to pursue recounts in all counties was reasonable IMHO.

Quick, what do you think will happen if the hand recounts of selective
counties is completed, accepted by "Republican Harris" and G2e comes out
ahead? :-) Serious question... does the winning side even have legal legs to
request a recount?


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 16:05:42 PST