Saturday, March 17, 2007

Re: You Support our Troops

Here's a review of that book, (those that are flattering point out the this
McGowan is at a conservative Manhattan institution -- carefully avoiding
the misnomer of a "think tank"):

not the whole story, Billy, August 20, 2004
Reviewer:T. Martin "mart0063" (kingston, new york United States) - See all my reviews
Suggesting that the press is liberal by looking at journalists is a little like suggesting the automotive industry is left wing by observing the work force. There are, of course, the CEOs and board of directors who decide what to make and how much. In viewing the press Mcgowan ignores the editors and corporate owners who went for Bush 2:1 last election. They of course have the ultimate say in what is reported and those distortions can be, and have been, more pernicious. Moreover, their bias is a market bias that seeks not to offend not because of a liberal bias but because of a bias for the bottom line.

  Comment | Was this review helpful to you? 
Yes No ( Report this)

If Bush is among the "most revered" it will also be "by the fewest # of people".

This man's purpose in life is to raise the stature of 3 republicans of the '20s
(Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover), from "mediocre" to "there was ONE worse".

Bush the First didn't say it, but Reagan did,   "The government IS the problem".
Bush II makes it simple.   "I'm the Problem". 

What has puzzled me all these years is your fanatical loyalty to Reagan.  The
statement above that he frequently made is absurd.   His next logical step
should have been, "I'd like to fire all the incompetent bureaucrats, but I can't".
Since he was the _chief_ executive, all the incompetents worked for him.
Bush II's job has to make that so-called incompetence visible throughout
the government,   right up to himself.  

His one good point last week was recalling something his boy "Al" had
told him, that "Al" wasn't able to remember.

You are on the wrong side of history on this one.   I don't suppose you
caught the votes last week, where Bush wanted to skirt the Freedom
of Information act, as regards his "presidentail library" at SMU?   The
closest he came to getting his way in the House was 310 - 110 against
sealing the records to the public.   Other votes were 390 - 30 AGAINST.
By my count, that's at least 175 republican congressmen (and women)
who don't share your universal acclaim.

I expect the senate to start to swing away from him, too.. as has Norm
(Chameleon) Coleman, who now wants us to believe he is a moderate.
("My 95% bush-aligned vote is a coincidence").  Since the republcans have
a sufficient number of seats up for grabs to loose the filibuster opportunity,
not to mention give the Democrats veto-override power in the unlikely
event we are saddled with another republican president! 

Other than your "faith", what evidence can you offer that this guy
is doing a "remarkably brilliant job"?

-=- Marty
p.s. on the "liberal bias" subject, I"'m still trying to figure out if it matters
or not.   You see, everytime i hear it, it's offered as fact, e.g. as if the
observer were stationary.    you will hear more on this later; the data
is coming in!
On 3/15/07, <> wrote:
I like your brother's book on Liberal Bias:

I think the obervation of bias in the news is like the observation of

If your in a car driving 5 MPH to thge right and looking at a car
driving 25 MPH to the left, Its understandable you see the car as
moving swiftly to the left.

Conversely if your driving 50 MPH to the left and looking at a car
going 25 MPH to the left, it would appear that its actually moving in
the other direction...

As I said it doesn't matter. Its all subjective. I think the press is
free and is where it is for extremely natural reasons, and expect it to
propagate around.

And as for waiting on repudiation by me of Bush & Cheney, I would not
advise you to hold your breath. I believee he is doing a remarkably
brilliant job and believe he will go down in history even more revered
than Reagan or Roosevelt.

No comments: