Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
There was a lot that wasn't reported, or was deliberately erroneously reported. Like a protest of Bush policies and wars that took place in Washington DC. The number of participants was reported as being 10-20 times less than the actual turnout. The Kerry-Bush election tampering. Bush's military service evasion during the Vietnam War. His poor performance as a university student. His oil industry connections, and how that influenced so much of his decision-making. The opportunity he had to catch Bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains, that he allowed to slip by. Indeed, his loss of interest in Bin Laden in favor of initiating a war in Afghanistan. His initiation of domestic spying on citizens (NSA surveillance of telephone calls and emails). Many more details I can't recall at this point. Bush was criticized all right, by the public, but not so much by the media. Criticism was muted or not there at all.
Dakini, there is not one thing you mentioned above that I was not aware of. And where did I become aware of it? On CNN or the mainstream internet or the newspapers. His military service evasion and the National Guard aspect was widely reported...but the American people decided not to care much about it. His poor performance in college, widely reported...and was one of the reason early in the first campaign a mainstream reported quizzed him on names of leaders, countries, etc. He didn't do that well. The interview was shown, but the American people didn't seem to buy into the issue. His oil industry connections -- where's the secret? It's in all his bios, including wikipedia. Who didn't know about Tora Bora? There's not a thing up there in your post that I am not well aware of. And I learned of all those things through mainstream media. No secret sources for me. The problem was that Bush was sort of a teflon president. The stuff was brought up, reported, and for the most part people just didn't think the issues were that significant.
Your right @vinlyn the information you state was reported. Therefore, I guess it begs the question "why did the majority of the American public not care about these things ?"
By the way I am not being judgemental, I am just interested to know the thinking behind why the American public were not that interested in Bushes history or connections to oil companies (which some would consider a big conflict of interests), or indeed not that interested in bringing political parties and their leaders to account when electoral fraud has been found to take place.
Your right @vinlyn the information you state was reported. Therefore, I guess it begs the question "why did the majority of the American public not care about these things ?"
By the way I am not being judgemental, I am just interested to know the thinking behind why the American public were not that interested in Bushes history or connections to oil companies (which some would consider a big conflict of interests), or indeed not that interested in bringing political parties and their leaders to account when electoral fraud has been found to take place.
That is the better question.
Part of it may be the polarization aspect of culture nowadays. If one likes/liked Bush, he or she tended to support him almost no matter what. Same with Clinton. I am a moderate Democrat, supported Obama financially and voted for him. Finally I am beginning to hear some discontent among my Democratic friends, saying they wish they had supported Hillary. But then again, we have gotten into a rather extreme situation before that happened.
Another aspect may be that too many Americans don't get too agitated unless something DIRECTLY affects them. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War, and knew people who got killed there or came back messed up...so I cared more. Few people I know, know anyone who went to Iraq or Afghanistan, and no one I know, knows anyone who got killed there. So it seems more vague.
Specifically to respond to your conflict of interest issue. I'm not sure there are many people who run for national office that don't have conflicts of interest. I think the press usually does a pretty good job of reporting those. I'm not sure it's logical to disqualify someone from high office because of them.
@vinlyn I think the conflict of interest matters when Bush decides to invade Iraq and then gives his friends at Halliburton the contracts. I mean come on American as well as many other citizens have died because of decisions by Bush which may have had a conflict of interest.
@vinlyn I think the conflict of interest matters when Bush decides to invade Iraq and then gives his friends at Halliburton the contracts.
I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that if we disqualified people from running for office because of potential conflicts of interest, I don't think anyone would be able to run for office.
For example, since virtually every person is eligible for social security, and it an issue, everyone has that conflict of interest. Guess no one will be able to run for the Presidency, the House, or the Senate.
The question about Halliburton was/is -- did the conflict of interest lead to unfairness or illegality. I don't know the answer. Never got that into it.
I think it's time for liberal Democrats to get over the Bush v Gore 11 year old event and respect the law. Oh, and by the way, I am a liberal Democrat who got over it and moved on.
Really? So there's a statue of limitations on a coup d'etat? "Respect the law"? I believe that's what I'm advocating for. There were so many laws broken in that stolen election I don't even know where to begin, although Susan Harris would be as good a place as any. And the Palm Beach County Board of Elections.
I think it's time for liberal Democrats to get over the Bush v Gore 11 year old event and respect the law. Oh, and by the way, I am a liberal Democrat who got over it and moved on.
Really? So there's a statue of limitations on a coup d'etat? "Respect the law"? I believe that's what I'm advocating for. There were so many laws broken in that stolen election I don't even know where to begin, although Susan Harris would be as good a place as any. And the Palm Beach County Board of Elections.
Well, we have to differ on this. Once the Supreme Court made a decision, to me that's it.
But, what exactly are YOU going to actually do about it now? Al Gore accepted it. Bush served two full terms. It's over.
It sort of reminds me about that saying: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference."
I just don't think I live in the same country I did before 12 December 2000 when the Supreme Court handed down what was clearly a politically motivated decision. I will go to my grave believing that that date represents our first coup d'etat, and our first illegally installed government in the US. We've been a third world banana republic ever since.
@vinlyn I really don't think we should just accept that our politicians need to have conflict of interests, especially when it involves big business and tax payers money. It is because people just accept it, as you seem to have done, that ensures they carry on having them.
To not sound like I am highlighting only American politicians I will also highlight a case in the UK which seems to have again be swept under the carpet, although the UK press did ask the right questions. However, I do not believe asking the right questions is enough, I believe police investigations and if need be criminal prosecution should be an option and pursued against politicians that are found to abuse their power and be swayed to make or change laws that are in the interests of themselves and the companies/individuals that they are aligned to.
The example I use concerns Tony Blair and a meeting with Bernie Ecclestone.
This and abuses of power like this, should result in criminal prosecution in my opinion, but in this case just as those in the United States, the rich and powerful get away with it again.
As to why the American people mysteriously didn't consider any of the issues mentioned to be worth getting in a tizzy about: the media often drives public opinion. As zid pointed out earlier, usually the media are all over anything that whiffs of scandal, and may choose to harp on it, inflaming public opinion, or not. The question remains to be answered: why were all the voting irregularities of the Bush-Kerry election not publicized? And the voting irregularities of the Obama election also got very little mention.
It is true that a lot of the time in these type of stories, how far the media decide to pursue a lead plays a big role in how the public perceive the story. A good example of this was the politicians expense scandal in the UK, where the media really stirred up the mood of the nation, consequently the politicians were shamed into doing something about it. Another example is the hacking scandal in the UK, where most of the media in effect ignored this for more than four years, it was only the perseverance of one Newspaper (the Guardian) that finally exposed the shocking acts that had occurred (hacking a murdered school kids phone), along with the total incompetence and corruption that had taken place within the British police force; only after this did the rest of the media begin covering the story with the exposure it deserved ( a lot of the Newspapers did not really want to pursue this story as they had been involved in similar practices to that of the News of the World), subsequently again the mood of the British public had been stirred to demand justice.
This is why it is important that the media in our democracies are not monopolized as people like Rupert Murdoch would have them.
As to why the American people mysteriously didn't consider any of the issues mentioned to be worth getting in a tizzy about: the media often drives public opinion. As zid pointed out earlier, usually the media are all over anything that whiffs of scandal, and may choose to harp on it, inflaming public opinion, or not. The question remains to be answered: why were all the voting irregularities of the Bush-Kerry election not publicized? And the voting irregularities of the Obama election also got very little mention.
Make up your mind. First you're complaining that the media doesn't report things. Then you're complaining that the media drives public opinion.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The Daily Show had a spoof on Obama's newest campaign slogan which I thought sums it up nicely. "I thought we could, but it turns out the other guys are A-holes."
The Daily Show had a spoof on Obama's newest campaign slogan which I thought sums it up nicely. "I thought we could, but it turns out the other guys are A-holes."
And BTW Dakini - with the advent of the widespread use of electronic voting machines, I have *zero* faith in the outcome of any election where they're used. I have a friend who is blind. In the election of 2006 in Virginia, I assisted her with voting. I stood there and *watched* her pick the candidates she wanted to vote for, and I *watched* her push the right buttons (it's not exactly rocket science). When the machine presented her with a summary of her vote before pushing the final button to cast it, the candidates shown were *NOT* who she voted for. I tried my best to get her to file a complaint with the supervisor of elections, but she wouldn't do it. She canceled her vote (at least we think she did) and stormed out of the precinct in a huff. So I've seen with my own eyes how reliable electronic voting is. There was no mistake on her part, the machine simply didn't calculate her vote correctly. Give me a piece of paper and a pen anytime.
@Mountains Old-fashioned paper ballots are now required in NM as a result of a lawsuit filed against the state by a voter after the Bush-Kerry election. Carter said that Guatemala usesvoting machines that kick out a paper record of each voter's votes, so they can check it and make sure the machine recorded their vote correctly. Why Guatemala manages to have such effective voting machines and the US can't is a mystery.
@vinlyn lol! Sorry you can't follow the logic.As zid said,often the extent to which the media chooses to pursue a story determines public reaction. The media can choose to drive public opinion,but during the Bush era, their avoidance of pursuing stories critical of the President was noticeable.
Remember the Iran hostage crisis? Even people who didn't like Carter thought the media went way overboard in the way they pounded away at that issue daily for the rest of Carter's presidency. And remember Reagan earning the moniker "the Teflon-coated President" because none of his scandals "stuck" to him, the media cut him a lot of slack, as they did with Bush?
Comments
Once AGAIN, you're tilting at windmills.
By the way I am not being judgemental, I am just interested to know the thinking behind why the American public were not that interested in Bushes history or connections to oil companies (which some would consider a big conflict of interests), or indeed not that interested in bringing political parties and their leaders to account when electoral fraud has been found to take place.
Part of it may be the polarization aspect of culture nowadays. If one likes/liked Bush, he or she tended to support him almost no matter what. Same with Clinton. I am a moderate Democrat, supported Obama financially and voted for him. Finally I am beginning to hear some discontent among my Democratic friends, saying they wish they had supported Hillary. But then again, we have gotten into a rather extreme situation before that happened.
Another aspect may be that too many Americans don't get too agitated unless something DIRECTLY affects them. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War, and knew people who got killed there or came back messed up...so I cared more. Few people I know, know anyone who went to Iraq or Afghanistan, and no one I know, knows anyone who got killed there. So it seems more vague.
Specifically to respond to your conflict of interest issue. I'm not sure there are many people who run for national office that don't have conflicts of interest. I think the press usually does a pretty good job of reporting those. I'm not sure it's logical to disqualify someone from high office because of them.
For example, since virtually every person is eligible for social security, and it an issue, everyone has that conflict of interest. Guess no one will be able to run for the Presidency, the House, or the Senate.
The question about Halliburton was/is -- did the conflict of interest lead to unfairness or illegality. I don't know the answer. Never got that into it.
But, what exactly are YOU going to actually do about it now? Al Gore accepted it. Bush served two full terms. It's over.
It sort of reminds me about that saying: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States
@vinlyn I really don't think we should just accept that our politicians need to have conflict of interests, especially when it involves big business and tax payers money. It is because people just accept it, as you seem to have done, that ensures they carry on having them.
To not sound like I am highlighting only American politicians I will also highlight a case in the UK which seems to have again be swept under the carpet, although the UK press did ask the right questions. However, I do not believe asking the right questions is enough, I believe police investigations and if need be criminal prosecution should be an option and pursued against politicians that are found to abuse their power and be swayed to make or change laws that are in the interests of themselves and the companies/individuals that they are aligned to.
The example I use concerns Tony Blair and a meeting with Bernie Ecclestone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/3179770/Revealed-the-truth-about-Tony-Blairs-role-in-the-Ecclestone-Affair.html
This and abuses of power like this, should result in criminal prosecution in my opinion, but in this case just as those in the United States, the rich and powerful get away with it again.
This is why it is important that the media in our democracies are not monopolized as people like Rupert Murdoch would have them.
And BTW Dakini - with the advent of the widespread use of electronic voting machines, I have *zero* faith in the outcome of any election where they're used. I have a friend who is blind. In the election of 2006 in Virginia, I assisted her with voting. I stood there and *watched* her pick the candidates she wanted to vote for, and I *watched* her push the right buttons (it's not exactly rocket science). When the machine presented her with a summary of her vote before pushing the final button to cast it, the candidates shown were *NOT* who she voted for. I tried my best to get her to file a complaint with the supervisor of elections, but she wouldn't do it. She canceled her vote (at least we think she did) and stormed out of the precinct in a huff. So I've seen with my own eyes how reliable electronic voting is. There was no mistake on her part, the machine simply didn't calculate her vote correctly. Give me a piece of paper and a pen anytime.
@vinlyn lol! Sorry you can't follow the logic.As zid said,often the extent to which the media chooses to pursue a story determines public reaction. The media can choose to drive public opinion,but during the Bush era, their avoidance of pursuing stories critical of the President was noticeable.
Remember the Iran hostage crisis? Even people who didn't like Carter thought the media went way overboard in the way they pounded away at that issue daily for the rest of Carter's presidency. And remember Reagan earning the moniker "the Teflon-coated President" because none of his scandals "stuck" to him, the media cut him a lot of slack, as they did with Bush?