* * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

{at}MSGID: 
{at}REPLY: 


Amy Guskin wrote:

>>> Comparable (except
>> insofar as they were a lot less likely to be baseless) accusations
>> against Bush received little if any coverage -- his illegal stock sale
>> (cf. Whitewater), for example, or his cheating during the Presidential
>> debate.<<
> 
> It amazes me how much of Bush's shit that actually _has_ a basis in truth 
> isn't picked up by the mainstream media.  How about the drunk driving arrest 
> in his 20s or 30s (can't remember which)?  And how about the recent item 
> whereby Laura Bush was found to have been staying at the Mayflower Hotel, 
> having at least temporarily moved out of the White House?  Wayne Madsen wrote 
> about that one on his website.  You _know_ that if _Hillary_ had moved out of 
> the Clinton White House, even temporarily, it would have been reported in 
> every single mainstream media outlet, and probably also the Star, the 
> Enquirer, and the Weekly World News.  But the Bushes, mysteriously, get a 
> pass on all of this.  Has _any_ mainstream media outlet written about Laura's 
> youthful car accident that killed the boyfriend who'd recently broken up with 
> her?  All of this is above board, real stuff.  But the Bushes seem to be 
> under some sort of protection, in much the same way as Hollywood did it in 
> the first half of last century, where the studio system kept bad press from 
> ruining their stars.
> 
> And the point that no one has taken up, that has had me shaking my head in 
> disbelief for five years: imagine how the press, and the Republican Congress 
> would have reacted if it was Bill Clinton who went to a photo op at an 
> elementary school after the first plane hit the WTC, and who then _continued 
> to sit there_ for over twelve minutes, reading "My Pet
Goat," _after_ being 
> told that the second plane had hit, and we all knew what was going on.  (It's 
> often reported as seven minutes, but that's the most 'photogenic' section of 
> that video clip -- it was actually twelve minutes plus change from the time 
> Andy Card whispered in his ear until he got up and left the classroom.)  I'm 
> still astonished that he was re-elected after that spectacular failure of 
> leadership, but less astonished after reading Mark Crispin Miller's
"Fooled 
> Again" (http://tinyurl.com/hqkdb), which details the theft of the 2004 
> election.
> 


You're kidding, right?  The media waited until just before the 2000 
election and was all over Bush's DUI.  They even had daily polls that 
tracked the effect that the revelation had.  There was a bump that went 
away almost immediately because no one cared about what happened 30 
years ago.

As to the car crash, that was covered on ABC news the first election 
cycle too.  Unless you're accusing her of murder now (and I think that 
it would be irrational to do so without something to actually suggest 
it) the most reasonable response was that back then it was investigated.

As to whether Clinton would have been given a pass ... he was for a long 
time.  The whole Lewinsky thing was apparently out there for weeks with 
no one reporting it until Matt Drudge did.  Before this few people had 
even heard of Matt Drudge.

As to twelve minutes at the school... it's not something that I'm prone 
to being particularly upset about.  There are a lot of other things that 
bother me more than that.

As to Laura Bush moving out of the White House... I hadn't heard and to 
be honest whether it's true or not, I'm glad I didn't.  After hearing 
waaaaaay too much of the Clinton's personal lives, I'd rather not hear 
about it.  Why should I care where Laura Bush is sleeping?

This seems like a lot of fuss over very little of consequence.

Carl
                       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32