-Caveat Lector- "I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God,indivisible,with liberty and justice for all."
visit my web site at http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904 for a precise list of the powers of the Federal Government linkto: http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon/Enumerated.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:00:00 -0700 From: Media Research Center <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MRC Alert Special: Glowing Over Hillary; CNN Hits Teddy from Left ***Media Research Center CyberAlert Special*** 5am EDT, Monday June 23, 2003 Today, as I'm off for a few days, two Creators syndicate columns from last week by MRC President L. Brent Bozell: "Glowing Over Radioactive Hillary" and "CNN Hits Teddy from the Left." (But first, on Friday afternoon a "Web Update" was appended to item #1 in that day's CyberAlert which quoted CNN anchor Aaron Brown as pontificating on Thursday night: "Once upon a time a scientist named Galileo said the Earth was round and the political leaders of the time said 'no, no Galileo it's flat.' And Galileo got life under house arrest for his little theory. Today, the vast majority of scientists will tell you the Earth is getting warmer and most would agree that industry is at least in part to blame. So far nobody's gone to jail for saying that, which doesn't mean the idea isn't squarely at the center of a political dust up -- and not an insignificant one at that because if the charges leveled against the White House are true, an important environmental question is being twisted or ignored for the sake of politics." The Web Update: "Brown confused his early scientists. Galileo, who was born in 1564, long after Columbus sailed to the New World, did not proclaim the Earth round. Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Catholic church for his finding that the Earth rotates around the sun, not the other way around." For that CyberAlert item in full: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030620.asp#1 Brown did not anchor NewsNight on Friday night, but maybe he'll be back tonight and offer his own correction.) Now, back to the Bozell columns, which are posted online at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/newscol/welcome.asp > The text of Bozell's June 17 column, "Glowing Over Radioactive Hillary." A USA Today survey reveals perhaps the most interesting reaction on the frenzied week of pablum publicity surrounding Hillary Clinton's book "Living History." Despite all the fawning and the fainting spells en masse by the national media, a majority of Americans are not impressed. More than one in five respondents says the book belongs in the fiction section, and a full 56 percent say they think Mrs. Clinton is lying when she claims, notwithstanding seven months of revelations about it, she did not believe in the Monica Lewinsky affair -- until her husband fessed up. In other words, America believes Hillary is a liar. Again. No one in the pro-Clinton press will say this, of course. Instead, we'll read and hear them telling us she's a "polarizing figure." What they should be saying is that in political terms, she's nuclear waste, and the half-life on this damage is not brief. While everyone in the press hypes Hillary as promising presidential material, no one treats her that way. They are just not going to parse her every sentence for accuracy and tone. No one in the press even lifted an eyebrow at the "Author's Note" which begins the book with these words: "In 1958, I wrote my autobiography for an assignment in sixth grade. In 29 pages..." In 29 pages? Even at 12, Hillary's ego was running amok. So why has "Living History" turned so many against her? Perhaps its because this 528-page book should have addressed and answered the alphabet soup of scandals she and her husband left as their legacy -- and instead, she ignored them again. Did she hire Craig Livingston, the goon who collected the raw FBI files of political opponents, or not? Why, after a lengthy absence, were the subpoenaed Rose Law Firm billing records mysteriously located in her area of the White House residence? (By the way, Carolyn Huber, the aide who found the Rose papers, is thanked by Hillary in the book for her "invaluable assistance" in getting the book finished.) How did she make $100,000 on a $1,000 investment? Who whispered in her ear? (And if that's not important, please explain the logic to Martha Stewart.) These "never-ending" scandals could be ended with a simple, candid answer from Mrs. Clinton. Her failure to answer them speaks volumes about her. And the media's failure to focus on this outrage speaks volumes about them. Millions of Americans scoff in disgust when the media prattle on about how she symbolizes the struggles of Everywoman, or suffers valiantly as a Rorschach test for the nation's gender anxieties. They simply know her, as William Safire once described, as a "congenital liar." Not only does "Living History" fail to add to history, it tries to subtract from it. In the spring of 1992, the news emerged that Bill Clinton received a draft notice, and plotted with college buddies to get around it. But on page 240, our ever-spinning author renews the lie: "I knew that Bill respected military service, that he would have served if he had been called." In fact, they did call, and Bill failed to answer. Worse than that, he wrote pompously to the local ROTC commander championing "so many fine people" who were "loving their country but loathing the military." Instead of fielding challenging questions about her actions or her writings, the transplanted New Yorker receives nothing but wet kisses, like this one from Katie Couric about the health-care debacle: "But were you surprised at the backlash? The really vitriolic, violent backlash against you in many ways? Do you think it was good old-fashioned sexism?" On his late-night PBS talk show, Charlie Rose waxed sympathetically about her personal growth, as if Hillary emerged like a beautiful butterfly from the chrysalis of the Clinton White House. "But you made a decision, because of your affection, love for him, to go to Arkansas where he wanted to pursue his dream. You gave up some independence because there was a higher value...Now, here in a sense it's come full circle for you...it seems to be the emergence to me of a new independence for you since you're on your own." The Washington Post suggested why all the TV stars doted on her personal triumphs. When they prepared a story on her book's political ranting and raving against Kenneth Starr and other conservative enemies, "the author...declined to be interviewed about the political content of her book." Now that's coming full circle: the poor female genius who was supposedly hated for sticking her nose into politics is now telling her media enablers to lay off the politics and stick to the sappy personal stuff. Run, Hillary, run. This must be Karl Rove's nightly prayer. END Reprint of first of two columns > The text of Bozell's June 20 column, "CNN Hits Teddy from the Left." In the chummy corridors of the liberal media establishment, no self-satisfying myth is more prevalent than the notion that there are two types of national news networks. The first is Fox, the fiendishly opinionated, Roger-Ailes-manipulated Republican Party organ. The second is the non-Fox establishment, serenely gliding above the political fray on a magic carpet of nonpartisan open-mindedness. The conventional "wisdom" further insists that in cable news, Fox is the feisty right-wing upstart, while CNN is the underappreciated grande dame of objectivity. But then something always seems to come along which bursts that silly bubble. The June 18 edition of CNN's "Inside Politics" addressed Senate action to add a costly new prescription-drug subsidy to the Medicare program. Anchor Judy Woodruff interviewed ultraliberal Sen. Ted Kennedy on the bill, advertised as the largest expansion of Medicare benefits in the program's history. Now, a good, objective news anchor would play devil's advocate and hold Kennedy's feet to the fire, asking him challenging questions from the right. For example: How astronomically expensive would this new entitlement become when the baby-boom generation starts hitting the age of Medicare eligibility in the next decade? That's not what Ms. Woodruff asked. Incredibly, she argued the bill wasn't liberal enough. As they say, This....is CNN. Instead of inquiring about rising deficits and a mushrooming supply of Medicare beneficiaries, Woodruff worried out loud that this massive new program wasn't big enough. Even its supporters admit it will cost a whopping $400 billion over the next ten years, and its detractors say it will be much more. Woodruff explained her first question to Kennedy: "I began by asking him about his signing off on a plan that would leave some seniors with less drug coverage than they need and whether he undercut those seniors and some of his own Democratic allies." Ted Kennedy is hereby nominated by CNN as a senior-citizen sellout for not making a new entitlement 100 percent subsidized from the very beginning. The senator quickly defended himself by pointing out that he knew seniors would be spending $1.7 trillion on their prescriptions in the next decade. "We're only providing $400 billion. That's only 22 percent. I'd like to do much better." Of course he would, with our money. Conservatives are used to anchors pounding their desks for ever-larger tidal waves of social spending, but Woodruff wasn't done protesting Kennedy's supposed sellout to conservatives: "Whatever you do in the Senate is going to have to be compromised in the direction of the House version, which is much friendlier to the insurance industry and which has provisions in it which you've already called a poison pill." Where, oh where was even the pretense of objectivity in that screed? That hysterical statement is code for a White House proposal that would give senior citizens a drug subsidy if they chose private health plans. That's the "poison" a socialist can't swallow. If by now you haven't already heard enough to conclude that Judy Woodruff sounds like she's repeating questions yelled into her earpiece by James Carville as he's getting his makeup on for "Crossfire" in the next room, it gets worse. She started worrying like a Democratic precinct captain about how this apparently premature compromise of socialism is hurting the Great Society Party's chances. "At a time when the Democrats are trying mightily to carve out distinct positions for themselves against a very popular Republican President," she complained, "in effect, what you have done is helped a Republican President take a very controversial issue off the table." This question is totally at odds with the usual network protocol (if there still is such a thing). Anchors usually greet the passage of liberal legislation with words like "finally," sounding exasperated at any delay in the liberal agenda. Anchors usually tut-tut any attempt to save "the issue" for campaign season instead of stomping the accelerator pedal down on more government. But Senator Kennedy was up to the Woodruff challenge, promising another pot of taxpayer gold over the rainbow. "When we pass this, we are going to say in 2004, elect Democrats. We'll finish the job." It's a good thing "Inside Politics" attracts a wonky audience of political veterans, because the unschooled viewer would find it easy to conclude from this interview that Ted Kennedy is a rogue conservative Democrat helping George W. Bush's political chances at the expense of needy old people. Now what was that fuss about the biased anchors on Fox? END Reprint of second of two columns -- Brent Baker, in John Forbes Kerry-land >>> Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax- deductible donation. Be sure to fill in "CyberAlert" in the field which asks: "What led you to become a member or donate today?" For the secure donations page: https://secure.mediaresearch.org/Donation/Order/MediaResearch25-27/mck-cgi/mrcdonate.asp To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a blank e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the link at the very bottom of this message. Send problems and comments to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday afternoon. To subscribe, go to: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cybersub.asp#webnews <<< ==================================================================== Update your profile here: http://mrccyberalert.u.tclk.net/survey/?bUrD57.a5Yy1J.d2JhY29u Unsubscribe here: http://mrccyberalert.u.tclk.net/survey/?bUrD57.a5Yy1J.d2JhY29u.u Delivered by Topica Email Publisher, http://www.email-publisher.com/ www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
