catapult magazine

so arnold schwarzeneggar was just elected governor of california despite having been accused of inappropriate conduct with many women over many years. the other day, i heard someone commenting that “the liberal media” was behind all of these allegations, which essentially allowed them to dismiss such allegations entirely.

contrast that with the insanity surrounding the clinton/lewinski scandal. remember that? republicans led the charge to spend $50 million on an independent counsel to discover whether clinton had sex, lied about sex or was anywhere near anyone ever having sex.

so was that the liberal media, too?

i know i’m generalizing all over the place here, but why does it seem like conservatives can always cast blame on a liberal media when scandal enters their camp? it doesn’t seem to add up. for example, if al gore had been president for the last three years and had done everything exactly as bush has, i have a feeling he would have been burned at the stake by now.

what’s up with that? what accounts for this strange trend?

a really interesting commentary on this whole subject…

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/tgraham200310080847.asp

Well I might be exposed to other media, but I heard lots of negative stuff about Gray Davis. I heard he is a nasty campaigner, has done his share of groping secretaries, and sabotaged the CA economy. Where’s the left-wing media conspiracy? I don’t get it. After 2 years of nauseating Bush-ballyhooing and the rediculous coverage of the Iraq invasion how can anyone complain about a liberal media? Or are you just talking about the main newspapers in California?

The fact that Arnold got more attention that Davis hardly counts as a conspiracy, unless you count capitalism as a conspiracy. Who wants to hear about a boring politician when you could talk about the Terminator?

Dan, I couldn’t disagree more with you on this, and I don’t see you changing your mind. I’m not sure if you read the entire article, but it’s pretty telling. Most of what it is talking about IS the national media, not just Caleefornia.

For what it’s worth – a Gallup poll recently came out which showed that 48% of Americans believe the media is biased to the left.
18% believe it is biased to the right. That’s a huge disparity.

Wow. I find that hard to believe. Maybe Americans believe ‘the media’ is liberal because they’re all watching right-wing programming telling them that the media is liberal. Fox news is the most popular news network in America. Is anyone willing to argue that Fox is liberal?

Concerning the article’s comparison of Arnold with Clinton, I don’t think it is an apt comparison at all. Did 20 women come out complaining that Clinton had groped them? No. Arnold admitted that he had done this and it seems Davis had the right to capitalize on it. Arnold came out looking better than Clinton because he admitted what he had done whereas Clinton tried to deny it and looked like a dumbass. I’m really flabbergasted with this idea that Arnold was treated unfairly. Politics is dirty and people bring up all the dirt they can find on a candidate, especially if he is famous and inexperienced. He knew what he was getting into. Gray Davis had lots of campaigns behind him and all his dirt had been exposed dozens of times. Reporters don’t want to cover old dirt about the boring Davis, but new dirt about the exciting Arnold.

Does anyone want to touch the topics of the Democratic representatives in Texas taking off for New Mexico?

How about the filibustration ad nauseum concerning lots and lots and lots of Bush’s judicial appointments?

I just don’t remember Republicans stooping so low. Maybe my memory is selective. Anyone help me out here?

Republicans did the same thing when they were in the minority. By the way, how are you hearing about these things, if not from the media?

Can you give me some specific examples please? That seems a little like I know you are but what am I.

By the way, I DID NOT hear about those things at all in the media, I think I heard them from a drug addict.

A republican actually has the distinction of holding the record for the longest individual speech. It was South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond. He filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Another famous example is Huey Long, a Republican senator who filibustered in failed attempts to stall various aspects of the New Deal in 1935. He read the constitution, the Bible, asked reporters for reading material, and finally provided his recipes for fried oysters and potlikkers. His longest filibuster was ended at 4AM when he had to go to the washroom and the bill passed in his absence.

Filibusters happen in Canada’s Senate too. I remember a few years ago, an old disgruntled senator took the floor and read from the phonebook for hours and hours.

24 hours and 18 minutes
That’s ridiculous. Somehow, that was one man’s weak attempt at a filibuster.

I believe the filibuster against the feared conservative hispanic Miguel Estrada was in excess of two years when he removed himself from the situation. I believe there are others in that state at this time as well.

I just don’t remember Republicans ever getting their way to such an extent as these instances. Not saying it hasn’t happened, but was there ever a qualified candidate that Clinton proposed that the Reps shot down because of his race like the Dems have done? I sincerely want to know.