Media Covers for Candidate Gore -- http://www.egroups.com/group/cemb Not that anyone should expect anything other than sheer unadulterated inside-the-beltway spin, the former-Bill Bradley loving Washington Post (see previous Coalition to End Media Bias/CEMB -- http://www.egroups.com/group/cemb -- postings re Bradley/Post obsession) has once again hit a home run in its support of Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore. In a April 9, 34-graph story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39992-2000Apr8.html), cleverly entitled "Voters Grade Gore Make-Over As Incomplete," the positives, which includes the Post's very own home brand of spinning, clearly outweigh the negatives against Gore. With only one Republican quoted, along with a voter who "liked Sen. John McCain" (a maverick Republican), this most recent Post piece does nothing but offer Gore's "campaign officials," "media advisors" and an assorted of other Gore supporters free publicity. Similarly, positive quotes came from folks described as "one strategist," and "former consultants." For a newspaper that had supported Bradley all throughout the "rough and tough" Democratic primary (see previous CEMB postings re Bradley/Post obsession), its settled on Gore simply because a liberal paper like the Post can't bare to see Republican George W. Bush elected the next President. The Post's editorials are simply one indicator of its own collective beliefs. And, its rash of "press release"-type articles on Gore are another. (With a majority of the media voting for Clinton in 1992 it's not surprising how the media leans.) Interestingly, the Post piece makes no mention of the many Gore-isms that have plagued the vice-president since he took office back in 1992. And, considering that one-time reporter Gore hasn't held a news conference in more than six weeks, few should expect any explanations from Gore himself any time soon. Most notable was his flip flop on tobacco, when in 1988, the February 26 issue of Newsday quoted Gore telling tobacco farmers: "Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it, I've dug in it, I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it." (Incidentally, Gore made this statement almost four years after his sister's death from lung cancer and over six years before his anti-tobacco speech at the Democratic national convention.) The tobacco flop? For the period 1979 through 1990, the August 30 Post reported that Gore accepted $16,440 from tobacco political action committees. And, at the Democrat National Convention of 1996, what did Gore say about tobacco? "Tomorrow morning another 13-year-old girl will start smoking. I love her, too. Three thousand young people in America will start smoking tomorrow. One thousand of them will die a death not unlike my sister's. And that is why, until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking." Then there are the Gore-isms on guns. According to National Rifle Association, Key Vote Analyses (1985-1992), between 1985 and 1990, Sen. Al Gore voted with the NRA 75% of the time. But, in July of 1999, the The Atlanta Journal and Constitution has Gore proclaiming that, "In this presidential race, there are some who believe the urgent matter related to guns is the need to extend new protections to the gun manufacturers. I believe it is time to have new protections for our children and our families. . . . Some want more concealed weapons, but they can't conceal the fact that they are doing the bidding of the NRA." Huh? Would the Post have reported all these gaffes in their story had the topic been former vice president Dan Quayle? Probably. Just go back to the Post archives and take a look at their reporting of Dan Quayle. Any stories about him that did not mention an alleged Quayle-ism of some sort? There are more Gore-isms that Post reporters John Harris and Ceci Connolly, both of whom penned this piece, failed to include in their "hard-hitting analysis" of candidate Gore. That is, besides those "mini-Gore-isms" in which the Democrat candidate for the highest office in the land claims to have invented the Internet. On the abortion issue, in a 1984 letter to a constituent, Gore, then a member of the House of Representative, wrote, "It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply. . . . Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected. . ." Gore continues, "As you know, I have strongly opposed federal funding of abortions. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life." In addition, Gore voted to extend civil rights protection to unborn children by voting to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1984 to state that unborn children are persons from the moment of conception. (The complete text of Siljander's (R-MI) one sentence House Amendment 942 read: "An amendment to define 'person' as including unborn children from the moment of conception." CQ Vote #242: Rejected 186-219: R 112-40; D 74-179, 6/26/84) The abortion flop? Over 15 years later, in his remarks at a June, 1999, Women For Gore event, he said "And know this, I will always, always defend a woman's right to choose. Every time Congress has tried to play politics with that fundamental personal right -- imposing gag rules, and attaching anti-choice language to any bill they can think of -- we have stood up to them and stopped them." Huh? Imagine if Quayle had done the same? Harris and Connolly would have undoubtedly mentioned it in their "hard-hitting analysis" of the candidate. Then there's the Test Ban Treaty flap. Back in 1988, during the primary season, in a C-SPAN-covered Democratic Presidential Forum televised debate (sponsored by the "Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee" Des Moines, Iowa) with the likes of Dick Gephardt, Jesse Jackson, Michael Dukakis, Paul Simon and Bruce Babbitt, Gore expressed his objections to a comprehensive test ban treaty, stressing the need for verification and continued testing to assure the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Responding to the following question, "If you're elected president, will you suspend all U.S. nuclear weapons tests, upon taking office, and then proceed to conclude a formal test ban treaty?," Gore answered, "Well, just as President John Kennedy made our world safer by getting a treaty banning atmospheric explosions, I would seek a treaty with the Soviet Union banning underground explosions as well. But before doing so, I would pin down the answers to two questions that are important to our national security: First of all, can we firmly verify whether or not the Soviet Union is exploding low-yield tests on its territory? The evidence now coming from the scientists indicates that there are ways to negotiate cooperative agreements with the Soviets to make that possible. But we need the answer before the test ban rather than after. Secondly, do we need continued tests in order to assure the reliability of our own nuclear devices? Again the initial evidence indicates that it may very well be possible to insure reliability without continued tests. But we have to have those answers first. The test ban flop, not mentioned by either Harris or Connolly in their "hard-hitting analysis" of candidate Gore? On Gore's much-touted (mostly by him and his staff) election 2000 website it reads, "I've worked on [the comprehensive test ban treaty] for 20 years because, unless we get this one right, nothing else matters." (10/14/99) Gore declared the vote "the single most reckless action that I have seen the Senate take. . . in my lifetime." According to the Post, Gore called the Senate's rejection "breathtakingly irresponsible." (10/16/99) However, no one can forget about Gore's fascination with the environment either. That is, unless you're a Post reporter doing a front-page Sunday piece on Gore and voters. Discussing offshore drilling, back in 1992, vice presidential candidate Al Gore was in Florida on a beach promising that he and Bill Clinton would protect the state's shoreline from offshore oil and gas drilling. He went on to attack then-President Bush on the issue, and according to the St. Petersburg Times (9/26/99) said: "He went to the Florida Keys and he stood in the ocean and he said that he would support a ban on offshore drilling off the coast of Florida. Now he has broken that promise to Florida. We'll give you a real environmental presidency. Not a phony broken promise the way Bush did." Several years before that charge, Gore also charged: "Four years ago, George Bush mouthed the words environmental president. Instead he put Dan Quayle in charge of gutting the environment laws, and he invited in the biggest polluters to help him do it. . . . This is beach cleanup day. November 3rd is going to be White House clean-out day." (Los Angeles Times, 9/20/92) The flop, conveniently left out by the Post's "Campaign 2000" reporters? According to St. Petersburg Times (9/26/99), Chevron is awaiting permission from the Clinton/Gore Administration to "drill Florida's first producing offshore wells." According to his staff, Vice President Gore cannot get involved in the pending decision that would allow Chevron to drill. Elliot Diringer of the White House Council on Environmental Equality said that the decision lies with Commerce Secretary Daley and although Daley works for the Clinton/Gore Administration, it "probably wouldn't be appropriate" for Gore to even express an opinion about Chevron. Diringer also stated, "it wouldn't be appropriate for the White House to be weighing in. The Secretary has to base his opinion on the record before him." Perhaps the Post should have interviewed someone at the office of Friends of the Earth for their "hard-hitting analysis" piece on Gore and the voters? According to the October 21, 1999 Los Angeles Times, Brent Blackwelder, head of the same lobby group, said Gore has had more than seven years to fulfill his promises for a "real environmental presidency." Blackwelder continued, "There was a great expectation he'd do something other politicians couldn't do. But if you ask what has happened in seven years, you find a very disappointing, disenchanting record of promises that have been broken." On China and the most favored nation status issue, according to the San Francisco Chronicle (9/1/92), Gore said "We totally disagree with Bush and Quayle when they continue to grant most-favored-nation status to one of the worst Communist dictatorships remaining in the world, with a record of human rights violations as long as your arm, ignoring their unfair trade practices." But according to the March 23, 1999, CRS Issue Brief, "China-U.S. Trade Issues," on May 26, 1994, President Clinton announced his decision to renewal [sic] China's MFN status for an additional year even though China had failed to achieve overall significant progress in human rights. He argued that revoking China's MFN status would seriously disrupt U.S.-Chinese relations. The President further announced that human rights conditions (other than freedom of emigration) would no longer be linked to China's continued MFN status, but instead would be addressed by other means. However, the President ordered the imposition of sanctions on U.S. imports of Chinese munitions due to alleged violations of human rights in China." And, on yet another important issue that's hitting the airwaves during this election season -- Social Security -- in a 1980 column that appeared in the Carthage Courier (2/21), Gore wrote, "I sincerely believe that any plan to tax Social Security benefits would place an unforgivable burden on our senior citizens who are currently trying to enjoy their retirement years in the face of ever-increasing prices. . . it is totally inconceivable. . . It is unfair. . ." The Social Security flop, conveniently overlooked by the Post's most recent "hard-hitting analysis" of Gore? In 1993, Gore cast the tie-breaking vote for the largest tax increase in history that included $25 billion in higher taxes on Social Security benefits. (Bill Clinton & Al Gore, Putting People First, 1992; CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, with Gore casting a "yea" vote, 8/6/93; "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update," Congressional Budget Office, 9/93) In yet another big election issue involving campaign finance reform, most recently pushed by maverick McCain and Gore, in a Democratic debate held in Manchester, N.H. on January 26, 2000, Gore said, "I don't accept PAC contributions. You can under the law, but I abide by a higher standard and if you entrust me with the presidency, I will make certain that our country gets sweeping, meaningful, tough campaign finance reform." But, according to the Wall Street Journal, dated February 15, 1984, Gore said, "I'm a strong supporter of PAC participation in the political process. . . . I do need to raise large sums of money, and I have enjoyed getting involved with the PAC community." Naturally, Buddhist temple and monks and Hsia's conviction come to mind. Lastly, by omitting a Gore-ism on the Elian Gonzalez saga, considering that' s it's such a hot issue, the Post does a great disservice to its readers. Quoted in Time magazine (1/17/00), Gore said, "What's in the best interest of the child? When that question comes up in other child-custody cases, it's decided by the courts, and that's what I think should be done here. . . We should apply the due process that is normally followed." Yet, according to the March 31 Associated Press, "Vice President Al Gore wants Elian Gonzalez's [sic] case resolved in Florida family court, a position that puts him at odds with the administration he serves but in step with South Florida's politically potent Cuban exile community. . . . [T]he presumptive Democratic presidential nominee urged Congress to pass legislation granting permanent resident status not only to the 6-year-old boy but to his father, stepmother, stepbrother, grandmothers and grandfather - all now in Cuba - 'so that the case can be adjudicated properly. . . Let us be clear that the real fault in this case lies with the oppressive regime of Fidel Castro. . . Elian should never have been forced to choose between freedom and his own father. Now we must take action, here on our own shores, to make sure that Elian's best interests are served.'" Nothing better sums up the problem of not reporting these kinds of Gore-isms than a quote from Mark Mellman, Democrat pollster and part-time adviser to the Gore 2000 campaign, as reported by the October 27, 1999, Wall Street Journal: "If you have a pattern of flip-flops such that it erodes a fundamental aspect of your character, then you have real trouble." The Post's Sunday story not only fails to quote any GOP officials, but it attempts to spin in favor of Gore. By failing to mention any Gore-isms, such as several mentioned above, the Post tries to spin Gore's appearance and wardrobe and "self-deprecating jokes" as being the single biggest negatives of presidential candidate Gore, while ignoring gaffes it would certainly mention had it been Quayle or Bush. While one can't definitively prove that was the intention of the reporters and their newspaper, it most certainly seems suspect to the causal reader. While not mentioning by name, the Post piece cites its sources as "many people," "many voters," "some Gore allies," "variety of people," and, my favorite, considering it gives such an impression of unbiased news reporting, "campaign officials." In a piece supposedly meant to be a "hard-hitting analysis" of Gore and the voters, no where is there any quotes from a Bush or GOP officials, campaign or other. Instead, the reader is subjected to the wisdom and unbiased scrutiny of Gore "campaign officials." Is the Post for real? Do they honestly believe they're offering a well-balanced, unbiased portrayal of the relationship between a presidential candidate and the views of the voters when it comes to his actions, behavior and record? Towards the end of the piece, in graph 32, media advisor Bob Shrum, is quoted as saying that Gore's inability to connect with voters is the "oldest and deadest chestnut in this election." Surely, Harris or Connolly could have found someone to counter that claim? Perhaps if this were a "hard-hitting analysis" of Quayle or Bush, the Post would have had more success? For example, think back to the Post's extensive coverage of the Bush and cocaine non-issue. The Post jumped all over that and continued until folks got sick of hearing about the unsubstantiated rumors. In addition, all throughout, the reader is fed phrases like "polls and dozens of voter interviews" without any specific reference to who actually did the polling, where these polls were held, who was questioned, as well as examples of the questions themselves. In its futile attempts at spinning, the Post refers to Gore's "playful side," "intellectual self-confidence" (even with all these gaffes?) and how he is supposedly a stronger candidate after "his very successful primary season" against fellow-liberal Bill Bradley Huh? Does anyone, including the Post, expect anyone to actually believe that two ideologically identical - and former Senate pals - really, truly engaged in battle? If anything, most of those so-called debates between Bradley and Gore were a big yawn. That said, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to suggest that perhaps Bradley was thrust into the spotlight - health problems and all - to simply make Gore look more credible and capable after his own campaign went into a tailspin and couldn't get off the ground. What about the argument, dreamed up and fueled by the establishment press, that Bush can't win without the independent votes? Perhaps the Democrats should be more worried about Gore, who, according to a poll mentioned in the same Post piece, seems like a strong leader to just only over half of independent voters, while Bush gets 66 percent. Rather than present a balanced analysis of presidential candidate Gore, the Post opted to offer its readers yet another press release, promoting its candidate and ignoring any serious, documented Gore gaffes that tell us much more about the candidate than simply his silly 'ole suit and tie makeover. -A.C. Szul Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] see http://www.egroups.com/group/cemb <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> 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, misdirections 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, CTRL gives 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://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[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
