Quote:
Originally Posted by 427sharpe
Notice they included Huckabee, Libby and Guiliani.....scales seem pretty balanced to me. Rather than dismissing them as 'conservative' or right wing, why not research some of the allegations they bring. Unfortunately, there seems to be plenty of meat on the skeletons in the closet....or bathroom stall in Craig's case.  |
...
427sharpe,
You are right. I didn't make my point too well. Warren doesn't try to hide that he leans right and he seems to genuinely offer this list that seems to support his view that he is taking the high road.
I guess my main intended point is that whenever any political org makes a statement, it is carefully crafted so as to first appear balanced. The art of spin. But I didn't think Judicial Watch met, nor intended to meet, much precision in maintaining balance, in this list. There is plenty of "
meat" everywhere.
Regarding political media, more information is often given by what is purposely left out than by that which is included. The exclusions are meant to influence the unwary masses at first glance. Many times this does not even fall along party lines so much as it falls between political factions, sometimes even within divisions within party lines. As an example in this list, some rather obvious shortcomings of certain individuals, some that have been actually convicted of legal indiscretions, are included. But also casually thrown into the list are more vague aspersions as though they qualify as equal demerits instead of merely warranting a closer look. You are right to suggest, "
research some of the allegations", ...but why stop at the end of this list?
Lately, more obvious divisions within party lines, but of definately separate factions, include infighting between Obama and Clinton and, more briefly, between the current Bush administration "Neocon" faction and "old school conservative", McCain. Remember, McCain was once Swift-Boated right along with Kerry over military service. This by a conservative faction that would spin us to believe that G.W.'s questionable Air National Guard service was superior to two men that actually served under fire in a war zone.
The "military service" spin worked to a surprising degree. I believe people bought it partly because it is what some wanted to believe, and partly because of vague propoganda such as carefully generated by orgs similar to the "Judicial Watch" (not necessarily the Judicial Watch in particular).
Most important to my point, notice that the current executive administration is carefully left out in this J.W. list although they are probably at least as guilty of shenanigans as any political group active today. "Main-Man" McCain (my guy) is also carefully not included. Like all politicians, those above are not squeaky clean but I fail to see where any more real non-partisan cut-off exists for an accurate "Top Ten" done by an admittedly conservative org that self-proclaims to be non-partisan.
This spin occurs by every faction and party, so it is like Perry said above, "
what will it take for America to wake up and demand all law makers be accountable for their actions". I don't think casual human perception by the masses is likely to change anytime soon, but it would be nice if we all discriminated propoganda more than we do.
I'm sorry to admit I am often as guilty and unwary as any in missing that which is shrewdly "written in between the lines".
But just because I'm occasionally paranoid ...doesn't mean they
all aren't out to fool me.
...