Not by Very Much By Mike Hersh (c) 2002 Forward freely. Please don t change text or misattribute. I wrote a column about Robert Scheer of the LA Times, and his
Message 1 of 1
, Jun 1, 2002
Not by Very Much
By Mike Hersh (c) 2002
Forward freely. Please don't change text or misattribute.
I wrote a column about Robert Scheer of the LA Times,
and his too-little, too-late support for Al Gore. I focused
on two of his columns -- published just before and just
after Election Day 2000.
See: "A Tale of Two Columns" by Mike Hersh:
I didn't even see this column: "Gore Is the Lesser Evil,
but Not by Very Much,"by Robert Scheer, published
August 15, 2000 in the Los Angeles Times: http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/00_columns/081500.htm
In this column, he bashes Gore because Bill Clinton didn't
commute or stay the execution of a mentally handicapped
man. He considered Gore not "very much" better on this
issue than "Texecutioner" Bush who, Scheer admits, has
"blood on his hands." I agree with Scheer: Gore is wrong
on the death penalty. I agree that Bush is worse, but I do
not agree with Scheer that Gore was only barely better.
Also, Scheer noted that while Democrats depend on labor
pro-choice and civil rights groups for support, Bush gets
marching orders from the extreme religious right wing.
Still Scheer allowed barely any difference between Bush
and Gore! Is it possible Scheer didn't know about Bush's
Texas record other than the state-sponsored slaughter?
Scheer expressed disbelief at the media / Bush love fest:
"How can this man be so popular with the media that travel
with him when the executioner's blood on his hands should
make their skins crawl?" But seems oblivious to how much l
iberals like Scheer helped Bush, about whom he writes:
"No one has failed that standard more callously than George
W., who, undeterred by DNA tests or new evidence that raise
doubts about the guilt of numerous prisoners, continues the
Texas killing spree with the aplomb of a weekend duck hunter
shrugging off any feelings for the dead birds." Why then did
Scheer blast Al Gore on this issue for Clinton's action?
Scheer focuses on Bush's callousness and ignorance on an
issue Scheer considers extremely important, but then blunts
the impact by claiming falsely that Gore is barely any better!
"How can [Bush] be so popular with the media?" Easily! The
people like Scheer who knew or should have known and told
the ugly truth about Bush spent half their time bashing Gore!
Scheer could have written about Bush lying under oath to
protect ghouls preying on the bereaved -- "Funeralgate."
Scheer could have written about Bush lying about his DUI
arrest(s) and his lousy education record in Texas, with
nearly half of ALL minority students dropping out.
Scheer could have written about Bush going AWOL from
the Texas Air National Guard, failing a drug test by refusing
to take it -- thereby losing the flight clearance taxpayers had
spent $100,000s to finance.
Scheer could have written about Bush lying about vetoing
hate crimes legislation and a patients' bill of rights, insider
trading, and getting his first $million from Osama bin Laden's
Instead, Scheer bashed Gore, ignored all of the Bush flaws,
and scratched his head in wonder about the media fawning
over the "so popular," unexamined Bush.
Has Scheer learned anything since he wrote this column of
backhanded, half-hearted, Bush helping tripe? Does he still
believe Gore would not have performed "very much" better
in office than Bush?
How about the other whiny back-biting liberal pundits who
complain Democrats "don't fight" and "don't speak up" even
as they ignore or even ridicule victories over Bush in the
Senate and Democratic dissent? When was the last time a
right wing pundit lashed out at Bush like these so-called
liberals hammer our leaders?
With right wingers bashing Democrats for criticizing Bush
too much, and these liberal pundits bashing them doing too
little, Republicans might well take back the Senate and
expand their control of the House.
We saw the media coddle Bush and gang up on Al Gore. It
cost us a qualified, dignified, honorable President and cost
Gore a landslide in 2000. It's still happening.
Why won't media liberals support stirring, strident dissent from
Democrats Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Cynthia McKinney, Dennis
Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Russ Feingold, Bob Torricelli, and even
rookies like John Corzine and Hillary Clinton? What can we do
about whiny wishy-washy, worse than worthless "liberal" media
I expect right wingers to lie about liberals and moderates. Why
do liberal and moderate pundits pile on as well? Or as Scheer
himself might put it,. Scheer and other left-of-center media stars
are better than Rush Limbaugh, "but not by very much."