Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Not by Very Much

Expand Messages
  • mike2000z@aol.com
    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
    • 0 Attachment
      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:

      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
      brother Salem.

      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."


      Don't let George W. Bush "limit the congressional
      investigations into the events of September 11."

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.