Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 Moreso than Terry Schaivo was with the right wing machine behind them? 412788[/snapback] Less so, obviously. Even if her choice was ultimately co-opted by the vast left-wing propaganda machine, Sheehan did make a choice. Schiavo never even had that much of an opportunity; here choice wasn't co-opted by the vast right-wing propaganda machine, it was made for her. Bottom line: they're both disgusting situations. They're also both situations that, when it comes to the politically minded exploiting people for their own purposes, are par for the course.
BadDad Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 I wasn't refering to Terry herself, I was comparing how her family was co-opted by the right. We will never know what Terry's reaction would have been to the circus that was her last days. The same can be said for Casey, but the way in which their families have been exploited is comparable. That was my point. Less so, obviously. Even if her choice was ultimately co-opted by the vast left-wing propaganda machine, Sheehan did make a choice. Schiavo never even had that much of an opportunity; here choice wasn't co-opted by the vast right-wing propaganda machine, it was made for her. Bottom line: they're both disgusting situations. They're also both situations that, when it comes to the politically minded exploiting people for their own purposes, are par for the course. 412825[/snapback]
KRC Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 Moreso than Terry Schaivo was with the right wing machine behind them? 412788[/snapback] I can't say more or less. Nobody can. Both are/were used for political gains. Both are/were shameless acts of politics clouding the real issues. Both are/were disgusting in the way that they used a single person to "champion" the agendas of political organizations/politicians.
KRC Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 Considering the latest polls, I can see why the right is getting jittery over the war and the potential effect it can have on the next election cycle. Against that backdrop, in comes Cindy Sheehan. I don't think that the worries reflected in those polls are going to be effected by what happens with this story. I think they are wasting ammunition on her. The steady bad news out of Iraq is the problem, not Sheehan. It has the feel of sideshow. 412495[/snapback] The problem I have with the polls is this: they say that Bush is losing approval over the way that he is condicting the war. Of course, you do not see the questions being used to generate these numbers. The left automatically assumes that it means that people are against the war and want the troops removed immediately. What is left out is the following: people who disapprove of Bush's handling of the war because he is not aggressive enough. You see it on this board. People want to just carpet-bomb the entire region. People are getting pissed at the PC/lawyerly approach to the war. They want to just go in and kick azz to get this situation finished. The steady, bad news is a problem. Of course, what are the chances of getting the full story of what is actually happening? Couple that with the chances of actual perspective of the situation and its regional/global implications.
Wacka Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 Rarely see any news about the 3100 schools we have built, that water and electricity are more plentiful than any time during Saddam's dictatorship, that the vast majority of people are very very grateful we are there and say please, please don't leave. We are restoring the wetlands that Saddam drained in the delta region of the fertile crescent. Saddam drained it and it destroyed the ecology and the livelyhood of the area because they had participated in the civil war after Gulf War !. No wonder the MSP is rated as low as used car salesmen and lawyers. All negative, all the time. Sean Hannity had at least a half dozen parents of dead soldiers call him yesterday. He asked if the MSP had contacted them. They said yes, but when they told them they supported the war and what their kids had sacrificed their lives for, the MSP didn't want to talk to them any more.
SilverNRed Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 The problem I have with the polls is this: they say that Bush is losing approval over the way that he is condicting the war. Of course, you do not see the questions being used to generate these numbers. 412888[/snapback] We also don't know who's being asked the questions. If they're doing polls by calling people who are home in the middle of the day on a Wednesday then maybe they should say that "60% of Americans who are home in the middle of the day on a Wednesday do not approve of Bush's handling of Iraq." People with jobs and busy lives don't talk to pollsters. Also, given that there are over 300 million Americans and they interview maybe a thousand for a poll, the results are, well, statistically useless. Also statistically useless is when they say the President's approval rating "drops" from 51% to 49% - because a change of 2% is well within the margin of error. Reporters treat the 50% approval rating mark in polls like it's something that actually exists.
Terry Tate Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 I wasn't refering to Terry herself, I was comparing how her family was co-opted by the right. We will never know what Terry's reaction would have been to the circus that was her last days. The same can be said for Casey, but the way in which their families have been exploited is comparable. That was my point. And in that regard, it's spot on. I haven't watched any of this on TV; I'm assuming if Mrs. Sheehan has family members who knew Casey personally and disagree with her, they have already been on TV. If not, the ambulance chasing TV producers on the right are falling down on the job. "Mr x, you went to school with a close friend of Casey's uncle on his father's side - do you think he would have approved of his mother's activism? Isn't she a disgrace to his memory?" I could write for TV, if I didn't have a conscience. Outside of breaking news or entertainment programming (sports/movies/shows), I have no reason to watch TV. TV news incorporates too much of the entertainment angle into their news programming, attempting to generate ratings by providing a hook. As seen here, it causes the discussion to veer onto the hook, rather than what facts the story may provide. At that point, it becomes a self-licking ice cream cone. Which is good for a follow-up story, an exclusive interview with a family member, and in-depth analysis of what effect the hook has on this party or that.
Chilly Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 The problem I have with the polls is this: they say that Bush is losing approval over the way that he is condicting the war. Of course, you do not see the questions being used to generate these numbers. The left automatically assumes that it means that people are against the war and want the troops removed immediately. What is left out is the following: people who disapprove of Bush's handling of the war because he is not aggressive enough. You see it on this board. People want to just carpet-bomb the entire region. People are getting pissed at the PC/lawyerly approach to the war. They want to just go in and kick azz to get this situation finished. The steady, bad news is a problem. Of course, what are the chances of getting the full story of what is actually happening? Couple that with the chances of actual perspective of the situation and its regional/global implications. 412888[/snapback] We also don't know who's being asked the questions. If they're doing polls by calling people who are home in the middle of the day on a Wednesday then maybe they should say that "60% of Americans who are home in the middle of the day on a Wednesday do not approve of Bush's handling of Iraq." People with jobs and busy lives don't talk to pollsters. Also, given that there are over 300 million Americans and they interview maybe a thousand for a poll, the results are, well, statistically useless. Also statistically useless is when they say the President's approval rating "drops" from 51% to 49% - because a change of 2% is well within the margin of error. Reporters treat the 50% approval rating mark in polls like it's something that actually exists. 412920[/snapback] Which is why places like the Pew Research Center, and reports like http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=251 are so important.
Recommended Posts