 | Media Bias and Democratic Party Collusion |
|
In a post on a Watch-the-double-standard-Blog, David R. Remer said: There was a door opened to this mess by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act signed by Clinton in 1999, a door which should have been closed by subsequent compensatory legislation as some in Congress wanted to do. But, it wasn’t to be. Then came 8 years of turning a disinterested eye to wall street and all corporate matters and high finance as payback for contributions to seating a Republican government. That allowed the leveraging era to begin in earnest under the Bush/Greenspan/Cox era.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm Between 1995 and 2000, Gramm was the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. During that time he spearheaded efforts to pass banking deregulation laws, including the landmark Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which removed Depression-era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities.In this thread at the same blog, David R. Remer said: The voters however, can only respond to elected official’s failures AFTER the FACT, not prophylactically. And the voters DID hold a large minority of Republicans and very few Democrats accountable in the 2008 election. I am unclear what you refer to using the words “this act”. Democrats could make the logical argument that voters are not to blame and did act responsibly by removing Republicans from power. I have made that same argument myself, as it is evidenced by the election results and polls on the topic, which hold Republicans responsible for the most part.The Democratic Party, along with the media did make the arguement that Republicans are responsible. They also failed to take their own actions into account and used a party mentality to excuse themselves from accountablility. Again David, I must reiterate my point by saying: Why must blame be broadcast amongst this or that party and in so doing, dilute accountablility?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 [6] and by the House 362-57.[7] This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. The Republican Party did not hold a 90-8 majority in the Senate when this bill was passed. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354 U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session The Republican Party did not hold a 362-57 majority in the House when this bill was passed. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 570 Both of my senators from Indiana voted for this bill. Senators Lugar and Bayh. Neither are associated with "the Act" that your posts posit is the root of this mess. Senator Biden voted for this bill and is elected to the VP position while the results of his vote unfolded. A coincidence? A plan? Byrd, Kennedy, Feinstein, Kerry, Daschel(punished), Dodd, Durbin, Levin all voted for this bill and all, not Daschel, are still in office. Franks, Pelosi, Rangle, my Rep. Roemer, all voted for this bill but carry none of the blame. Why are these, along with 151 other Democratics unaccountable? It was a Democratic President, for cryin'outloud! Yet the Democratic Party skates thru history being rewarded while the Republican Party is used as the whipping boy again. |
| Re: Media Bias and Democratic Party Collusion |
|
I don't see alot of support from the people of New York for this candidate. Why is that? Is it because the media doesn't want to show this support to people in (Indiana) fly-over country? What are the media afraid of? Alot of the problem is the media, not our two-party system. Think about it. If the national media did not support the National Democratic Party it would not exist. The Democratic party is a bankrupt party and it insists the United States Of America must desend to it's level. If the Democratic Party did not manipulate the national media another party would be able to take it's place. We would still have a two party system, it just wouldn't be dominated by the national media's support for the bankrupt Democratic Party Leadership. Doug Hoffman deserves equal time in the national media. Not because he's a national candidate, but because he is a candidate with a differing point of view. I don't have a say in this New York district's politics, but I do believe his candidacy needs to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the nation via. the national media. They are the vehicle that brought his candidacy to my attention. If the national media is to focus on Doug Hoffman, the national media should adhere to a "Fairness Doctrine" that is fair, and not pay tribute to those who think the two party system belongs to the status quo. |
 | Re: Media Bias and Democratic Party Collusion |
|
I don't really think its a point of view, else they would ignore Sarah Palin - who was as much the reason Republicans were marginalized in 2008 as anything. She single-handedly turned quite a few life-long Republicans into independents - although the Health Reform debate might have brought them back for a time. They won't stay, however, if she is considered a serious candidate in 2012 (except to oppose her). The media does not lead the people as much as they reflect them. Of course, they are not always right. Candidates without the spine to ignore the media on occassion do not succeed. If Howard Dean had ignored the media over "the scream" he might be President today. What the media does do is listen to party insiders - which is the other reason Kerry was the nominee in 2004 (and Obama in 2008, since they had the Superdelegates on speed dial). Knowing what party insiders are thinking reflects how the report the news. The reason some candidates are not regarded as mainstream is mostly because they aren't. Being mainstream is mostly related to having experience - which the public seems to like. For the office of President, being mainstream usually means being a Senator and mostly means being a current or former Governor (and having some money and backing). Occassionally, a general may be considered mainstream. Wes Clark was considered mainstream, although not leading with his strength - his military experience - hurt him - although what worked against him most was the fact that the party organization wanted Kerry. Movements are considered mainstream based on who they attract. If either Wes Clark or Mitt Romney (or both) were associated with this effort, especially if we had a lot of bodies, then this effort would be mainstream. If Sarah Palin were associated with this effort, it would be considered wacky. If the Tea Party were attracted to this effort, it would depend on which groups were involved - for example, if the FreedomWorks branch were included we would be considered bought and paid for Republicans. The Ron Paul wing of the movement might also gain us credibility. A certain number of Tea Partiers are also GOP precinct chairs. That is not necessarily a bad thing as long as we can capture them more than they can capture us. If we get the portion of the Tea Party that is grass roots based rather than astroturf based, it would be newsworthy. |