By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
October 20, 2000
In an article in the New York Times this morning, entitled "Gore's Surrogates Bluntly Question Bush's Competence" Bill Clinton is quoted as saying "the Bush campaign was trying to deceive voters about Republican positions on the issues. "As hard as we try to bring clarity," Mr. Clinton said, "they're really good at clouding up."
The REPUBLICANS are good at clouding up issues? After years of "I didn't have sex with THAT woman" and bombing other countries to get his sexual attacks on unsuspecting women off the front page, including more than one accusation of outright rape, Bill Clinton has the gall to accuse REPUBLICANS of clouding up issues?
Sadly, there are undoubtedly people out there who are going to still believe what he says, too, especially since several senators are willing to make the statement. The article says: "After watching the three presidential debates, several prominent Democrats on Capitol Hill bluntly questioned Gov. George W. Bush's capacity to lead yesterday, reinforcing a theme that surrogates for Vice President Al Gore plan to voice repeatedly in the final days of the campaign.
"The governor is a high-risk choice," said Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska in a telephone interview. "I've got concerns about whether or not he's up to the job." Of course, attempts to destroy George W. Bush with media planted lies about him is not exactly new. Almost to the day, one year ago, an extremely expensive effort was made to scuttle George W. Bush's reputation in a book entitled "Fortunate Son"
At the time I didn't have an opinion of George W. Bush one way or the other, but had been reading reports published in national media outlets about the book which, the headlines claimed, "proved" George W. Bush had been arrested for the use of cocaine.
The way the so-called "Information Age" as launched in America works today, when a source like CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS or ABC news makes a statement of that sort, it is copied and re-written for local consumption by newspapers, radio and TV stations all over the world. They are, after all, supposed to be the "responsible" media. It was, in fact, a report in August of 1999 by ABC's Nightline that asked the "when did you stop beating your wife" question "Is it important whether George W. Bush used cocaine? Should he answer the question publicly?"
It was a question widely discussed. The publisher of the book printed and shipped 70,000 copies. It was supposed to destroy George W. Bush once and for all. Only, for a change, the Democrat spin doctors slightly overplayed their hand. Someone, quite possibly a friend of the Bush's, did a cursory investigation of the author of the book, J.H. Hatfield, and discovered that he had a criminal background. In an analysis at the time, in October 1999, entitled "The Attempt to Destroy George W. Bush Backfires" I wrote of the cocaine charge that was front page news around the country:
"I am neither a supporter nor an opponent of George W. Bush for the presidential nomination. Any boy raised by Barbara Bush is probably a good person, but I'm still listening to their speeches.
However, those of you who read my column daily may have noticed that I did not write about the Hatfield biography of George W. Bush which claims he was arrested on cocaine charges back in 1972 and a Republican judge gave him a "community service" sentence and expunge the record because of his father.
Without reading the book and checking its accuracy, it was my view that writing about it would simply sell books for Hatfield. I had written about the media pursuing Bush last summer to demand that he "prove" a negative - that he had never smoked marijuana. Now, it appears, the author of the book has been identified as a felon on parole who was convicted 11 years ago of a failed attempt to kill his ex-boss with a car bomb. He's on parole until 2003."
So, if there is journalistic integrity in the top media sources, as they tell us, how did this story ever get into the top news sources of this country? It was news for several months and the publisher had published 70,000 copies, which indicates they expected it to be a very popular book. How could they have not checked their sources better than that? Or, DID they know who the author was and think that the American people were so mis-informed that they could get away with the errors. Or, is it just that the so-called media today is printing anything they think will get people talking, and buying, their products?
I think the answer to that is simple we are not yet IN the information age. We are currently in the propaganda age. The facts are rather stark. Either news organizations like ABC did not CHECK the sources, which were "three anonymous" reports or they knew all along it was not true and were printing propaganda to get rid of a possible serious challenge to Al Gore's run for the presidency.
At the time, of course, the Bush presidential campaign flatly denied the charge that George W. was "arrested in 1972 or that a judge expunged the record in exchange for Bush performing community service, as Hatfield claims." However, the anonymous charges and the denials were reported as equal sources.
Now, it appears, we are going to be treated to an effort in the last two and a half weeks of the campaign to a concerted propaganda effort to convince enough people that the Governor of Texas, a state with a population of almost 20 million and a land mass of 266,807 square miles hasn't the capacity to govern the nation nearly so well as the former governor of Arkansas, a state with a population of 2.5 million and a land mass of 53,187 square miles has been able to do.
In today's New York Times article that same once obscure governor of a small, poor state tells us: ""I almost gagged when I heard that answer on the patients' bill of rights in Texas," Mr. Clinton said while meeting with House and Senate Democrats in the Cannon House Office Building. "Could you believe that? Here's a guy who takes credit for a bill that he vetoed."
This is the same ex-governor who lied about Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky and is running around all over America telling us that HE is responsible for balancing the budget that he vetoed three times and the welfare plan that he vetoed twice, but finally signed when presented with bills with enough pork in them to secure Democrat votes in large enough numbers to override his veto. It is also the same ex-governor that is, as we speak, playing the exact same game with this year's appropriations bills, which will be full of pork so the Republicans can avoid a last minute government shut-down because Clinton won't sign an honest bill and is threatening to veto temporary appropriations bills.
And is the so-called "responsible" media reporting any of this? Not that I've noticed.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
