Associated Press Writer Ben Evans reported on Friday,December 8,2006 at 10.06 PM that "McKinney Introduces Bill To Impeach Bush".
The first paragragh reads,"In what was likely her final legislative act in Congress,outgoing Georgia Rep.Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill Friday to impeach President Bush.
The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment".
The article goes on from there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I looked in vain for any mention of this article in my daily paper today but couldn't find word one about it.
I also listened to CNN,Fox News,and CNBC and also heard not one word about it.
How about you ??? Was there any mention of this bill in any of your media outlets???
Could this just be a sin of omission???
hippolips ************************************************************* 12-09-06, 06:32 PM frankvan Rep McKinney already used up her 15 minutes of newsworthiness (is there such a word?) in her scuffle with capitol police. Hardly worth making two days news in a row, IMHO. Wink ************************************************************* 12-09-06, 06:49 PM DorianGreyed I agree with Frank; the event just isn't worth mentioning. Even those of us who realize that bush could be impeached, for any of several reasons, feel he shouldn't be, simply because it would take up too much time, continue the idea that impeachment is a political tool, and, worst of all, leave Cheney in charge. The truths are coming out, bush's world is closing in on him, and history is already starting to pass judgement on him. I'll be satisfied with that, seeing him held up for all to see as the worst president the US ever had, and his administration and cronies as the most corrupt the country has ever seen. His disapproval rating is approaching 70%, and will get higher if he resists the Iraq Group's recommendations. ************************************************************* 12-10-06, 01:40 PM hippolips Hi dg and Frank:
I'm afraid your hatred of Bush and disdain for McKinney has clouded your objectivity.
Re-read your own words:
Frank:On McKinney..."Hardly worth making two days news in a row".
dg: "I agree with Frank;the event just isn't worth mentioning.His[Bush] disapproval rating is approaching 70%,and will get higher if he resists the Iraq Group's recommendations".
I can't believe you two on this one.
Let me remind you what the news story was :
A United States Congressional Representative introduced a Bill into the Congress to Impeach the President of the United States.
And you don't believe that this is a news story worth mentioning???
70% of the American people disagree with Bush but the story isn't worth mentioning???
When Clinton was impeached was it worth mentioning???I think it made the front pages of every newspaper in the country if I remember right.
I can understand why the Democrats and Republicans might not want to rise up in approval of McKinneys Bill.
But why have all of our media sources,the Major Networks and the Cable Networks,and our Newspapers chosen to NOT report the story???
Why have they chosen to withhold this story from the American people???
When Brittany Spears went out nightclubbing with Paris Hilton ,that story got all kinds of coverage.
Can it be that Brittany's bare bottom gets more coverage that a Bill to Impeach Our President ???
Can it be that Fair and Balanced has now been replaced by Unfair and Biased???
hippolips ************************************************************* 12-10-06, 02:23 PM DorianGreyed Don't try to link us to what the media feels is the coverage that most people want, and don't assume that a very large part of America doeasn't want that type of coverage. Look at the circulation figures for that type of magaine. And don't compare an outgoing House mermber's parting shot at a president with an entire party's using impeachment as a political tool. If you can't se the difference in the magnitude of the two actions, you need to look asgain, with clearer eyes.
The story, contrary to what you say, has not been withheld from the American people. How did you hear about it? The story has been put in its proper context, a parting shot by a politician on her way out of national politics, and it's been given its proper time in the sun. You know that I could fill a page here with news accounts of McKinney's action, all ftrom different sources, but I don't think that would convince you that the media covered it. The bill has no chance of even being debated, let alone succeeding. It was a symbolic gesture in a time when the country needs to take positive action to change the direction things have taken.
Further, if my "hatred of bush" was so strong, wouldn't I be sounding the call for impeachment rather than brushing it aside?
bush is about as lame as a lame duck can get, and we are at the start of getting our troops out of Iraq. While that is not going to happen as rapidly as I want it to, it will happen, and that is a huge improvement on how things looked before the election. Wasting time on a useless gesture just isn't important. ************************************************************* 12-10-06, 02:59 PM hippolips
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
The story, contrary to what you say, has not been withheld from the American people. How did you hear about it? You know that I could fill a page here with news accounts of McKinney's action, all ftrom different sources, but I don't think that would convince you that the media covered it.
Hi dg:I heard about it from a story at an email site at http://www.sfgate.com entitled AP Breaking News....McKinney Introduces Bill To Impeach Bush ,by Ben Evans,Associated Press writer.Since you think so highly of Associated Press ,I thought you would be interested in the story.
How about filling the pages here with news accounts of McKinneys's action[The ImpeachmentBill] from different sources.That would convince me.
Just don't bury me in previous stories about McKinney's run in with the Capitol police officer.
I can be convinced , believe it or not, I want Bush out of there as much as you do!
hippolips ************************************************************* 12-10-06, 06:51 PM frankvan Here are just a few of many news sources for the McKinney impeachment bill:
Don't you think that the absence of any tittilating sex content consigns many news items to the "dustbin of history". And who in his right mind would want to waste so much time and effort on impeaching Bush only to get Cheney in his place?? ************************************************************* 12-10-06, 07:40 PM hippolips Hi Frank and dg:
Ok ,I'm convinced...some of the media did cover the story,but most were only rewrites of the Associated Press story.
Notably missing were stories by the usually quoted New York Times and the Washington Post.There was no mention of the story on Tim Russert's "Meet The Press" either ,this morning.
But I'm convinced...some of them covered the story...but they all covered Brittany's bare bottom.
You know,the really important stuff.
hippolips ************************************************************* 12-10-06, 08:52 PM DorianGreyed Some recent circulation for weekly magazines in the US -
People - 3.73 million
U.S. News & World Report - 2,028,000
Newsweek - 3,160,000
Entertainment Weekly - 1,700,000
Soap Opera Digest - 500,000 subription + more than a million more issues purchased
TV GUIDE - 9,018,212
PLAYBOY - 3,100,093
Time - 4,104,284
NATIONAL ENQUIRER - 1,604,494
STAR MAGAZINE - 1,231,992
Consider that there are well over 100,000 libraries in the US, not counting branches, and each one, each branch, most likely subnscribes to Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. That means that the real circulation for those magazines is less. Does that give you an idea of just where the general public's interests lie?
The print media gives the public what the public obviously wants. ************************************************************* 12-11-06, 12:18 PM hippolips
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Some recent circulation for weekly magazines in the US -
People - 3.73 million
Entertainment Weekly - 1,700,000
Soap Opera Digest - 500,000 subription + more than a million more issues purchased
TV GUIDE - 9,018,212
PLAYBOY - 3,100,
NATIONAL ENQUIRER - 1,604,494
STAR MAGAZINE - 1,231,99
The print media gives the public what the public obviously wants.
________________________________________________
Hi dg:
You've convinced me.
Brittany's bare bottom IS more important to the American people than Impeaching Their President !
I humbly bow to your wisdom.
hippolips
P.S. Maybe we should run Brittany[and her bare bottom] for president.
Do you think this why the media has labeled Obama a "rock star"??? ************************************************************* 12-11-06, 02:24 PM DorianGreyed I think it is exactly why Bill Clinton and now Obama get called rock stars. For a long time, the public has voted for style over substance*. It is not a recent phenomenon. Remember that after the first presidential debate, those who watched it thought Kennedy won, but those who listened to it thought Nixon had won. Like it or not, it's who we are.
*This is not to say thay Clinton nor Obama are merely flash. It is merely stating that the public as a whole does not listen to anything more lengthy than a sound byte, and those who can't master that will get nowhere.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
