A Deeper Twist To The VRWC??
- Thread starter nbcrusader
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Well she has a mark against her by Kos so she must be a sure bet.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Well knock me over with a feather 
What's next, Ann Coulter hosting a fundraiser for Ted Kennedy?
What's next, Ann Coulter hosting a fundraiser for Ted Kennedy?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
by Richard Cohen, NY Daily News
Is Hil outfoxing
Murdoch? Or us?
I know a businessman who says that if the answer to a question is not about money, the question has to be restated. If that applies to politics, the answer to the question of who the Democratic presidential nominee will be in 2008 is simple: Hillary Clinton. She has far and away the most money.
But politics is not just about money - not quite yet, anyway - if only because ideology or principles are not yet "products." That being the case (I hope), then Hillary Clinton's vast lead in fund-raising - she now has more than $20 million in the bank - will be offset by growing questions about her principles and ideology. In other words, who is this woman who wants to be the next President of the United States? Is she the wife of Bill Clinton, who we were once led to believe was more liberal than he was, or is she actually far more conservative? The answer, at the moment, is something I cannot provide.
The latest reason for my perplexity is Clinton's agreement to have Rupert Murdoch host a fund-raiser for her this summer. Murdoch is the very personification of the contemporary conservative movement. He owns both the New York Post and Fox News, both of which are ideologically biased, sometimes blatantly so. No doubt Murdoch can raise lots of money. But what will it buy?
Murdoch has always used his media properties to advance his business interests. In that regard, he is without ideology. Conservatives may loathe the Communist Chinese regime, but when Murdoch wanted to do business in China, he kowtowed to the government and ejected BBC television from his Star satellite service.
Earlier, when he ran into some business problems here, he went from being an Australian to an American citizen - not exactly the reason school kids donated pennies to build a base for the Statue of Liberty.
When Clinton gets into the room with Murdoch, will she emphasize her liberal credentials? Will she say she's pro-choice and favors a government role in health insurance? Will she revive talk of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? Beats me. There's no telling what she'll say anymore.
Clinton may feel that her standing with certain Democratic Party constituencies is so secure that she can afford to take them for granted. Maybe so. But women, blacks, liberals and Clinton admirers in general are not fools. I, for one, cannot quite get over her recent co-sponsorship of a bill that would outlaw certain types of flag burning. This is like outlawing certain kinds of speech.
It could be that Clinton is being as amorally pragmatic as Murdoch himself. Before she can run for President, she has to win reelection to the U.S. Senate from New York. She has virtually no opposition, but in politics nothing can be taken for granted. In New York, it helps to have Murdoch's support.
Still, for some people, Clinton's embrace of Murdoch is only going to raise old questions. What does it mean? Does Clinton agree with him? Does he agree with her? If so, what does he know that I don't? Is she now pro-life? Does she support reactionary judges? Does she endorse the use of the press to advance business interests? Does she know what she believes? Do we know what she believes? Hillary, help us. Who the hell are you?
Is Hil outfoxing
Murdoch? Or us?
I know a businessman who says that if the answer to a question is not about money, the question has to be restated. If that applies to politics, the answer to the question of who the Democratic presidential nominee will be in 2008 is simple: Hillary Clinton. She has far and away the most money.
But politics is not just about money - not quite yet, anyway - if only because ideology or principles are not yet "products." That being the case (I hope), then Hillary Clinton's vast lead in fund-raising - she now has more than $20 million in the bank - will be offset by growing questions about her principles and ideology. In other words, who is this woman who wants to be the next President of the United States? Is she the wife of Bill Clinton, who we were once led to believe was more liberal than he was, or is she actually far more conservative? The answer, at the moment, is something I cannot provide.
The latest reason for my perplexity is Clinton's agreement to have Rupert Murdoch host a fund-raiser for her this summer. Murdoch is the very personification of the contemporary conservative movement. He owns both the New York Post and Fox News, both of which are ideologically biased, sometimes blatantly so. No doubt Murdoch can raise lots of money. But what will it buy?
Murdoch has always used his media properties to advance his business interests. In that regard, he is without ideology. Conservatives may loathe the Communist Chinese regime, but when Murdoch wanted to do business in China, he kowtowed to the government and ejected BBC television from his Star satellite service.
Earlier, when he ran into some business problems here, he went from being an Australian to an American citizen - not exactly the reason school kids donated pennies to build a base for the Statue of Liberty.
When Clinton gets into the room with Murdoch, will she emphasize her liberal credentials? Will she say she's pro-choice and favors a government role in health insurance? Will she revive talk of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? Beats me. There's no telling what she'll say anymore.
Clinton may feel that her standing with certain Democratic Party constituencies is so secure that she can afford to take them for granted. Maybe so. But women, blacks, liberals and Clinton admirers in general are not fools. I, for one, cannot quite get over her recent co-sponsorship of a bill that would outlaw certain types of flag burning. This is like outlawing certain kinds of speech.
It could be that Clinton is being as amorally pragmatic as Murdoch himself. Before she can run for President, she has to win reelection to the U.S. Senate from New York. She has virtually no opposition, but in politics nothing can be taken for granted. In New York, it helps to have Murdoch's support.
Still, for some people, Clinton's embrace of Murdoch is only going to raise old questions. What does it mean? Does Clinton agree with him? Does he agree with her? If so, what does he know that I don't? Is she now pro-life? Does she support reactionary judges? Does she endorse the use of the press to advance business interests? Does she know what she believes? Do we know what she believes? Hillary, help us. Who the hell are you?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Or is Murdoch foxing Hillary?
Raise a lot of money for a controversial candidate who will rally the RW troops to mobilize against her, then watch your candidate sail in?
Raise a lot of money for a controversial candidate who will rally the RW troops to mobilize against her, then watch your candidate sail in?
Similar threads
