If a political party is truly a "party of ideas", with "strong principles", and the ideology that it draws the majority of it's policy platform and support from, is "mainstream", shouldn't it enjoy broad coverage from independent, non-partisan news reporting outlets and commentary that embraces and advances it's message, from a spectrum of numerous and diverse broadcasting and print media, across a country as large as the US is?
Wouldn't a reliable, detailed plan for America's political and social future, stand on it's own merits, if it was inclusive and in the best interests of a broad majority....and wouldn't the architects of such a message of hope, fairness, and "good government", rely on the merits and integrity of their political and social "vision", to naturally drive it's distribution, via all of the major broadcasting networks, and via PBS, and independent political pundits and radio and TV talks show hosts?
If you answer is, "yes, one would think that it would be naturally distributed, in a free and open competition of ideas", do you wonder, as I do....what the following is "all about"? If your answer is, "no....I would not expect it to sink or swim on it's own....what is happening to facilitate the distribution of this "vision" is expected and necessary.....please post, why you think so.....
The "signs" of control.....and of a lack of diversity:
All of the featured (four....) multimedia "presentations" displayed at the
<b>The National Republican Senatorial Committee</b>
http://www.nrsc.org/Multimedia/ are prominently displayed as being televised coverage <b>from only one news broadcasting outlet, Fox News</b>
On the front page of the same website, there is a poll displayed:
Quote:
http://www.nrsc.org/default.aspx
Last week, the Senate Democrat Leader said the war "is lost" and was answered by a deafening silence from his fellow Democrats in Congress. Do you believe Senate Democrats should be held accountable for undermining troop morale with these reckless statements?
Yes
No
|
Given that the committee handpicked by POTUS George Bush, chaired by close friend of Bush's father, the former US Sect'y of State, James Baker III, evaluated the situation in Iraq last year, and handed president Bush this conclusion, located on page 27 of the Baker ISG report:
Quote:
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/i...p_findings.pdf
5. Conclusions
The United States has made a massive commitment to the future of Iraq in both blood and
treasure. As of December 2006, nearly 2,900 Americans have lost their lives serving in Iraq.
Another 21,000 Americans have been wounded, many severely.
To date, the United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq War, and costs are
running about $8 billion per month. In addition, the United States must expect significant “tail
costs” to come. Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will run into the hundreds of
billions of dollars. Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S. involvement
in Iraq.
Despite a massive effort, stability in Iraq remains elusive and the situation is deteriorating.
The Iraqi government cannot now govern, sustain, and defend itself without the support of the
United States. Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take responsibility for their own
future. Iraq’s neighbors and much of the international community have not been persuaded to
play an active and constructive role in supporting Iraq. The ability of the United States to shape
outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out.....
|
....is it fair ....or inclusive for a political website that should represent all republican senators running for office, next year, to feature a poll that displays the language and sentiments as the one above does, considering that the "Senate Democrat Leader" got to be leader of the senate majority, because a majority of voters agree with the conclusions of the Baker ISG?
It was reported by a member of the ISG that president Bush asked no questions in the meeting where the ISG report was presented to him......and his actions since seem in direct conflict with the ISG advice to actively engage Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran, in diplomacy as a means to extricate the US military from a predicament in Iraq that cannot be improved by force of arms.....
Moving to the website of the party itself, the
www.rnc.org homepage displays
in the upper right <b>"Action Center" column, </b>this link: <a href="http://www.rnc.org/GetActive/CallTalkRadio.aspx">Call Talk Radio</a>
The names and telephone numbers of 33 conservative talk show hosts are displayed on the rnc.org page located at the preceding link.
Imus, and two convicted felons, G. Gordon Liddy, and Ollie North, foxnews correspondent and commentator, (his conviction for lying to congress was overturned on a technicality, on appeal.) are on that RNC "talk radio" list.
This "group" is syndicated by Salem Comm., owned by two CNP members, as I've posted about here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...45&postcount=2
NY Times coverage of CNP, Council for National Policy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/us...gewanted=print
Hugh Hewitt Show
The Mike Gallagher Show
The Michael Medved Show
Bill Bennett's Morning in America
The Dennis Prager Show
Janet Parshall's America
Links to Salem's talk radio hosts info:
http://www.srnonline.com/
http://www.srnonline.com/talk/index..../shakehead.gif
Salem also owns
www.townhall.com/columnists/
The Rush Limbaugh Show (Rush is in a class all by himself....)
Michael Reagan Show:
Quote:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...10/ai_n8921985
Oct. 6, 2000
Radio America Kicks Off Millennium Campaign
At a gala evening dinner September 20 aboard the Spirit of Washington as the ship cruised on the Potomac River, Radio America celebrated its 15th anniversary and announced the launching of a major capital campaign to create "A Network for the Millennium:' Radio America, headed by James C. Roberts, is a national network that offers its 400 affiliated stations issue-oriented and talk programs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A subsidiary of the American Studies Center (ASC), Radio America makes certain its programs heavily reflect ASC's "commitment to traditional American values, limited government and the free market."
Among the hosts of Radio America programs are Fred Barnes, Blanquita Cullum, Larry Klayman, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Oliver North, Gary Nolan, Gen. Milnor Roberts, Pete du Pont and Robert Woodson.
|
http://www.talkradionetwork.com/
The Laura Ingraham Show
Michael Savage Show
Dick Morris
....okay...I've listed about half of the RNC featured talk show hosts. What does it say about the RNC when nearly 1/6 of the talk show hosts that it encourages site visitors to contact, are syndicated by Salem, a company with top two executives who are involved in a secretive organization such as CNP?
Why is there so little ethnic or racial diversity, and no coverage by major news outlets, offered among the list of talk radio hosts listed on the RNC site?
With one unified message, distributed over and over, and heavily evangeclical christian influence at Salem's townhall.com and Salem radio, and among most of the rest......what does this political party offer to attract the majority of American voters?
Do republican senators and their political website, and the RNC.org and their talk show hosts, represent much more than a conservative, significantly evangelically oriented "base"? Does the avoidance of "all of the rest" of the US press and information distribution systems.....negative views of Hollywood, and embracing the notion that the media is too liberal, seems to leave a very narrow and redundant little information loop, but maybe that is the intent.
The question is, whether the "message" and the avoidance of an "open forum" of commentators and news coverage will aid the agenda to portray the "message" as being in the best interests of the most voters. I don't see how you can accomplish such a delivery and persuasion, within the confines of a minimally corrupted society, and expect to reach new supporters, or even keep the support of more centrist, less religiously involved, current members.
Is the real problem that the agenda, vision, and message, cannot stand, on it's own, out in the open, to be critiqued, reported on, and improved by broad examination and participation? What about the party that pushes the message from such an insulated perch?