One Day Only: A Pro-Catholic Media

by Mike on May 6, 2008

in Election 2008,Politics,Religion

Well, since the issue is a Voter ID law making it harder for Democrats to cheat by forcing voters to prove they are who they say they are, for today only the AP has decided that Catholic nuns are to be viewed as sympathetic figures who should be respected.  I’ll keep that in mind the next time the AP decides to cover what Catholic nuns have to say on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

grinningthorn May 6, 2008 at 9:54 pm

While I would in no way suggest Democrats are free from cheating during the vote, I would likewise think it just as likely that the Republicans would as well. What are you really suggesting here? That the people who brought us Watergate are clean as a whistle? That the Iran Contra affair was a slip? What about all the hanky panky during 2000 in Florida? I guess it was just a strong wind that blew away all those votes from the (heavily Democratic) black counties.

As far as your remarks that the AP is biased, which it is, I would also add that so is FOX network, so are the likes of No-spin O’Reiley, so is the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and so is EWTN- the Catholic TV network. The simple fact is that anything coming from the media must be judged with an independent and suspicious eye.

Reply

Ryan May 7, 2008 at 7:27 pm

While I agree with your sentiment that we must “watch the watchmen” as they say in regards to the media, the Left has a long history of arousing suspicion through their actions too. Everyone has a spin and this must be taken into consideration.

Yet, I agree with Mike’s sentiments on the typcial treatment of Catholics in the media. There isn’t much argument about an anti-Catholic media. We’ve had it in this country since the Irish in the 1820s.

However I must address your point on Florida 2000. That “hanky panky” has not produced one successful lawsuit in 7.5 years. There’s no tangible evidence which has been held up in court that anyone was disenfranchsed. Those who complained of irregularities, after much legal wrangling and the watchful eye of the MSM, have shown only that the “victims”/polling stations were nothing more than ignorant as to what to do. It’s their right to be uninformed and sloppy. Voting irregularities in Florida 2000 have become an urban legend.

Reply

grinningthorn May 8, 2008 at 10:14 am

Point well taken. However, I have to admit, and this is my bias, saying something doesn’t hold up in court is a very poor test of truth. The law is an imperfect thing, putting it politely. To suggest that the courts have anything to do with either justice or truth is, in my view, to retire to a world of fantasy.

Florida was not an urban legend. It happened. It was real. Unfortunately the truth of history, especially history that could affect so many today, will never be widely known in a short time. Give it a century or so. Time eventually wears down even the best barriers– or else they just die!

Reply

Mike May 10, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I agree with you on courts, especially today. However, they are one piece of evidence to consider.

I also agree that there were shenanigans in Florida in 2000. That year, we saw Democrats discounting military ballots, Democrats counting ballots that of those who didn’t follow directions, Democrats “counting” ballots behind locked doors with only Democrats in the room, Democrats recounting votes from only Democrat counties, Democrats applying different standards to recounting in different counties, Democrat Judges claiming that 7 day certification requirements written in statutes meant as many days as Democrats needed to steal the election, and Democrats claiming victory despite the fact that even the AP (biased in favor of Democrats by your own admission) recounts showed Bush winning.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: