NATIONAL MEDIA crying over nader. left wing media bias again
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:38 am
why is the media so openly biased? have you ever wondered why they never question the leaders of the libertarian party and constitution party about why they are hurting bush and helping dems get elected? the answer? THEY WANT KERRY ELECTED!!
ABC, NBC Flay Nader as Spoiler of Gores 2000 Victory, Suggest Hes Only Running to Stoke Enormous Ego
Networks to Nader:
Drop Out!
Democrats are extremely unhappy that Ralph Nader is going to run for President again. On CNN this morning, Democratic Party chair Terry McAuliffe complained: Every major liberal and progressive group who has supported the causes that he has worked on told him not to run. His closest advisers told him not to run. The stakes in this election are just so gigantic that we need every potential vote out there.
When ABC and NBC interviewed Nader today, they didnt ask a single question about the issues that drove his candidacy. They only echoed Democratic angst that Nader would drain votes from their nominee. On NBCs Today, Matt Lauer cited only disgruntled Democrats: Howard Dean, who dropped out of the race recently, said he will actively campaign against you and urge his supporters not to vote for you. Al Sharpton says he will go on a nationwide campaign to make sure people don't vote for you. This is from Scott Maddox, the chairman of the Democratic Party in Florida: I think that Ralph Nader is proving the only master he serves is his enormous ego.
On Good Morning America, ABCs Charles Gibson began: We all watched you yesterday and come down to this, realistically. You don't have a chance of winning, and realistically, you can keep the Democratic candidate from winning. Is that okay with you?...I heard you just a moment ago make the case that you wouldn't cost John Kerry the presidency, but the simple fact is four years ago you did cost Al Gore the presidency, didn't you? Didnt anything Al Gore said or did play a role in his defeat?
Gibson added: Even your friends, Mr. Nader, are asking that you not run. You're very familiar, I know, with the Ralph Dont Run Web site. I just want to play a little bit of the ad that's on that Web site right now. The ad sounded like Gibson (or vice versa) in emphasizing so-called simple fact: The simple fact is, if Nader had not run, Gore would be President, not Bush. This time in 2004, the stakes are far too high.
The last time network anchors were this hostile to Nader was late in 2000. On October, 27, 2000, Gibson asked Nader a familiar-sounding question: If you awake on the morning of Wednesday, November 8 and find that you cost Al Gore enough electoral votes to cost him the election, is that going to upset you in the least?
and dont fall for the liberal media nonsense that nader cost gore the election. the fact is the libertarian party hurt bush much more in 2000.
why isnt the media crying over that?
ABC, NBC Flay Nader as Spoiler of Gores 2000 Victory, Suggest Hes Only Running to Stoke Enormous Ego
Networks to Nader:
Drop Out!
Democrats are extremely unhappy that Ralph Nader is going to run for President again. On CNN this morning, Democratic Party chair Terry McAuliffe complained: Every major liberal and progressive group who has supported the causes that he has worked on told him not to run. His closest advisers told him not to run. The stakes in this election are just so gigantic that we need every potential vote out there.
When ABC and NBC interviewed Nader today, they didnt ask a single question about the issues that drove his candidacy. They only echoed Democratic angst that Nader would drain votes from their nominee. On NBCs Today, Matt Lauer cited only disgruntled Democrats: Howard Dean, who dropped out of the race recently, said he will actively campaign against you and urge his supporters not to vote for you. Al Sharpton says he will go on a nationwide campaign to make sure people don't vote for you. This is from Scott Maddox, the chairman of the Democratic Party in Florida: I think that Ralph Nader is proving the only master he serves is his enormous ego.
On Good Morning America, ABCs Charles Gibson began: We all watched you yesterday and come down to this, realistically. You don't have a chance of winning, and realistically, you can keep the Democratic candidate from winning. Is that okay with you?...I heard you just a moment ago make the case that you wouldn't cost John Kerry the presidency, but the simple fact is four years ago you did cost Al Gore the presidency, didn't you? Didnt anything Al Gore said or did play a role in his defeat?
Gibson added: Even your friends, Mr. Nader, are asking that you not run. You're very familiar, I know, with the Ralph Dont Run Web site. I just want to play a little bit of the ad that's on that Web site right now. The ad sounded like Gibson (or vice versa) in emphasizing so-called simple fact: The simple fact is, if Nader had not run, Gore would be President, not Bush. This time in 2004, the stakes are far too high.
The last time network anchors were this hostile to Nader was late in 2000. On October, 27, 2000, Gibson asked Nader a familiar-sounding question: If you awake on the morning of Wednesday, November 8 and find that you cost Al Gore enough electoral votes to cost him the election, is that going to upset you in the least?
and dont fall for the liberal media nonsense that nader cost gore the election. the fact is the libertarian party hurt bush much more in 2000.
why isnt the media crying over that?
)