Sunday, October 29, 2006

"Did we forget to mention?"...

Staunton, VA.


Senator George Allen stopped by Mrs. Rowe's restaurant in Staunton to have breakfast with 110 to 120 local supporters on Friday while on his way to Harrisonburg.

It was an outstanding showing of support for the visit was just announced a day earlier and in fact the Staunton NewsLeader had just added it to their frontpage of the NewsLeader webpage the prior night.

Delegates Chris Saxman, Ben Cline, and Steve Landes joined the Senator who took the time to meet everyone in the two rooms provided for the breakfast. Senator Allen then visited with all of the other rooms in Mr. Rowe's and took the time to meet with and speak with many people. Senator Allen visited with all those in attendance, including the local media, for about 45 to 50 minutes before moving on to other scheduled visits...

I did find it interesting that the Staunton NewsLeader newspaper, who announced the visit on their webpage the night before and had their crack reporter David Royer in attendance, failed to even mention the Senators visit in their paper at all... Bob Stuart from the NewsVirginian was also in attendance and did a good description of the visit and the NewsVirginian even printed the story on their front page so it must have actually happened...

It is interesting to see that the NewsLeader would send a reporter to a visit by the State Senator but fail to mention it in their newspaper. Seem to recall that when Jim Webb came to Staunton a few weeks back the Newsleader had a front page photo and a good part of the front page taken up with a story about his visit. Also recall that the visit was a short one if memory serves me... Did you Hear about the visit to Harrisonburg by Jimmy and Mark Warner a few days back that lasted, reported, only about 5 minutes but yet the NewsLeader reported on it?...

27 comments:

Elle said...

Well--it was actual news that Webb even came to town. One stop this entire campaign season--Wow! They had to run with it...Webb's their boy.

The problem is Senator Allen is just so darn accessible. He's made how many visits to the Valley? He's had plenty of opportunities to meet with business leaders, political junkies and his constituents.

The Slantin' News Leader has one purpose and one purpose only--to elect democrat(ic)s and push their agenda through. Be nice if we fully understood Webb's agenda.

BTW--Neal is no longer hiding behind his "I'm an independent" nonsense. Nice that he is no longer ashamed of his democrat(ic) beliefs.

Elizabeth W. said...

We have noticed that when Jim Webb comes anywhere near town the newsleader is sure to print it big ways. Sorry we were not in town to meet Senator Allen and did not know he was here by what the paper said. My husband found this blog and others in the area so now we check them often to see what is not reported. Need to start reading the Newsvirginian site more for they seem to report more of Staunton story's that do not get in the Newsleader.

Thanks

zen said...

"News Leader has one purpose and one purpose only--to elect democrat(ic)s and push their agenda through."

Actually that seems like 2 purposes, but whatever.

So exactly how did endorsing George Bush fit the prpose of getting a Democrat elected? OR to pushing their agenda?

RightsideVA said...

Zen,

Good Count. It was 2 purposes...

The NewsLeader supported President Bush because like now in Webb, the competetition was a hollow joke with no background and what background there was\is weak.

The Newsleader will endorse Allen for Senate for Webb has no political background, history with Virginia, and yes he has been weak or avoiding Virginia issues. I look forward to years of hearing how The NewsLeader endorsed Allen in the future...

I hear that after the breakfast Friday the Senator went down and met with the board of the NewsLeader. Have not seen any mention in the paper and wonder if they are going to avoid that subject also?

The Senator came to town, met with 120+ people plus those in Mrs. Rowes on their own. The NL had a reporter there but DID NOT mention it at all in their print copy...
Agenda?

Elle said...

Zen--by electing democrats you are successfully pushing the democratic agenda. Thought that was obvious. I'll remember to make sure to be very clear and explain things in the most simplistic terms when I know you are around.

zen said...

elle>> I suggest you read very carefully my comment, and Rightside's response, before you go off accusing me of missing the point.

In short Bush is Republican and the NL endorsed him. So you are flatly wrong. But I suppose that's never held you back. Facts don't seem to matter too much to you.

SWAC Girl said...

Zen, Zen, Zen ... pull in those claws....

Elle said...

Oh Zen--you bring up one endorsement--let's compare that to days, weeks, months, years worth of "unbiased" reporting.

Zen--the SNL pushes their agenda, not only though the editorials, but in the way they present their stories. It is which stories they choose to cover (Webb in H'burg) and which stories they choose to ignore (Allen in Staunton).

You seem intelligent enough--stop ignoring the obvious here.

And seriously--you can cut the childish nonsense--we're not 5 on a playground. Pulling my pigtails and issuing forth insults is not a constructive debate.

Hmmm--you've been a Dem all your life haven't you--lol ;-)

Andrew said...

Like the title of that book by Eric Alterman, "What Liberal Media?" No matter how hard you try, some folks will refuse to face obvious facts. I always had the impression the NL's endorsement of Bush in 2004 was a grudging concession to local sentiment, trying to avoid losing more subscribers.

See a 7-minute video of Allen's breakfast talk at:

http://www.swacgop.org/Media/Allen_breakfast_Oct2006.mov

zen said...

Oh. It's a liberal media that occassionally caves to pressure.

So what if they endorse Allen? Then what's the excuse?

If they endorse a republican it is coming to their senses, or caving to pressure.
But if they endorse a democrat then they are biased.

RightsideVA said...

No...

But how can they endorse Webb who has avoided the issues most of the campaign, continues to run against the President and not Allen on most things... What are Webb's issues on Virginia topics?

Why do newspapers endorse any candidate if they are fair and down the middle?

If Bush was obviously not the better candidate why did the NewsLeader endorse him in the past?

zen said...

Well, I guess if you choose to ignore the NL voter guide, the debates with Webb, the visits by Webb, then I suppose you wouldn't have any idea what his postions are. Let's face it though, you were never interested in what Webb had to say.
Perhaps if Allen didn't accuse Webb of writing smut, then maybe the he would have to spend time clarifying the record and be able to focus on issues. By the way Webb's books are on the Marine Corps reading list. Is that promoting smut?
And finally, if the media was so friendly toward Webb, and biased in his favor, then maybe you'd have heard more about his positions. But since you claim not to have any idea (nice talking point, but it's grow tired) then perhaps it only proves my point that the media is biased toward sensation, rather than left or right. It cuts both ways, and it has. And in the end left voters less informed on the issues and more informed about trivial misinformation. Surely you'd agree??

You said, "If Bush was obviously not the better candidate why did the NewsLeader endorse him in the past?"
This is a great question. And so it begs the next...does an endorsement really mean much?

zen said...

What is happening to the Allen campaign? They are losing it completely. I don't care what someone says, there is no reason that 3 thugs should tackle a person for simply asking a pointed question. Unreal.

I cannot wait to hear the excuses for this one. Is this what pressure does to you guys?

SWAC Girl said...

Zen, oh please. "Three thugs"? I ask .. who exactly is losing it? When YOU can't respond to a question, you throw an accusation out against the questioner.

zen said...

SWAC have you seen the video of Allen's thugs roughing up a man for asking a question? The man has served as a marine, and is a constituent of the senators. Does he not have the right to ask a question (no matter how absurd) and expect to do so without being assulted?

SWAC Girl said...

Zen, you mean the video of the guy stalking George Allen? Yes, I saw it. And I'd like to thank the Allen supporters who protected our Senator from attack.

quasar10 said...

swac girl--at no time was the Senator under threat of physical attack. Attacks by words are all part of the process, unless of course, Allen's cohorts don't want anyone to hear those words (or the possible response).

I see the Leader endorsed Allen--kind of Refutes some comments made here. But, it wasn't a wholehearted endorsement. In fact the Leader said "We urge Sen. Allen to evolve further...." oops... evolution isn't possible to a Repub is it?

Sgt. Friday said...

Stark is a individual that is not stable and would\will not be hard to prove that in a court of law. Look at his past and his aggressive moves toward the Senator in this incident and the incident at the Holiday Inn...

Bobby D. said...

Stark represents the Democratic party attitude. The party has been taken over by a bunch of smart ass hacks who do not understand that these tactics do not help their party but shows their ignorance.

Elle said...

Stark's an idiot. I know that's not very nice--but really--you can't take the guy seriously. He's a total wing nut.

zen said...

Does it really matter of Stark is an idiot? He was not "attacking" Allen, and he has just as much right to meet/greet, and ask his senator a question as you are or without being assaulted.

Sgt. Friday said...

Psychological state of mind and history pretty much sums it up when it comes to Stark. He needed to be removed from the area for the manner he approached the Senator and his actions. Issue is he should have been restrained and turned over to the local police...

JohnMaxfield said...

Are you blind zen? Are you really THAT blind and completely ignorant? What if the story was flipped around and it was an Allen supporter doing what Starky did to Allen? You and youre buddies would be chating, 'off with his head!' It's that way and you know it. To defend this man and his actions is deplorable on your part.
And I don't remember the last time a meet and greet included trying to run up on a US Senator, not backing down when asked, fihting back, and being disrespectful. Oh wait, yes I do remember a last time. That was how the Democrats greeted OUR President of the United States in Richmond a few weeks ago. Hmmmmmm....

The moment he forcefully and purposely shouldered the man who took him down, that showed intent. Any actions of subduing him would be considered a self defense measure, and would hold up in a court of law. Ask any lawyer or security officer.

Don't defend a crazy man, zen. You've got enough on your hands defending yourself from the truth.

JohnMaxfield said...

quasar10,

you said, "swac girl--at no time was the Senator under threat of physical attack"

How do you know? Were you there? He tried to physically push past the man that blocked Allen from him and who took Starky down. Why would he stop with just a supporter? And also, notice that book bag. That could have held anything from books, to knives, guns, or at worst, a bomb. Yes, that is a stretch, but you can't look at that in retrospect and say that Allen was not under the threat of attack. He very well could have been. Luckily, there were some fine, quick thinking and strong individuals who took that possible chance away from him.

quasar10 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
quasar10 said...

The video on NBC29 is pretty clear. Stark may be obnoxious and his questions designed to embarass the senator, but clearly it was Allen's henchmen who got physical with no provocation except that they knew Stark.

I think I'll change the topic. Did you guys see Friedman's most excellent commentary?

November 3, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, “They must think I’m stupid.” Because they surely do.

They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team’s real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry’s mangled gibe at the president.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men — to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that?

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than sending them off to war without the proper equipment, so that some soldiers in the field were left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal so that roadside bombs in Iraq would only maim them for life and not kill them? And what could be more injurious and insulting than Don Rumsfeld’s response to criticism that he sent our troops off in haste and unprepared: Hey, you go to war with the army you’ve got — get over it.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than to send them off to war in Iraq without any coherent postwar plan for political reconstruction there, so that the U.S. military has had to assume not only security responsibilities for all of Iraq but the political rebuilding as well? The Bush team has created a veritable library of military histories — from “Cobra II” to “Fiasco” to “State of Denial” — all of which contain the same damning conclusion offered by the very soldiers and officers who fought this war: This administration never had a plan for the morning after, and we’ve been making it up — and paying the price — ever since.

And what could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in Iraq than to send them off to war and then go out and finance the very people they’re fighting against with our gluttonous consumption of oil? Sure, George Bush told us we’re addicted to oil, but he has not done one single significant thing — demanded higher mileage standards from Detroit, imposed a gasoline tax or even used the bully pulpit of the White House to drive conservation — to end that addiction. So we continue to finance the U.S. military with our tax dollars, while we finance Iran, Syria, Wahhabi mosques and Al Qaeda madrassas with our energy purchases.

Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century — to bring out the best in us. His “genius” is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.

And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country’s health, prove him wrong this time.

Let Karl know that you’re not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has — through sheer incompetence — brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable.

Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq — and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate — it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account.

It means we’re as stupid as Karl thinks we are.

I, for one, don’t think we’re that stupid. Next Tuesday we’ll see.

RightsideVA said...

Stark did it again at the Weyers Cave airport when Senator Allen flew in. He was obnoxious as soon as he got to the door and pushed past several people, including myself, there to see the Senator speak. I moved two small children out of his way when he made his dash towards the door that the Senator was about to leave thru. He then push one woman into a camera stand and shoved past the guy that fell to the ground. In front of two deputies who were standing with 5 feet of him...

Guys a joke and needs to be treated...