Fact #3: It is blatant and horrendous hypocrisy for a politician to rant and rave against an industry while his wife is contributing money for them to continue those practices which he denounces and from which he profits.
Yellow dogs are so cute, aren't they?
Fact #4: None of the articles mentioned were from "conservative media", and none had an editorial slant one way or the other. It is a FACT that Gore/Lieberman courted Hollywood and softened their tone at a fund raiser. It is a FACT that Lieberman (and Gore to a lesser extent) has been an outspoken critic of Hollywood, and there are statements on record at the Senate to that effect. It is a FACT that Lieberman's wife has invested in Hollywood companies. Exactly how are those facts pertinent to the political slant of the reporting entity/person?
Lieberman concerns me. There were two other issues which he did a complete 180 on once he was nominated for VP candidate (someone refresh my memory -- what were they? vouchers maybe?). Here's another. There's compromise and then there's a lack of principle. I think we're seeing which attribute Lieberman holds.
It is a well known and common fact that Hollywood is undeniably liberal with some notable exceptions (Charlton Heston for one, Ronald Reagan for another!). To my knowledge, Hollywood does not commonly court Republican candidates with fund raisers, attendance at rallies, etc., though the practice is quite common with Democrats. Every Democratic presidential candidate enjoys high profile support in Hollywood. Yes, they might be giving money quietly to the Republicans to stem the negativity that would come from only supporting Democrats (and to hedge their bets on the winner) -- any lobbyist does that.
However, the FACT that Gore/Lieberman could change their stance so quickly from one WEEK to another is amazing. That is not subject to conjecture -- it is plainly and simply the juxtaposition of quotations and facts.
Yellow dogs are so cute, aren't they?
Fact #4: None of the articles mentioned were from "conservative media", and none had an editorial slant one way or the other. It is a FACT that Gore/Lieberman courted Hollywood and softened their tone at a fund raiser. It is a FACT that Lieberman (and Gore to a lesser extent) has been an outspoken critic of Hollywood, and there are statements on record at the Senate to that effect. It is a FACT that Lieberman's wife has invested in Hollywood companies. Exactly how are those facts pertinent to the political slant of the reporting entity/person?
Lieberman concerns me. There were two other issues which he did a complete 180 on once he was nominated for VP candidate (someone refresh my memory -- what were they? vouchers maybe?). Here's another. There's compromise and then there's a lack of principle. I think we're seeing which attribute Lieberman holds.
It is a well known and common fact that Hollywood is undeniably liberal with some notable exceptions (Charlton Heston for one, Ronald Reagan for another!). To my knowledge, Hollywood does not commonly court Republican candidates with fund raisers, attendance at rallies, etc., though the practice is quite common with Democrats. Every Democratic presidential candidate enjoys high profile support in Hollywood. Yes, they might be giving money quietly to the Republicans to stem the negativity that would come from only supporting Democrats (and to hedge their bets on the winner) -- any lobbyist does that.
However, the FACT that Gore/Lieberman could change their stance so quickly from one WEEK to another is amazing. That is not subject to conjecture -- it is plainly and simply the juxtaposition of quotations and facts.
Why don't you fill us in?
Facebook
Twitter