Author Topic: Anti-gun leftist Walter Cronkite dies (Read 1521 times)

Questor · « **on:** July 17, 2009, 04:55:51 PM »

He seemed like the voice of trustworthiness in the 60s, but he was a vehement anti-gunner and very much a leftist.

rio grande · « **Reply #1 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:10:47 PM »

Well, the media, we all know where they stand.
I wonder what Cronkite's personal views were?
A family member was a journalist for a while. We learned that anyone who spoke out against the 'party line' was soon fired.
And everybody there knew what the 'line' was.
We all do, don't we?
That's called 'a controlled press'.
My dad liked Walter, for sentimental reasons I guess, he knew him.
When they were kids in Houston all the boys would go swim in the bayou together.
In the 'old America'.

Questor · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:27:24 PM »

His personal views were leftist anti-gun anti-second-amendment. He revealed that quite conspicuously after he retired.

mirage1988 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2009, 06:53:29 PM »

But he reported the news without adding his slant- thats why noone knew he was a leftist until he retired, and that is why he was a better reporter than any talking head we have right now!

Empty Quiver · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2009, 07:04:01 PM »

I think you hit on it. After he retired.

The news was reported, in days gone by. Now a poll is taken by people who want to report a particular outcome and if the poll results meet their expectations then, %62 of respondants to our poll say" NO I DON'T WANT A BULLET IN MY HEAD" .That isn't news that is entertainment, by a news crew.

We can only hope to get another news anchor as good as the late Walter Cronkite. I don't expect to find perfection here on earth, sometimes integritty, and honesty in character has to do. Walter Cronkite never left the impression that selling toothpaste,new Buicks or Gillette Razors was his real job.

Cement Man · « **Reply #5 on:** July 18, 2009, 03:19:01 AM »

Quote from: mirage1988 on July 17, 2009, 06:53:29 PM

But he reported the news without adding his slant- thats why noone knew he was a leftist until he retired, and that is why he was a better reporter than any talking head we have right now!

Good post Mirage. It would be nice to see media people (so-called journalists) honoring the presumed ethos of their profession in today's world. Now we have too many propagandists and it is widely accepted. For the most part Cronkite kept his reporting "between the lines", and reserved his liberalism for his later, personal life. As much as I disagreed with his personal politics, I respected his right to them and the way he put them aside in his professional life.

magooch · « **Reply #6 on:** July 18, 2009, 04:00:14 AM »

Yeah, ole Walt was fair and balanced--like how he reported on the Vietnam War.

Get a clue, people.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #7 on:** July 18, 2009, 04:18:09 AM »

History is now saying he was the reason we lost the Vietnam war. He said after the Tet offensive that we had lost the war. In reality, the commies expended everything they had. Had we had a quick counter offensive, it would have been over. They also said if Nixon had bombed them two more weeks, they would have surrendered.

Questor · « **Reply #8 on:** July 18, 2009, 04:19:42 AM »

Magooch:

That is exactly what I was thinking. I remember how much influence his personal opinions had in turning public opinion against the Vietnam War. I remember him saying "I think it's time to end this war" on prime time news.

Here's an example of his typical evening commentary on the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdOb_183d1o

Clearly, he didn't understand who the enemy was or how they worked. He truly had a world war II mindset. That sort of commentary was seen as objective journalism back then. Today it is not.

Most favorable comparisons between the likes of Cronkite and today's talking heads are seen through rose colored glasses. The only real difference is that back then there was a sort of societal TV worship, where everything on TV was legitimized because it was on TV. Since then, we've learned that stuff on TV is no more credible than stuff from any other source of information, and must be regarded with skepticism. Today's much maligned internet has at least the veracity of what we find on TV, today's or yesterday's. If you are carefully selective about your information sources, the internet has become a much better source of accurate and precise, and usable, news.

A funny aside: I'm a cooking hobbyist. The internet has a lot of publishers of cookbooks worried because the internet has become a better source of tested and reviewed recipes. My experience is that this is absolutely true. I trust the good internet sources, like recipezaar, more than I trust most printed sources. What this means in real terms is that the quality of cookbooks has to improve, which is good for people like me.

Questor · « **Reply #9 on:** July 18, 2009, 04:21:52 AM »

And if you're a Viet Nam vet, Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!

You guys helped me to have a better life. Really, veterans of all our wars did.

I can't say it enough: Thank you!

Questor · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2009, 04:29:35 AM »

And furthermore, I still believe that the US won the Viet Nam War. All of our national objectives were met. We prevented the expansion of communism if southeast Asia. The communist Russians and Chinese were engaged in a proxy war that weakened them, and greatly lowered the probability of catastrophic nuclear war. Doors were opened to later events that led to the collapse of world communism, the collapse of the soviet union as our most dangerous enemy, and today China is one of our most important trading partners.

How is that a loss?

It was people like Cronkite that characterized it as a loss, and the nation believed him. It is now that flawed opinion that stands in the history books.

plumberroy · « **Reply #11 on:** July 18, 2009, 04:46:23 AM »

There will be no tears shed here

Ruskin · « **Reply #12 on:** July 18, 2009, 05:34:51 AM »

TET 68 was a turning point in the war. Walty's reporting had us loosing the offensive which was not true.

alsaqr · « **Reply #13 on:** July 18, 2009, 08:34:22 AM »

Quote

History is now saying he was the reason we lost the Vietnam war. He said after the Tet offensive that we had lost the war. In reality, the commies expended everything they had. Had we had a quick counter offensive, it would have been over.

Quote

TET 68 was a turning point in the war. Walty's reporting had us loosing the offensive which was not true.

It happened just that way. After Tet the NVA and VC were done for. Then along came Cronkite with his cheap shot: I liked Cronkite bofore he pulled that trashy deal. After Tet; LBJ, for whatever reason, stopped the bombing of the north and put out "peace feelers". This gave North Vietnam renewed hope and a chance to re-build their military.

Yep, Cronkite was also a dedicated anti gunner.

BBF · « **Reply #14 on:** July 18, 2009, 11:09:08 AM »

Questor

China is IMO probably the most dangerous trading partner.

williamlayton · « **Reply #15 on:** July 18, 2009, 01:08:51 PM »

I, for one, liked Walters reporting style. He reported, he did little too influence. His comment about the war not being winable was one of the few comments he allowed using his opinion.
In the style of the way were were fighting the war, it was not winable. It was not winable as was WWII.
The way the war was conducted was a lousy way to conduct a war. It had no viable plan other than contrition and those folks were able to take the contrition.
The troops were splended, the leadership and plans were as sorry as any in WWI.
There was a way to win but we had to have the gut to face communist China in what would have most likely ended in a nuclar holocost---who knows what the earth would be like today. BUT, we could have won that. It would cost and change history, but, we could have won.
I am saddened by his passing.
Blessings

Cement Man · « **Reply #16 on:** July 18, 2009, 01:30:07 PM »

I enlisted in 1965 and in '66 and '67 we transported a lot of healthy and live young men to Viet Nam. We also brought back many broken bodies and KIA's. I thought the war was totally right and justified then. By 1968, after losing friends and seeing the way Johnson and McNamara and company conducted the war, I also started to wonder about the outcome. For instance in July '66 we received 692 wounded at Travis AFB, in February '68 after Tet, we received 9,299 wounded in one month! Should Cronkite not have reported or questioned these things? How do you think numbers of that magnitude would play today?? 10,523 caskets were received at Travis AFB in 1968 alone and South Viet Nam couldn't stand on its own any more than when we started. When Cronkite editorialized about the war and his doubts about winning it, he identified his remarks as such (an editorial). He did not normally opinionate in most of his reporting. I don't put him in the same category as what we have dominating the media today. I strongly disagreed with his personal politics and anti-gun opinions as he stated these things later in life, and I didn't like hearing what he said in his "editorial" in 1968, but I can't say he lost the war for us. Looking at the whole piece of history in a broader perspective, that would be an absurd conclusion IMO.
I have never accepted that we lost that war. Certainly our men and women that served there did not lose it. In hindsight, I wish that we had not been in it though.
I have never forgiven the Jane Fonda's and those who bad-mouthed our country during the war. They were cheerleaders for the enemy and very inspirational for the North Vietnamese. They were against our country. I don't believe Cronkite was.

rio grande · « **Reply #17 on:** July 18, 2009, 04:39:54 PM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on July 18, 2009, 04:18:09 AM

History is now saying he was the reason we lost the Vietnam war. He said after the Tet offensive that we had lost the war. In reality, the commies expended everything they had. Had we had a quick counter offensive, it would have been over. They also said if Nixon had bombed them two more weeks, they would have surrendered.

Do you really think Cronkite made those statements on his own, out of the blue? No way - he was undoubtedly following instructions from higher up.

williamlayton · « **Reply #18 on:** July 18, 2009, 05:28:27 PM »

I believe he spoke from his gut.
Blessings

torpedoman · « **Reply #19 on:** July 18, 2009, 05:45:45 PM »

Viet Nam was lost by Henry Cabot Lodge when he refused Ho Chi Mins request to help him reunite his country. Which was devided at a peace conference were the winner was not invited, He beat the french and threw them out ,then the U.S. Britian and france devided his country. Sorta like how it would have been if france, Spain, and Britian had devided up our country after Washington won the war.

alsaqr · « **Reply #20 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:58:50 AM »

Quote

Alot of money was made on that war...alot of money......TM7

+1

Politicians made an awful lot of money on the Vietnam war. BRJ was the Vietnam equivalent of Halliburton only on a much larger scale. Brown, Root and Johnson, as in Lyndon B. Johnson, owned that company. Brown and Root did not get the Johnson family out of all their companies until the late 80s or early 90s. Lady Bird hung in there after LBJ's death.

It is readily evident why Johnson, McNamara and the rest of those pukes had no interest in winning the war quickly. Then along came Nixon and Kissinger with more of the same. Finally Kissinger and Nixon threw the POWs and MIAs to the dogs and surrendered.

I gotta puke.

blind ear · « **Reply #21 on:** July 19, 2009, 07:03:55 AM »

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104399

williamlayton · « **Reply #22 on:** July 19, 2009, 10:17:58 AM »

Eddie
I distrust your source of information.
Some of it is blatantly wrong and others warp the truth.
Walter was a liberal, if you can call the then Conservative Democrat liberals. i think you will find that the Conservative democrat changed the face of the Republican party---see John Conally.
Blessings

nomosendero · « **Reply #23 on:** July 19, 2009, 10:35:59 AM »

The source of info I use is his own words & his words were those of a Lib & Anti-Gun period!!

blind ear · « **Reply #24 on:** July 19, 2009, 11:06:20 AM »

WilliamLayton: The end of the article at the link that I put up was pretty liberal and nutty I thought. It had a bunch of other links that I didn't look at. I wasn't forming any openion, just a link I read which I recieved it in an email right after I read this thread. eddiegjr

ironglow · « **Reply #25 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:35:47 AM »

I never had a great deal of trust in him. Always figured him to be out in left field, so I have to give him a thumbs down.

Questor · « **Reply #26 on:** July 20, 2009, 10:05:55 AM »

Worthy of note:

http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/cronkite/welcome.asp

DDZ · « **Reply #27 on:** July 20, 2009, 02:37:36 PM »

The way I see it W.C. defeated America on TV. He was the Viet Cong’s top media general on TV, and led offensives against our troops every night. The Tet offensive was actually a victory, but you would have never known it listening to Walter. He covered it as a huge loss, which fueled the anti war movement and its allies in Congress and Hollywood. People like Hanoi Jane. His coverage of Tet is what led to the shift of American public opinion against the war.
Later instead of just reporting the news in his constant lying manner he began delivering a bitter commentary against America’s war efforts. The left credits him with helping end the war. I believe he just helped lose it. In a way he has some of the blood on his hands from the thousands that died on the battle field.
Vietnam was the first American war shown on the nightly news, and Cronkite was the just lose it crowd’s commander in chief.
Just look at who idolized him. It was the liberal mainstream media. In many ways he is their Michael Jackson, minus the talent. Look at all the liars that have modeled themselves after him. They have spent decades on the TV news tearing and dumbing down America from within. Cronkite was no different than the communists you watch on news channels like MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS.

Questor · « **Reply #28 on:** July 20, 2009, 03:40:06 PM »

And let's not forget the daily video coverage of wounded American soldiers. Funny they never showed much about military victories.

There was no difference between Cronkite and the talking heads of today, except that Cronkite lucked out because society had a technological infatuation with all things television at the time.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #29 on:** July 20, 2009, 03:55:42 PM »

I remember watching cronkite in the 50's, I Didn't have any political views then. Cronkite lost me as a fan in the 2000 election debacle! I'm only sorry he lived longer than my Father, who was a better man and was never on TV!

Quote

Walt wasn't a leftist,

BS even if he had a nice sailboat and he sailed into your harbor he was a leftist and you continue to be full of it!