The Liberal View Of The Obama-Press Dance
By K. Daniel Glover | June 10, 2009
For the past four decades, Accuracy In Media has proven that liberal media bias is real, and it's spectacular. The public knows it exists; that's why their media loyalties have shifted over the years to news organizations that are more fair and balanced.
No matter how much evidence we provide, though, we don't expect liberals, especially liberals in the media, to believe a word we say. The question is whether they will believe a word their own like-minded and occasionally open-minded colleagues say.
The latest example (via Instapundit) is Phil Bronstein, the former executive vice president and editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. Citing recent fluff pieces by NBC and The New York Times, he ripped the liberal media to shreds for its fawning over President Obama in a column earlier this week.
Here are some of the best sound bites:
- "George Bush needed to be beer-bar likable to get elected. His successor has managed to get a lot of people to want to be liked by him."
- "This guy is good. Really good. And, frankly, so far, we're not."
- "The Obama-press dance is a more consensual seduction where, in the old-fashioned sense, we're the girl."
- "It's the early 1960s and Camelot all over again."
Bronstein isn't the first liberal to notice the fawning press coverage of Obama. The July issue of Vanity Fair includes an essay by Michael Wolff about how Obama's press team has tamed the liberal media (as if it needed taming) by manipulating the messages it sends through outlets as varied as the Times and Politico, The Huffington Post and "Inside Edition."
It's some perfect re-creation of a relationship between president and news media that has not been seen since the White House pressroom was a clubby place with reporters invited into the press secretary's office for whiskey and cigars. It's cozy. ... It is, curiously, a return to a time when the press was so much more dependent on the goodwill, and susceptible to the care and feeding, of the president.
It certainly helps, Wolff acknowledged, that Obama has "a press predisposed to him." "These people in this White House are in greater control of the media than any administration before them," he concluded. "The only thing is, they mustn't let on that they know it."
K. Daniel Glover is a project manager for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
74 Comments | Post a Comment
Pravda means the truth as dictated by the power elite. It should not be confused with a free press as existed in the United States years ago. Today we are being bombarded by a government run news media. If you find this impossible look at the ownership of the media and the connections to government contracts and loyalty. In the end the readership is way down and will drive the lackeys underground. My problem happens when I do not see a new news service coming from the internet. A real honest to God electronic newspaper. Not Drudge or others but a real paper nation wide with local content and advertisers. I hope it comes sooner rather than to late.
Re: Post 2;
For me, any political bias in the media is SECONDARY to what I believe is much more important: the unbelievable coarsening of our society and culture due to the crap presented in the so-called “entertainment media”, e.g., TV programming, movies, video games, certain kinds of music, magazines, schlock jock radio, the internet, and even print, video and audio advertisements.
Except for the “immediacy” element when such is necessary, such as in amber alerts, destructive weather warnings, etc., I really do not have anything “good” to say about any of today’s communications media. But, and in spite of the constant ragging on just the “liberal media bias”, there’s definitely a “media poison”, sufficiently biased, out there somewhere to suit every variety of political extremism, whether left-wing libertine, right-wing zealot, or any point in-between - PLUS various types of far-out media that cater to any socio-cultural and behavioral extremes and quirks that anyone can think of.
Generally, ALL the collective “media” are becoming some version or another of “The Jerry Springer Show”. People can choose a media outlet to suit whatever taste they happen to have - like cheap beer and flavored vodka.
No more “truth”; just “marketing” anything that sells for the sake of the bottomline.
If you don’t want to acknowledge the blatant left-wing medie bias that exists today (you’d be hooted out of the room if you tried to deny it), the next best thing is to say that ALL media is biased - kinda like camouflage.
The problem is that liberals in the media are doing a disservice to the public who are entitled to have an accurate picture of what’s going on.
Unfortunately, our constitution guarantees a free press, but not an ethical or accurate press.
C.Roy,
You could not get TK to admit the truth if you drove bamboo chutes under his fingernails, or water boarded him.
It’d be interesting to see how TK would wiggle around Letterman’s disgraceful comments about Gov. Palin and her daughter.
C.Roy, I would like to see him on any news program and explain the comment he made in post #4:
“For me, any political bias in the media is SECONDARY to what I believe is much more important: the unbelievable coarsening of our society and culture due to the crap presented in the so-called “entertainment media”, e.g., TV programming, movies, video games, certain kinds of music, magazines, schlock jock radio, the internet, and even print, video and audio advertisements.”
There is only one party in which Bias is overwhelming, the Republican Party. All Liberals get a pass.
Someone should put garden slugs in TK’s underwear and make him walk barefooted through a giant cat-box.
Re: Post 7;
First, I’m not and never have been a fan of Letterman.
Second, as with much of Pop Culture today, his comments about Palin and her kid were classless, unnecessary and boobish - and, like all motormouths, he was probably just reading material (WITHOUT first checking it) created for him by a bunch of 20-something and simple-minded geeks and nerds euphemistically known as “comedy writers”.
Third, I really think someone who is apparently considered a TV entertainment fixture would have to be a genuine a*****e to make those comments - and, likewise, I would think the same of anyone who thought they were funny or acceptable.
In fact, I think any “show business sort” who makes his or her living by regularly belittling or attacking someone else is an a*****e - which has been my four-decades-old opinion of Don Rickles - one of the popularizers of the genre.
Wesley, Post 6: “chutes” should be “shoots” - and we’ve already discussed “waterboarding” and my experience with it. And, if you don’t get my comments in my Post 4, then you’re either slower than I ever thought - or you’re just being purposely p***y. Either way, Ace, just stuff it!
C.Roy, Post 9: What the h**l are you talking about?
Re: post 5;
Your comment:
“...The problem is that liberals in the media are doing a disservice to the public who are entitled to have an accurate picture of what’s going on…”
And, conservatives in the media, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Coulter, Malkin, Levin, et. al. - they’re NOT “doing a disservice to the public who are entitled to have an accurate picture of what’s going on”?
You’re just as biased in favor of the right as are those who you’re criticizing for being biased in favor of the left.
From TK Post 10:
“Third, I really think someone who is apparently considered a TV entertainment fixture would have to be a genuine a*****e to make those comments.”
What, you do not watch the NFL, MLB, NBA, College Sports, Premium Movie Channels or any Movie channels, especially the old ones…the News?
I supposed that would make me “a genuine a*****e”, then so be it…
TK (post 10)- <<<“In fact, I think any “show business sort” who makes his or her living by regularly belittling or attacking someone else is an a*****e - which has been my four-decades-old opinion of Don Rickles - one of the popularizers of the genre.”>>>
Translation - Right-wing leaning comics make the same horrendous comments about children of Democrat politicians as Letterman did; so we should condemn them ALL, even though ‘right wing’ comics including Rickles, (assuming he is right wing) , in fact, never descend to that cruel level.
Nice try.
<<<“And, conservatives in the media, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Coulter, Malkin, Levin, et. al. - they’re NOT “doing a disservice to the public who are entitled to have an accurate picture of what’s going on”?>>>
As if TK doesn’t see the difference between the left-wing MSM outlets such as ABC, CBS, and NBC, who claim to give the public ‘objective news’, and political commentators such as Hannity who don’t hide their right-wing leanings from the public.
More deception; more feigned ignorance.
Re: Post 12;
Huh?
My comment was: “...Third, I really think someone who is apparently considered a TV entertainment fixture would have to be a genuine a*****e to make those comments - and, likewise, I would think the same of anyone who thought they were funny or acceptable…”
The “someone” I was referring to was clearly David Letterman.
And, your comment: “...What, you do not watch the NFL, MLB, NBA, College Sports, Premium Movie Channels or any Movie channels, especially the old ones…the News?...”
What the hell does your comment have to do with what I said above regarding Letterman?
This is just another of your frequent non compis mentis posts directed at me.
(But, for your edification, I do NOT watch the NFL, NBA, Premium Movie Channels or ANY movie channels - nor do I go to the movies. I do watch my local MLB team regularly - once in awhile a college basketball game - and I generally do not watch ABC, CBS, or NBC nightly news - nor any of the other mindnumbing network stuff generally presented on TV.)
Liberals do not have a comic as good as Dennis Miller (a card carrying Republican) for highly intelligent humor.
As for the Media, you left out the really stupid ones, any liberal on MSNBC and CNN, and most newspapers, many of which are now dying off. lol
Re: Post 13;
You’re getting as far out there as Wesley!
So - now I’m some kind of a bad guy because I, FIRST, condemn Letterman for his remarks about Palin and her kid - and, then - SECOND, because I reject ANYBODY who would make those kinds of remarks - LEFT OR RIGHT - and THIRD - because I use Don Rickles, who I have found offensive for 40+ years, as an example of a poor excuse for an “entertainer” who has made his living, under the cloak of “comedy”, belittling and attacking people exactly like Letterman attacked Palin???
And if you don’t think there are plenty of so-called “comedians” out there who are coarse, crude and foulmouthed and whose only claim to fame (and so-called “talent”) is trying to get laughs by attacking others - - then you’re definitely as UNaware as I’ve suspected all along. BUT - - YOU ARE CORRECT! I condemn ALL who do it - even those who you apparently think are funny!
And, although you may call Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Coulter, Malkin, Levin, et. al. “political commentators” (instead of Letterman-like “entertainers”) - - they ALL create their controversies (and their annual incomes) by personally attacking those with whom they do not politically agree - just as you right-wing ideologues insist Letterman did to Palin.
Your post here is almost as incomprehensible as is Wesley’s preceding. You two don’t make enough sense to fill half a thimble!
“Deception” and “Ignorance”? Two good names for you and Wesley? (Although, I kind of liked “Dim” and “Wit” - and then you two can fight over who gets which name - instead of bugging me like two well-past-their-primes mosquitos!)
Hey! How about - “Pip” and “Squeak”?
Everything I watch is recorded on my dual DVRs, I can watch a 3.5 hour football game in an hour. Even most women like the NFL.
The only time I see a game in it’s entirety is when I waste a Procrit shot and go the the game. I always try to get in the opponents side or group, but I am not fanatic about sports, just enjoy good games and strategies.
The best there is on Television are the History and the Military channels.
First of all, I appreciate the compliment to being put in the same post as republican, I was replying in post #15 was to republican, btw.
<Laughing> what a moroon…
Re: Posts 15, 17 and 18;
Posts 17 and 18 are completely unintelligible to me.
As for Post 15, Dennis Miller is AT LEAST equally as offensive in his name-calling and so-called “jokes” as was Letterman in his comments about Palin and her kid.
If you dig the way Miller name-calls and attacks people he disagrees with - you cannot complain about Letterman’s comments. And - Miller makes his living by endlessly ragging on whomever he perceives to be liberal; Letterman does FAR LESS of it against conservatives.
Anyway, you can put Miller in my a*****e category.
Don Rickles IS funny, you hockey puck! Al Franken is an example of third-rate comedians who make their names by attacking someone on the right. His election typifies the ballot-stuffing so common to democrats. The only thing funny about Franken is his face.
Re: Post 20;
If you think Rickles is funny - then it would seem you would also think Letterman’s jokes about Palin and her kid were also funny - since that kind of “humor” is EXACTLY what Rickles does.
Also - since you have no problem engaging in name-calling - I assume you don’t mind Letterman inferring that Palin was “slutty”, correct?
(By the way - is it “Roy” - or “Waaaaaaaaaa”? I mean, you know, with the hockey reference and all???)
I never heard Franken doing his schtick - but, apparently, you have and you don’t care for the man. If he does the Rickles thing or the Dennis Miller-type thing - I wouldn’t care for him either. But why would you bring up Franken in the first place?
Post 21:
TK, one has nothing to do with the other, Rickles and Miller do not make comments about Politicians young daughters, even N.O.W. and E.R.A. for Women even came to Palins support against Letterman. He has now made his third apology as the Women Rights Organizations are pressuring Letterman for a SERIOUS apology.
Letterman is not funny, and never has been, at least Miller and Rickles did their own comedy off the top of their heads, no scripts needed.
They have setup a boycott of Letterman’s advertisers, which finally got his attention. According to the news and reports, Letterman has finally made a somewhat more serious apology to Sarah Palin and her daughters due to the pressure. Letterman is just another Hit Man for the Left.
Now airline hostesses are also outraged for his “Slutty Flight Attendant” remark.
The Republican Party is now going to put their own “Fairness Doctrine” to force the Media to be fair on both Television news, Print Media and Hollywood shows/movies.
No one needs the Obama/Media to tell them what is best for them, do not forget obama and both Houses, work for the people who put them there, NOT the other way around…Obama seems to think that is his job is to save us from ourselves, which could not be further from the truth.
Even Judith Miller of the NYT has joined Fox News, she was fed up with all their lying and being one sided.
Re: Post 22;
Rickles wasn’t much into politics with his humor; his whole thing was to personally insult and demean people, often celebrities, generally.
Miller, on the other hand, can get carried away on a vile anti-liberal, anti-Democrat tirade to the point he’s spitting on the camera lens and looking like he’s having a seizure! Watch him on O’Reilly’s program. He can get extremely vile and offensive - and he routinely goes W-A-Y beyond what Letterman said while he’s dumping on various individuals with whom he disagrees.
As I’ve said, I’m not a Letterman fan - I’m against ANYONE making the kinds of comments he made about Palin and her kid (although I also clearly anti-Palin). BUT - the issue exemplifies how American social and cultural standards, as expressed in the entertainment media, have deteriorated over the last 25-30 years .
I never thought about it before - but, apparently, Americans HAVE needed someone or something to “save them from themselves” over the last two or three decades. Generally, the entertainment media appear to be way more guilty in bringing about our social and cultural decline than the political media - but political media on the internet are quickly catching up in the “balkanization” and lemming-like dumbing down of Americans.
Now, Now, children,,behave ,or you can’t play in the sand box during Recess. Remember one thing
about Modern Media Technology,,, K N O B S,,& I
do NOT mean the new girl at the office. All TV’s
and radios have them,, one turns it on & off,,the
other, OH MY GOD,,changes the STATION!!! Imagine
that. My wife hides the remote,lol,& at my age I can’t remember where I put it anyway,HA,to try to
keep me from NEWS OVERLOAD!!!
Re Post #21
Tears of sorrow and remorse stream down my face as I contemplate the distress I have caused you. Nevertheless, a hockey puck is a hockey puck.
If you really can’t see the difference between Rickles’ good-natured banter with Johnny Carson and other ADULTS, and Letterman’s screed, I question whether you really belong in this little debating society.
Maybe you ought to head on over to MoveOn.org with all the other pretentious liberals.
ABC the (All Barack Channel) will be airing an special about Obama’s Health Care program, who will be left out of the reporting? Any Republicans or Critics of the Universal Health Care program. Obama told the AMA that people can keep their current private or employer Health Care, what he did not mention is that they would be taxed heavily for keeping those plans, as it was explained, he needs everyone in America to be in the Universal Health Care to make it viable to pay for illegals. We are going to adopt Canada’s form of Health Care, you know the one in which you wait 6 to 8 weeks to see a doctor, if you need surgery, it takes up to 4 to 6 months before you can have the procedure. Obama’s plan also eliminates most all tests, such as X-Rays, CT Scans, and MRI’s. Canada’s doctors report that approximately 1,250 people die waiting for care, which is why so many per year cross into the US to get serious procedures, and get them the next day after seeing a Doctor normally, or if they need extensive tests, then it may take up to three days. That will now go away if passed.
Speaking of Health Care, Obama has just announced along with a memo which says that the House and Senate, all White House workers will be exempt from Universal Health care, and can keep their current Health Care plans, without penalties, unlike you and I. The Heath care bill is 22,000 pages, can you trust them to read all of the bill? They didn’t have the chance to read the Stimulus Bill, it was over 60,000 pages and were given 48 hours to read it, understand that when a bill is proposed, it isn’t black and white, on each page, several HR’s have to be looked up to see what the language actually means.
On another note, Dems in Congress killed the Amendment for an Investigation against Pelosi vs. the CIA. She has lied to Congress, which could very well get her kicked out.
Re: Post 25;
No distress, Roy (or Waaaa). Just a chuckle at a childish phrase that I never heard again after I left junior high school! (How old are you, anyway?)
Regarding Don Rickles: from the first time I ever saw/heard him, some forty years ago, my reaction was and has been since - “This is supposed to be “talent”? This is supposed to be “funny”?”
For those forty years, I have found Don Rickles to be an untalented, obnoxious and offensive lout. And, as stupid as I think Letterman was for even bothering to insult Palin and her kid, what Letterman said was CLASSIC RICKLES! Obnoxious, offensive and loutish.
BUT ... YOU THINK all good GOPs and so-called “conservatives” should support the piggish, so-called comedy of Don Rickles ... while condemning Letterman for doing the same thing?
Garden-variety hypocrisy of rockheaded right-wingers???
Re: Post 26;
Your comment:
“...On another note, Dems in Congress killed the Amendment for an Investigation against Pelosi vs. the CIA. She has lied to Congress, which could very well get her kicked out…”
Stop beating a dead horse, WID.
(Besides - what does this have to do with the article leading off this thread?)
Do you REALLY think a Democratic Congress would actually approve a Republican measure to investigate the Democratic Speaker of the House?
Do you REALLY think ONLY YOU have incontrovertible evidence that “Pelosi lied to Congress”? It may be your “opinion” that she “lied to Congress” - - but you have NO INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE that she actually did - nor, apparently, do the GOPs in Congress or in the RNC. So, stop making declaratory statements as if they are “THE TRUTH” - unless you are actually reporting the truth - which you are not in this matter.
And, at this point in time, in the real world, there really are insufficient DETAILS publically available of Obama’s health care plan for ANYONE to form an educated, fair and balanced opinion on it - and - as of today - there have been more than 300 amendments made to it as it is being reviewed in Congress - and NO ONE knows what amendments will live, which will die, and what the final plan will look like. So, stop your “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” routine. Try a little rationality and reasonableness.
<smirk> Post 27,
Are you still on the Don Rickles rant, just let it go. Know what the difference is between you and Rickles? Rickles was funny…Letterman is a blooming idiot.
What is not funny is that now that Obama has stomped on and shredded our Constitution, we may as well have a Coroner put a toe tag on the document.
I also believe the Mainstream Media and Obama need to get a room, they love him so much it gets in the way of the truth, as if they have ever been truthful.
Obama has already screwed anyone who TRUELY cares about the United States of America and it’s Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Be damned with Civil Rights, just be Civil.
If you do not read anything else, please read this letter sent to our entire Government and copied Glenn Beck, it mirrors much of how I believe:
TK Post 28:
Panetta, Director of the CIA wanted to take her on, but Obama put a stop to it immediately!
You can have her, she must be your kind of woman, if that is what she is…
Hey, go easy on old “Stretch”. She wrote a book that sold HUNDREDS of copies.
Hmmmm, interseting poll by Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
Re: Post 29;
WID, if I had to listen to either Rickles (now, in his prime, or anywhere in between) or Letterman for an hour - I’d choose Letterman - although - I am no fan of Letterman. However, Rickles is obnoxious and offensive 100% of the time; Letterman is not.
I checked your Beck link - but ended up on a page showing several of 3,606 articles available! I found nothing specifically about a “letter”. (???)
Re: Post 30;
WID, I told you long ago I did not care for Pelosi, politically or personally. In fact, my opinion all along has been that if Obama allows himself to be dictated to by the far left - including Pelosi and Reid - he won’t be re-elected in 2012 (unless, of course, the GOPs insist on banging their own far-right fringe drum in response!)
Frankly, I believe Pelosi’s outburst (which is now old news) cost her some followers among DEMs in Congress - and I do believe Obama, himself, has dropped her down a notch or two. I think the Panetta response was a definitive sign by the administration of that “reduction in importance” of Pelosi.
Re: Post 32;
WID, I was already aware of the survey and its findings.
BUT - here’s the rub:
I like to call myself a “Traditionalist” (because I HATE the “conservative” and “liberal” LABELS - and I DON’T BELIEVE that ALL GOPs are “Traditionalist” - nor do I believe THERE ARE NO “Traditionalists” among the DEMs) - but, I KNOW I am MORE CONSERVATIVE on many issues than are many, if not most, of that 40% calling themselves “conservative”.
However, if I had to personally respond to the survey, I would probably respond as a “moderate” (i.e., “opposed to extremes”) or even as “conservative” (and there ARE conservative DEMs, too!). BUT committed ideological “conservatives” such as yourself - would NEVER accept me as a conservative - because I absolutely would NOT be ideological about it! I would ALWAYS avoid the extreme position on most issues (except, maybe, illegal immigration) - and would look for sensible, practical moderation on most issues! (Which - if you leave out his extremist militarism - was, I believe, what Barry Goldwater was looking for!)
In any event - that 40% who call themselves “conservative” are NOT necessarily partisan GOPs.
(And, of course, today, everybody has their own definition of “conservative” and “liberal”.)
Post 33:
TK try this link for the letter.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/26742/?ck=1
I emailed it to myself and it does work.
Re: Post 36;
The new link worked!
All-in-all, while I do not agree with everything in it, “The Letter” was pretty good - especially in stating neither political party is capable of getting the job done - and in being pro-“Independent”.
In terms of a simplified response to complex issues:
I fully agree with the letter on the illegal immigration issue; I’m not sure about TARP - but only time will tell if shoring-up Wall Street financial services firms helped prevent an even more serious economic calamity.
I think “czars” are merely administration-employed “liaison people”, “expediters” or “administration lobbyists and PR people”; I believe the cap and trade concept “might” be a workable concept - but only implementation will tell.
I’m for greater states’ rights - but as with enforcing immigration laws - I do believe the federal government should also stringently enforce all existing regulations governing Big Business ( which was not being done in recent years); I believe ACORN is essentially an activist and lobbying organization ostensibly serving the needs of poor urban blacks and other poor and/or udner-employed minorities - just as The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and local chambers of commerce are activist and lobbying groups serving the needs of big business - and, should ACORN (or any other organization) be demonstrably breaking any laws, it should be prosecuted - I don’t think ACORN is very significant in the overall scheme of things.
Regarding a supposed “redistribution of wealth”, I certainly don’t see it occurring in Marxist terms nor in any other significant way - and I see nothing wrong with the super-wealthy and the most highly profitable, near-monopolistic corporations like Big Oil, being required tp pay higher taxes.
I really didn’t get what the letter-writer’s point was in terms of “charity” or charitable giving.
Generally, I would be against routine or special-interest corporate bailouts, however, if the failure of a big business is going to certainly and directly impact (screw) millions of consumers and hundred of thousands of employees - I believe the government should step in to “protect the general welfare”.
As far as the letter-writer’s comment on “quick spending” goes, if one is an economic Keynesian, which, of course, most Democrats are (excepting, I guess, conservative/Blue Dog Democrats) quick government spending, according to Keynes, is the first and foremost step in slowing down or stopping a recessionary event - and it does seem to have worked in the past - and it only happens with the advice, counsel, and approval of Congress .
BUT, note - in this case, “corporate bailouts” (TARP) and “quick spending” (shoring up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, salvaging Bear-Stearns and Lehmann Brothers, AIG, and developing and getting congressional approval of TARP) to reverse recessionary occurrences were begun in March, 2008, by the Bush administration and continued right up to the Obama inauguration in January, 2009, - so the letter-writer, if attributing all of these anti-recessionary/bailout steps to the Obama administration, is simply wrong.
And, of course, the interpretation of and the protection and upholding of the principles contained in the Constitution represent the specific responsibilities of the Supreme Court - although, of course, all sworn government officials are required to uphold the constitution - although their ways of accomplishing that are often subject to Supreme Court interpretation.
So, the letter contains some legitimate concerns - but also some misunderstandings. In any event, with but a couple of exceptions, the items mentioned are generally far too complex to be easily resolved in terms of partisan talking points or purely partisan platform planks.
(Note: You know my feelings about alcohol abusers - and Beck is an admitted alcoholic - so, I’m not totally in tune with him from the get-go. BUT, I did occasionally catch his act while he was on CNN - and, back then, he most often sounded lucid and fairly reasonable. HOWEVER, since he moved to Fox News, his extremism has increased by multiple factors - and he often sounds like he’s in the middle of some kind of psycho-emotional breakdown - or severe alcohol addling! To me, he’s lost his former lucidity and reasonableness - and he definitely seems to have become a “sky is falling” sort. I prefer Lou Dobbs’ take on things - and I often find agreement with the commentary of Pat Buchanan.)
Post 37:
You actually have a problem with recovering alcoholics? You just insulted 36 Million people in the US alone. I actually admire people who can beat any kind of addition, that was an extremely callous thing to say about anyone.
Alcohol is every bit as difficult as a junkie to get clean, in fact I hired many recovering alcoholics to give them a chance when no one else would, and of course one out of 50 will fall off, but it is better to give them a working chance with a new life, than to let them wilt away with no hope.
I had an uncle who was a pure died in the wool alcoholic, we paid to get him into a program (a Hospital for Drug Abusers and alcoholics in Ft. Worth, TX. and was clean and sober for over 50 years till he died of natural causes.
Shameful of you…
He is a real life Howard Beale, as portrayed in the film Network released in 1976.
After 9/11 he began the 9/12 Project:
His Nine Principles are:
1. America Is Good
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday
4. the family is sacred
5. if you break the law you pay the penalty
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with whom I want to
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion
9. the government works for me — I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
His Twelve Values are:
1. Honesty
2. Reverence
3. Hope
4. Thrift
5. Humility
6. Charity
7. Sincerity
8. Moderation
9. Hard work
10. Courage
11. Personal responsibility
12. Gratitude
He is not a Republican, Democrat, not even an Independent, he is a Libertarian.
Beck does his Television show, three hours of radio, and has a comedy tour every year, has written four books, which have gone to the NYT’s #1 Best seller list.
Also does 15 to 20 speaking engagements per year for Charity.
Have you accomplished anything near that?
Re: Post 38;
Yes, I have a B-I-G problem with alcoholics - and so-called “recovering” alcoholics (recidivism) - and all other substance abusers and supposedly “recovering” substance abusers and/or addicts.
I would be extremely reluctant to hire any of them for any job whatsoever - ESPECIALLY some kind of critical job - and I sure would not VOTE for one for ANY office.
I have used drug and alcohol testing (including repetitive random testing) - and driving records review - for years and years as a regular part of any hiring that I’ve done.
And, of course, along the way, I’ve been both acquainted with and related to alcoholics.
The issues with me in this regard are “credibility”, “reliability” and “trust”.
I feel much the same about people who cheat on their spouses.
You don’t like Democrats; I don’t like substance abusers and cheaters.
(I’ve told you before that I’m W-A-Y more “conservative” than you are on MANY issues!)
Did you vote for Clinton, he is an recovering alcoholic, and had cirrhosis of the liver, which is why he always has a red face, those are blood vessels, and his inability to gain weight. Just as Ted Kennedy
As for a cheating (as with a spouse) I believe they should reenact the Crime of Passion clause. As for people who just plain cheat at anything, I have no use for any of them.
I still believe you can be that unforgiving, if I give them a chance, and they let me down, then I am done with them, one showed up drunk at 7:30am, I called AA to come and get him, then had Security escort him off the premises, and hold him till he was picked up. He left before they go there, I have no sympathy when you try and help, and they refuse the help themselves.
Lemme do a brief summary on this pretentious hockey puck.( A complete summary would require re-reading all his long-winded bloviations - a cruel and unusual punishment).
He places himself rather above libs and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans - in fact above just about everybody else.
He prefers Letterman above Rickles.
He’s OK with taxing the “rich” even more than they are now.
He’s OK with taxing “big oil” even more. (Gov’t. takes more in taxes per barrel of oil than “big oil” makes in net profit.)
Considers himself superior to recovering alcoholics.
WID, if you want to continue to debate with this refugee from the laughing academy, be my guest, but I KNOW you have better things to do with your time.
Post 41:
Correct again…pick out a word in this sentence which best describes him. “Be careful while handling roses, try not to get a prick.
Re: Post 40;
Not that it’s any of your damned business - but, in fact, I voted for Perot in ‘92 and ‘96.
There is NO public record of Clinton being an alcoholic nor having cirrhosis of the liver.
I am NOT forgiving.
Re: Post 41;
Politically-speaking, I DO consider myself superior to extremist, ideological, nutcase EXTREMISTS - whether on the left nutcase fringe or the right nutcase fringe. And, I wouldn’t allow myself to beceome a card-carrying “Republican” or “Democrat” because I believe BOTH parties are corrupt - and, as currently-constituted, suck.
I said: If someone made me choose to listen to Rickles or letterman for an hour, I would most certainly choose Letterman. Rickles is a piss-poor example of “talent” - and he is obnoxious and offensive on every level.
If some CEO or some professional sports thug is being paid 10-20-30-40-50 million dollars annually - I could care less if they were taxed at 50% or 70% or whatever!
You’re full of crap in terms of your “taxing big oil” comment. And, personally, I couldn’t care less even if your statement was correct!
And, ANYONE who is NOT an alcoholic - in very, very many ways - IS superior to an alcoholic. (Would you want a “recovering alcoholic” neurosurgeon to be the one operating on your cancerous brain tumor?)
You’re just an extremist ideologue who will argue to the death with anyone who doesn’t go along with your way of thinking.
Re: Post 42 and 43;
Frankly, boys, I’d rather be known as a prick rather than a non-thinking, parrot-headed, candyass!
I’ll take WID’s comment and Waaaa’s “Amen” as complimentary.
Of course there is not a public record, you cannot see his medical records. But there were reports from the hospital leaked several years ago who told the story.
The official documents were leaked to Fox News, Clinton got a court order against Fox for showing them. Fox fought the case and won. Then Clinton took it to the court of appeals (democrat judge), Fox was told to no longer show the document and destroy them (which they did) but the damage was done. He then launched an investigation into who all had accessed his records, five hospital employees were fired.
You can be like the MSM and deny all you want, but millions saw them in close up shots on Fox.
TK Post #45:
In one post you manage to discriminate against people who have beat alcoholism, which is officially considered a diseases.
You consider yourself superior to others.
You have shown you believe in income redistribution of wealth.
Your comment; “You’re just an extremist ideologue who will argue to the death with anyone who doesn’t go along with your way of thinking.”
**You just projected your opinion of yourself onto someone else.
TK post #46;
A wonderful description of yourself, all four points you made in your first sentence fully described yourself.
You need to get over yourself, and your self righteous views.
Re: Post 47;
You and your hallucinations.
Plus, I told you: I did not vote for Clinton - nor am I a fan of his beyond these facts: he did manage four of eight balanced budgets; he did make payments on the national debt; he left a $300 billion surplus to Bush 43; he seemed to be much more intelligent and politically-adept than most presidents of my lifetime; and, I DEFINITELY would have preferred another eight years of Clinton to eight years of Bush 43.
(And, the only thing I’m denying, WID, are your personal hallucinatory proclamations and your parrotings of the halucinatory websites you use as your “unbiased” “authorities”. You’re just an ideologue gone to the extreme.)
Re: Post 48;
More hallucinations?
In my opinion, once an addictive substance abuser, always an addictive substance abuser - and anyone claiming to be on he wagon can fall off at any given moment. So - call me an antisubstanceabuserphobe if you choose. I would not vote for nor hire an alcohol addict nor a controlled substance addict.
Your comment:
“...You consider yourself superior to others…”
Definitely superior to, for example, addicts, cheaters, pornographers, burglars, sexual offenders and predators, murderers, illiterates, traitors, etc. Don’t you also feel superior to a crowd like that?
Your comment:
“...You have shown you believe in income redistribution of wealth…”
Hey, if some CEO is (ridiculously) being paid $50 million annually - I could couldn’t care less if the IRS taxed him/her to the tune of 70% ($35 million) and distributed that $35 million among needy children, needy seniors, cancer research, demonstrably worthy charities - or some such worthy cause. Anyone would have to be a nut to object to that! (Think anyone “needs” an annual income above $15 million, WID?)
And - in case you’ve long ago forgotten - this thread was supposed to be about Obama and the press - NOT about me!
(Note: Your “self righteous” criticism sounds like the whine of a REAL left-winger, WID! However, I really don’t mind you calling me a prick OR self-rightous - although - I think these are pretty common pejoratives thrown by left-wingers against right-wingers, aren’t they! I’ve told you before, I’m probably MUCH more “conservative” in a lot of ways than you are - and, now, you’re finding that dislikeable, too?)
Goofy.
Yada, Yada, Yada…
If Clinton turned over a balanced budget and a surplus, please explain why he had a recession when he left office. Explanation of a recession = two consecutive quarters of negative growth (affecting the GDP)
Post 50:
I noticed you signed your post with the name Goofy, it fits you. What you are saying about your conservatism, is actually liberalism. Do you not understand what you say? It has become very clear that you do not realize just how transparent your words are, everyone else sees right through you.
Consider me a Duck, and you are the water rolling off of me…
Re: Post 51:
“Goofy” sure wasn’t a “signature”, WID. If you have any comprehension at all, you would have understood it was simply a “final word” on your Post 48, on which I is was commenting.
If you don’t know that Clinton had four consecutive balanced budgets in his second term - paid down some national debt during three of those years - and left Bushleaguer a $300 billion budgetary cash surplus - - - that’s what I would have expected from a parroting, anti-Clinton ideologue. Go check it out.
And - the so-called “dotcom” stocks crash occurred beginning in the late summer of 2000 - and had absolutely NOTHING to do with Clinton or the federal budget. It was the result of mindless and unsupportable Wall Street speculation in the so-called dotcom stocks - a speculative bubble that suddenly broke just as the recent real estate bubble broke. Go check it out.
And, WID, it’s V-E-R-Y obvious: NOTHING is EVER “transparent” to you.
And - frankly - I don’t care about what “everyone else sees”( not, of course, that you would have any empirical knowledge about what “everyone else sees”).
Only those who can’t think for themselves and have some kind of dependency on gaining the approval and acceptance of others would worry about what “everyone else sees”. If I gave a damn about something like that, WID, I’d be a lemming (or a dittohead) like most ideologically-trapped partisans.
And, I’m definitely NOT claiming to be a “Conservative” - with a capital “C”. I am a life-long “Independent” - with a capital “I” - I am very much a traditionalist - with a small “t” - and I said that on M-A-N-Y issues, I am very probably MUCH more “conservative” than you - with a small “c”.
In your lexicon, however, EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY not in accordance with your fractured perspective ends up being labeled, one way or another, with your “liberalism” tag.
It’s equally ridiculous that you get obsessed with me rather than the topic at hand.
And, if you want me to consider you a duck - fine!
Quack, quack to you, you old quackpot!
TK: <laughing> YOU signed the post as “Goofy” it was not in a sentence nor at the end of a sentence. When you sign an email, where do you put it?
Dot-com bubble:
The “dot-com bubble” was a speculative bubble covering roughly 1995–2000 (with a climax in March of 2000) during which stock markets in Western nations saw their value increase rapidly from growth in the new Internet sector and related fields. The period was marked by the founding (and, in many cases, spectacular failure) of a group of new Internet-based companies commonly referred to as dot-coms. A combination of rapidly increasing stock prices, individual speculation in stocks, and widely available venture capital created an exuberant environment in which many of these businesses dismissed standard business models, focusing on increasing market share at the expense of the bottom line.
The venture capitalists saw record-setting rises in stock valuation of these and other similar companies, and therefore moved faster and with less caution than usual, choosing to hedge the risk by starting many contenders and letting the market decide which would succeed. The low interest rates in 1998–99 helped increase the start-up capital amounts. Although a number of these new entrepreneurs had realistic plans and administrative ability, most of them lacked these characteristics but were able to sell their ideas to investors because of the novelty of the dot-com concept.
There is no way in hell you can blame Bush for the Burst on something which was created during the middle of Clinton’s eight years.
As noted above, the bubble burst in March of 2000, Bush had not even been in office a 100 days yet.
Yet under Bush 43, new market highs were set in the DOW at 14198.10 10/11/07, and a Record in the S&P, as for the NASDAQ it finally got it back to where it was in 2006/2007 at 5132.52.
One of the many things which separate you and I, is I do not mock or call you names.
Although I feel you are unable to become a steady person. Speaking of transparency, you are on par with the prez you voted for.
I must say, your post are funny and entertaining, but lack substance.
Re: Post 53;
Whatever floats your boat, WID.
And, this is not an e-mail that I’m sending to someone - so, once and for all, stop making your incessant and always erroneous assumptions!
With regard to the dotcom bust, I didn’t blame Bushleaguer for anything, WID.
I simply made the point that Clinton budgetary processes or successes MOST CERTAINLY had NOTHING to do with the dotcom bust or any recessionary period that might have followed. YOU BLAMED the thing on CLINTON - and my point was that Clinton had NOTHING to do with it. Simple. Got that?
BUT - this current economic disaster is certainly ALL Bush 43’s responsibility - although it was in the making since Reagan’s years.
And your statement:
“...Yet under Bush 43, new market highs were set in the DOW at 14198.10 10/11/07, and a Record in the S&P, as for the NASDAQ it finally got it back to where it was in 2006/2007 at 5132.52…”
Yeah, so what does that all mean to all the average working stiffs in this country - - and if that was relevant to some grand set of Bush 43 economic policies - WHAT HAPPENED ??? I mean - it ALL CRASHED ON BUSH 43’s WATCH, didn’t it?
Your statement:
“...One of the many things which separate you and I, is I do not mock ...”
You gotta’ be kiddin’! That’s ALL you do! (Go read the posts, WID!)
Your statement:
“...Although I feel you are unable to become a steady person…”
??? A “goofy” statement.
Your statement:
“...you are on par with the prez you voted for…”
I didn’t vote for Obama. I voted a write-in - because I absolutely could NOT-would NOT willingly vote for Palin - under ANY circumstances whatsoever!
All-in-all, I thought ALL the candidates on both sides in the 2008 election comprised a pretty motley crew. (Which is one reason why I think BOTH political parties suck - they don’t usually present appropriate candidates!)
IF I HAD TO vote for one of the GOPs, I would have voted for Ron Paul. IF I HAD TO vote for one of the DEMs, I would have voted for Clinton.
Your statement:
“...I must say, your post are funny and entertaining, but lack substance…”
Well, now I guess you think of me in the same way you think of Don Rickles! (God! What a mock! I’d definitely prefer to be thought of as David Letterman! I’m crushed.)
Say hey, WID! Gotta’ go. This is boring.
Goofy Post 54:
The two paragraphs under “Dot-com bubble” came from Bloomberg.
Please show me where I “blamed” Klinton? You will not find it, because I didn’t say it, now did I?
You KNOW what caused the economic crash, it was the Banking and Mortgage Committee in Congress which began under the Carter Administration (during the 1970’s) with hundreds of thousands of Sub-Prime Mortgages to date. The ONLY times it was regulated is when a Republican Senate was in power, then re-done when the Dems were in control of the Senate. It is inherent in their DNA, they just cannot help themselves to over extend to other races (to get them to vote Dem) who cannot even make a car payment, but the give them a home, Affirmative Action, Race Crimes (often misused), going overboard on entitlements, forgiving international debts.
Obama spending 4x what Bush spent in eight years, there are now 21 czars with a real possibility of ending with over 30 czars…not elected, do not answer to either House, but only to Obama.
Re: Posts 55 and 56;
As I said, “boring”!
You’re just a total anti-liberal, anti-Democrat ideologue in obsessive-compulsive attack mode - often fixated on the messenger instead of the message - and often sounding like a Summa Cum Laude graduate of the Norm Crosby School of Discourse.
And, a final point: this crash was caused by the endless greed of run amok financial services firms on Wall Street trading (with unregulated 40-1 leverage) in mortgage-related derivatives ostensibly insured through credit default swaps by an insurance firm with not nearly the reserves necessary to actually be able to make good on the $5.5 TRILLION worth of securitized mortgage debt it rapidly and readily insured at a price - - compounded by a Republican administration and Federal Reserve Board loathe to engage in any regulation whatsoever of the extremely risky processes involved, falsely (and ideologically) believing that Wall Street and the free market would “police themselves” in that regard.
Period.
(And - not if I see you first!)
Of course he is going to get media attention, he is the President, and the first African American one. I would much rather see him then hear any more of Bush’s stupid comments or incorrect statements.
Post 59:
tk, you need to stop watching MSNBC, Matthews worked for the most ineffective President (Carter)we ever had, and I am sure Olbermann is your hero.
I voted for McCain, a real hero. As for Black Presidents, had J.C. Watts ran, he would have gotten my vote without question, a good an honest man, the difference is, Watts would not have broken his campaign promises, and we would already be on the way to recovery. Not to mention he would not had to bankrupt our country.
It took obama longer than any president I can remember to fill his cabinet, but with eight tax cheats, and the AZ. Governor being investigated, which he may end up in prison.
I was disappointed in Bush after 2006, and the Republicans for spending like democrats, shame on them for doing so.
I have to agree with “muffin9129”: I would much rather see the Obama-donna Incarnate than listen to him. As for for stupid and/or untrue statements, try old “Plugs” Biden. He outdoes “BO” by a mile!
What a pity that our first African-American president couldn’t have been someone like Clarence Thomas, J.C. Watts, Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, or Walter Williams. Sure would’ve been better for the country than a Chicago thug from the Daley political machine!
C.Roy POst62:
Could not agree more.
Obama had the chance to show something to Americans and the world, and blew it over idealism.
Perhaps Orwell was onto something when he wrote Animal Farm, which is about dystopia, and 1984, both of those books are now flying off the selves some 64 years after being written.
Not to mention we have a Media (such as the New York *Pravda and other papers) which would at least tell a some truth. It’s almost as though we have many news channels *mainstream*, which seem to be State Run.
*Actually, regarding the USA, Pravda is actually more accurate than any newspaper (in the mainstream) we get here in the US. I was surprised by Pravda were the first to warn the US of what was to come, having been there themselves.
A little good news, Card Check bill was eliminated by the Senate, being pushed by Republicans and Union workers as unlawful. It would allow Union Representatives to oversee your votes.
I have been studying economic charts going back to 1920 to current, as well as Global Temperatures. What I have found is, growth and GDP over four years or more, was actually Bush 43 during the years of 2002 through mid 2006, till the democrats won the majority of both Houses. He raised the yearly income (or lack of) from $9,500 to $20,000, but eliminated, these taxes; Death Tax, Inheritance Tax, the Marriage Penalty (there were others), these penalties are in direct conflict of Americans Rights. All these are coming back, now heartless is it to lose a loved one. Before you have time to grieve, the Government comes in and takes away a large enough of your inheritance, which could cause you to sell off assets just to pay the taxes. It is noting short of inhumane.
Re: Post 60;
You have no idea what I “watch” - and you have less of an idea of who I would consider a “hero”. And, I’ve never mentioned Matthews or Olbermann here.
You continue to make silly and unsupportable assumptions and then launch into some kind of stream-of-consiousness incoherencies.
Not that it’s your business, but I did NOT vote for McCain (nor did I vote for Obama - I cast a write-in vote) simply because he selected an ill-prepared Palin for his running mate. Had he picked Charlie Crist or Colin Powell - I likely would have voted for him.
If I was told I HAD to select a black man to be a presidential candidate in the last election, I would have selected Colin Powell - and I would have been happy to see HIM as the first African-American President!
And, if you seriously believe that “tax cheats” and people worthy of “investigations” are limited to Democrats, then you’re definitely every bit as full of hot air as I believe you are.
(And, keep in mind: Even right-wing GOP fave Gov. Sarah Palin has been under investigation on fifteen different charges over the past year-plus. “Stupid”, “cheat”, “crook”, “adulterer”, etc., certainly do not favor one political party or perspective over the other! There are plenty of bums, numbnuts and losers in BOTH major parties to go around.)
As for Palin, she paid over $500,000 in attorney fees, only to be found innocent of the first 13, the last two were thrown out and the Judge threatened the those filling suit to be frivolous and reported them to the Bar Association.
You should get your facts correct before you make yourself look an idiot…as I said before…research, research, research.
You are just dead wrong on everything else, I need not reply. Please, I am begging you to get some professional help.
Re: Post 65;
There were originally 15 charges against Palin; she has been ‘cleared’, as you put it, on TWELVE of those charges - and, obviously, THREE are still PENDING. HENCE - “Palin is being investigated.”
NEVERTHELESS - the point was - YOU SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT GOPs, AS WELL AS DEMs, ARE ALSO CHEATERS, LIARS, BUMS, NUMBNUTS, CROOKS AND LOSERS of varying sorts. You claimed the “AZ Gov. is being investigated” - and all I said was that the right-wing GOP-darling “Palin was ALSO BEING INVESTIGATED”.
Get it??? Probably not.
Post 66:
Name the other Three Suits “Pending”
In fact, name the all the people who brought the Suits, I think you will find many were filed by ordinary citizens or Citizen Funded Groups.
Then I want you to tell me you think all the unnecessary attacks on her and her children were fair had it been your family.
Don’t expect that whithead, the hockey puck (also known as Mr. Apostrophe), to be fair, responsive, or responsible. Liberals are terrified that Palin will catch on with the majority of the electorate before the next election. Too bad the so-called MSM doesn’t have the balls to subect the Big BO to the same level of scrutiny.
BTW, didn’t we just have the 40th anniversary of Ted “the swimmer” Kennedy’s manly frolic at Chapaquiddick? Can you believe that neither the WaPo or the New York Slimes mentioned the fact?
Ah well, Diane, we need you back.
I remember that incident well, almost everyone in the world, including US democrats that Teddy would end up in jail or prison.
He waited more than a day to report the accident…failure to report an auto accident, failure to report a death.
He was charged at the time, but a couple of weeks later, pressure to drop the charges worked.
He made no attempt to save Mary Jo, in only six feet of water…Involuntary Man Slaughter at least.
He lied to the Police…Obstruction of Justice.
Must be nice to be a family member of the KKK (Kennedy Kriminal Klan).
Re: Post 67;
“Suits”?
The proper word is probably “complaints” (made to the state legislature of Alaska) - rather than “suits”.
And who would you expect to file those fifteen complaints other than “ordinary citizens” or “Citizen Funded Groups” in Alaska?
(You claim to be a ‘master researcher’ - with nothing better to do all day - so I would guess you should be able to find a ‘link’ to further relevant detailed information on your own.)
The definitions and interpretations of “unnecessary”, “attacks” and “fair” are in the minds of the beholder.
Electioneering smearing, especially following the Bush 43 attacks on McCain, as I recall, in North Carolina, years ago (with such smear tactics continuing in succeeding elections), has reached new lows - so - today - if someone CHOOSES to enter into that electioneering arena - they should know what to expect and how to deal with it.
(No one in my family has recently and directly engaged in smear-based electioneering, so your question of how I would react is moot.)
Personally, I told you long ago I believed Palin was woefully unprepared for the vice-presidency (or ANY major political office) - that I did not vote for McCain SOLELY because he selected Palin (as opposed to Crist or Powell) as his running mate - and that I thought, at best, Palin would probably make a very good cheerleading coach at some podunk Alaskan high school.
To reiterate: YOU chastised the DEM AZ Gov. for “being investigated” - and all I said in return - you know, being “fair and balanced” - was that the GOP AK Gov. was also the subject of “investigations”. Period. GOPs get “investigated” as frequently as do DEMs.
(Personally, I could not care less about Sarah Palin - or her past or her future. As far as I’m concerned EVERY politician in BOTH parties is defective and/or corrupted to one degree or another - and she’s certainly in that group.)
P.S.
At times, the Hockey Schmuck and you appear to be descendants of the REAL KKK.
There is a current investigation going on as we speak, into who exactly funded the citizens who filed false charges, each of the first 13 were Summery Judgments…you know what that means? the person who has filed the lawsuits failed to meet the requirements for a charge to be admitted and set for trial.
Post 67:
Re: Palin’s lawsuits
The attorney’s kept using tactics to stall the court, which is why they cost so much. Those were not actually won as much as Dismissed for lack of any evidence, only a claim as it turned out.
When a lawsuit is filed, it is held in the District Court in the city where it was filed.
We know that four came from Chicago, five in Alaska, four in Michigan, are where the first 13 were filed.
So far there is evidence that the money came from George Soros, and/or the DNC. They have also found the money was funneled through shell companies, which will make it more difficult to find them, in which they paid the lawyers in cash.
The Absolute fact is, these people who filed the charges did not have that kind of money. It also shows that four of those who filed, Palin’s attorney put them on the stand to ask a single question, “Your finances show you do not have the capital to pay the very high price attorney, so where did the money come from to hire your lawyers”. Refusing to answer, the Judge held them in Contempt of court, they are still setting in jail until the question is answered. In Contempt, there is no bail.
I will post links when you post the ones I have asked for, and not before.
Re: Post 71;
Wesley, I don’t give a damn who filed complaints about Palin. My point simply was that you made a point of ragging on a DEM governor who is being investigated - and, in the interest of being fair and balanced - I pointed out that Palin was being investigated. Period. End.
(Note that the former GOP governor of Connecticut was recently released from PRISON - after “investigations” and “prosecution” and “guilty verdict” and “serving his sentence”.)
The issue I raised was YOUR BIAS!
(In fact, many of the charges against Palin were filed by what is called the Alaska Personnel Board. A new charge has recently been added: a complaint that she used campaign funds to pay for lawyer fees.)
Beyond that - your post is, as usual, full of crap.
Re: Post 73;
I repeat:
“... Beyond that - your post is, as usual, full of crap ...”
June 12 at 1:52 pm | #1 | Link
I read Bronsteins article and the comments following. It was amusing to read the comments of the Obama lovers and how annoyed, hateful and critical they were to the author for daring to acknowledge the media love affair and for daring to criticize.