Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Dick Meyer’s "weird" confession
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, November 20, 2006

Dick Meyer of CBSNews.com apologizes for not telling voters earlier than the previous majority Republican leadership was "weird".
Really, it's just a simple thesis: The men who ran the Republican Party in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years were a group of weirdos. Together, they comprised one of the oddest legislative power cliques in our history. And for 12 years, the media didn't call a duck a duck, because that's not something we're supposed to do.
And what was this egregious weirdness that Meyer regrets not exposing?

  1. "None made any real money before coming to Congress."

  2. "None of them spent a day in uniform."

  3. Many of them had extramarital affairs or were divorced at some point.

Leaving aside the fact that all three could be said in equal measure about Bill Clinton, what's so "weird" about this? Why does Dick Meyer flagellate himself for not "exposing" the fact that some politicians weren't rich veterans with exemplary records of marital fidelity? What's more, how was any of this even remotely secret?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
WHAT biased press?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Hastert was a hawk with no military service and a defender of the rich with no money or experience in business.
By this reasoning, journalist should never write about business since they never ran one. Oh wait, they never defend business, carry on.
 
Written By: Wilky
URL: http://
"None of them spent a day in uniform."

Many of them had extramarital affairs or were divorced at some point
Sounds like a typical journo to me....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Jon, I think what Meyer’s getting at is the fact that the press took these guys so seriously for so long when it was clear that 1) they didn’t really know what they were talking about and 2) they were big time hypocrites. The House Republicans of the Gingrich/Delay era were a clown show. They were relentlessly pro-big business despite having almost no business experience. They were hyper-militaristic despite having no military experience. They were relentless moralizers despite being moral degenerates themselves. And they railed against corruption while quickly becoming the most corrupt and unethical Congress in modern times. These guys were a complete freak show and yet no one really bothered to point it out. And Gingrich is still taken seriously for reasons I can’t comprehend.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
That seems like a good insight there Anon Liberal. But then I must consider that you have no journalistic experience, and no experience in congress, therefore you are a weirdo who is not qualified to judge and doesn’t know what he’s talking about, in much the same way as republicans are.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
1) they didn’t really know what they were talking about and 2) they were big time hypocrites.
How? I think the impeachment was silly, but there was no shortage of similar criticisms from the media at the time. But were the Republicans barred from criticizing Clinton for lying under oath because some of them had affairs? How did they not "know what they were talking about"? Does one need to be a self-made millionaire to criticize too much government intervention?

I’d note that two of the three main people he cited as not having "much success" in the real world were teachers. Is Meyers’ suggesting that teachers are unsuccessful? Dick Armey was an economist. Did he not know what he was talking about?
They were hyper-militaristic despite having no military experience.
I guess that’s why all you Democrats were so critical of Bill Clinton for sending the military into Haiti, the Balkans and other countries during his term.
And they railed against corruption while quickly becoming the most corrupt and unethical Congress in modern times.
Not sure if you’re saying that corruption is ideological or unique to those people. I’ve no doubt that some Republicans were corrupt, but that’s hardly a partisan occupation. How was Armey corrupt? Gingrich was a bombthrower, but was he substantively more corrupt than other Party leaders?

Like Meyer, your complaint seems to be that you didn’t like Republicans and you’re glad for a chance to be snarky towards them. But since the above criticisms apply equally to Clinton, why is he not "weird"?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
But since the above criticisms apply equally to Clinton, why is he not "weird"?

Because he supported Gays in the military and abortion rights, MAN this is simple, I can’t see why you can’t grasp it, Jon.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
ALERT!!!
Device: "\\Joe\Sarcasm_Detector is offline
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Dick Meyer of CBSNews.com apologizes for not telling voters earlier than the previous majority Republican leadership was "weird".
Not exactly. Meyer’s argument is that the House leadership was weird. Of the Senate leadership (in the same piece) he says:
It was a localized condition. It didn’t spread to the Senate. The Republican leaders there — again, suspend your ideology and just look at biography — were pretty typical American politicians.
 
Written By: Crust
URL: http://
Unbelieveable.
They were relentlessly pro-big business despite having almost no business experience.
Compared to whom? You mean ace businessmen like trust fund babies Ted Kennedy and Al Gore(inherited oil stocks and zinc mine mineral rights), gold diggers like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi (married rich people), crooks like Hillary Clinton (cattle futures payoffs) or do nothings like Charles Rangel or Joe Biden(they’ve never earned money, inherited it or married it but they may have stolen it). Every one of these people favors more government regulation of private enterprise and higher taxes. Not a single one of them could punch their way out of an intellectual paper bag regarding basic economic principles. The best comedy I have seen in years was Barbara Boxer with her charts during the Enron hearings. How much time did the media spend pointing out that idiocy?
they were big time hypocrites.

You mean like Pelosi with her non-union vineyard or like Al Gore who lives off if royalties from the zinc mine on his Tennessee farm that polutes the Caney Fork River?
They were hyper-militaristic despite having no military experience.

You mean like Bill Clinton the draft dodger who bombed Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Serbia in one twelve month period?
they railed against corruption while quickly becoming the most corrupt and unethical Congress in modern times.
Just saying something is so doesn’t make it so. Tell us when "lobbying" began Washington. Tell us how the last twelve years exceeded the corruption of Abscam or the Keating Five. The miscreants in those scandals were almost all Democrats. How about Dan Rostenkowski?

Anonymous Liberal, you win the prize for the most unfounded, "directly contradicted by reality", and stupidest comments ever to appear on this blog. The media doesn’t spend a lick of time "exposing" the idiocy of modern liberals and their socialist ideas so I am not sure why you think they should have been focusing on the backgrounds of people who espoused successful policies like restricting the growth of federal spending in the 1990’s. The Republican congress did that. Go back and look at the Contract for America.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
jt007 wrote:
Tell us when "lobbying" began Washington.
With Washington. He thought the Cheasapeake and Ohio Canal was great idea (it was known as the Potomac Company at the time), and it got built too.

Through land he had an interest in.

Go figger.

Yoyrs, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"None of them spent a day in uniform."

Because of course supporting military action without having first served is a thought crime.

But the same thing does not apply to the anti-war side of course. Staying home is perfectly acceptable.
 
Written By: Josh
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider