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://
|
