Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Media, Politics — Rick Moran @ 11:30 am

Is Fox News a “real” news organization? Surely you joke (and don’t call me Shirley.)

If the definition of a news organization is to disseminate information to the American people in a fair and balanced manner, Fox don’t cut it.

And if you think the network that fact checked an SNL comedy skit cuts it, you’re a joke.

Or if you think the network that had an on air discussion between one of its anchors and a guest about whether Dick Cheney is mentally stable cuts it as a “real” news network, I wonder how ignorant you can be.

Or if you think the network whose news director said in a memo, “”We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable when the facts don’t warrant that…” during the 2004 election cuts it as a “real” news network, you need to get your head out of your ass.

I could keep going but I have limited time today. The point is simple, obvious, and remarkably clear to anyone not so wrapped up in their own partisan personae that they are blinded to the truth.

There is no such thing as a “fair and balanced” media organization. The idea that any network on TV today does not push a partisan agenda for one side or the other is laughable.

Does Fox pursue a partisan agenda more vigorously than others? Like to see a study on that but my guess would probably be yes they do. So congratu-f**king-lations CNN and MSNBC; you aren’t quite as bad as Fox.

Is that what the left is hanging its hat on in this case? That CNN and other partisan Democratic networks aren’t as bad as Fox?

Or maybe they believe that the partisan Democratic networks are perfectly unbiased, balanced, and give the straight dope on conservatives and Republicans?

Holy Jesus nobody can be that stupid.

Anyone dumb enough to get all their news from Fox deserves to see the world only through a conservative Republican prism Just as anyone dumb enough to watch only Democratic partisan networks deserves a similar fate.

I know what the partisans are lining up to say; “Yeah, but Fox promoted the tea parties, and did all sorts of other poopy stuff that makes them more than partisan - they are an arm of the Republican party.”

OK - ya got me. Fox is worse than CNN and MSNBC, and CBS, NBC, ABC, and all the print media put together. Happy? Good.

What’s the point? What, you think you’re going to shut them down? You think they’re going to bleed viewers? You think they’re going to reduce their influence one iota with the people who they are already influencing?

This entire attack is an exercise in preening, self indulgent, intellectual and cultural elitism. You believe the rubes are too stupid to think for themselves so, in your infinite wisdom (and infinite capacity to fool yourselves) you will show them the way.

Get real. And get off it. If you don’t like it, don’t watch. And telling someone else what they should be watching is so arrogant I wouldn’t be surprised if you think so highly of yourself that you make constant attempts at auto-fellatio. (If you discover how, drop me a note.)

If you think this is an attempt to “marginalize” Fox with other “real news” (Ha!) outlets, I would question your sanity. Get a clue: Other news outlets already marginalize Fox. And look how well that has played out.

No, the real issue isn’t that the Democrats and the left is attacking Fox. The issue is the White House going after the network hammer and tongs.

This seems more like pique than policy. Just what is it they expect to accomplish? Yank their FCC license? That Nixonian threat would no doubt cheer the left while leaving them completely unaware of the monumental irony inherent in their desire.

Allah thinks it’s “containment” they’re after - a bid to make sure no stories on Fox “crossover” into “legitimate” media. But few are crossing over now. Besides, the tone of coverage on the other partisan networks is still pleasant enough towards the administration, that you wonder why they’re so worried.

And unfortunately for the White House, they are forgetting one teeny, tiny little detail in their splendid little war; the internet and talk radio are perfectly capable of driving any story compelling enough into the mainstream. That’s why this entire campaign seems more personal than political. If Obama wants to play King Canute and command the tides not roll in, he is welcome to try. But stories that are damaging to his administration - if they are factually accurate and juicy enough - are going to be covered by everybody anyway.

Unless this is an attempt to intimidate the entire media universe into reporting only happy talk stuff. But I doubt that. I could never see the White House going after CNN like this no matter what they did. And CNN knows it. So do the rest of them.

No, this is definitely personal. And a little weird, don’t you think? If there’s nothing really to gain, and if it’s not going to matter to Fox in their coverage (it won’t), I come full circle and ask why?

It has certainly energized the base. Liberals are swooning in ecstasy. Media Matters is even coordinating with the White House in their effort to…what? Silence Fox? Bring them down? Change their coverage?

I don’t get it.

As far as this being, “unprecedented,” Cole takes care of that meme. It didn’t start with Bush either, of course. Since Carter, the White House has become more and more aggressive with the media in trying to reward friends, punish foes, and shape the news to their liking. Obama has just taken the next logical step. In the process, they have totally emasculated the White House press corps, reducing them to errand persons who do little more than read from administration handouts and repeat administration spin from their “sources.”

No, there is no rhyme nor reason to this attack. It may, in fact, energize conservatives as much as it is pleasing the left. The administration has also succeeded in generating a little sympathy for Fox among those “real” news outlets. Perhaps they recognize their own vulnerability for not being a “legitimate” news organization under the next GOP administration.

If there’s one thing about Washington that is perpetually true - What goes around, comes around.


  1. Seems to me that Fox can be unfair and imbalanced if it wants to be. And the White House still needs to deal with the facts that a) like it or not, Fox is a major news outlet and b) the White House is an organ of the government and not a campaign office, which means it needs to deal with a “hostile” news organization differently than it would if it were the Committe to Re-Elect President Obama. As consumers of the news, we do not abdicate our intelligence or critical thinking skills when we read or listen to what any news reporting entity disseminates to us — Fox has a rightward slant; CBS has a leftward slant, you bear that in mind when you read them. It isn’t all that difficult, really.

    Comment by Transplanted Lawyer — 10/23/2009 @ 12:10 pm

  2. I actually think the Bush White House did some serious, lasting damage to CNN by isolating them and dismissing them. I don’t think CNN has recovered yet.

    I think the Obama WH will have the same effect on Fox. They’ll isolate them as the house organ of the GOP. They will deprive them of legitimacy.

    The battle is not over true believers: the Left watches MSNBC, the Right watches Fox. The issue is the middle, the persuadables. This makes it less likely that Fox — and therefore the GOP — can reach moderates. They’re putting Fox in a basket with Limbaugh and slapping on a label that says, “Right Wing Wackos.”

    I think it’s a smart move made necessary by the facts: Fox is the house organ of the GOP. If Obama got an endorsement from Jesus Christ Fox would still attack him. So Obama loses absolutely nothing by isolating Fox, and he does some small damage to Fox and their parent company, the GOP.

    Don’t see how you can “isolate” a network on 180 million TV sets. And CNN “not recovered?” From what? Do you think their ratings slide is due to Bush? Sorry, don’t see it.

    It’s easy to put Rush in the “wacko” league. But much harder when the Fox anchors and most on air personalities (yes there are exceptions) are reasonable, and appear to be sane.

    I still think this is weird.


    Comment by michael reynolds — 10/23/2009 @ 12:43 pm

  3. “I actually think the Bush White House did some serious, lasting damage to CNN by isolating them and dismissing them. I don’t think CNN has recovered yet.”


    You don’t think CNN might have shot themselves in the foot by things like their own self-consorship of news from Baghdad in the Saddam era? Or how about hard hitting journalism like fact checking a Saturday Night Live skit?

    Comment by Tom Bowler — 10/23/2009 @ 1:25 pm

  4. It didn’t start with Bush either, of course. Since Carter, the White House has become more and more aggressive with the media…</i.

    Go back and check out the things Woodrow Wilson did once the U.S. entered W.W. I. The papers didn’t even report on the massive Spanish flu pandemic so as not to hurt morale. Critics, including a U.S. Congressman, were sentenced to long prison terms for sedition. What passes for tough tactics today are nothing.

    Obama takes a couple shots at a network that has been trashing him non-stop for over a year now. So what?

    Comment by Pug — 10/23/2009 @ 1:53 pm

  5. Sorry about not closing the italics.

    Comment by Pug — 10/23/2009 @ 1:53 pm

  6. Fox is the only true news provider on cable. CNN and MSNBC are so deep in the tank for The Won that they cannot be taken seriously. Yes, Fox did report on the Tea Parties and yes, on their “Opinion” shows, they gave appropriate scheduling information on the Tea Parties. They report on the things the so-called mainstream media prefer to ignore, those same things that our President would like all news outlets to ignore. That isn’t the function of a free press in this nation. Or at least that’s what I learned in J-School! The job of a real journalist is to report facts so that the population can make up its own mind about what to believe and not believe. All the facts, not just the ones that the powers that be find convenient.

    I wish our president would quit fooling around with nonsensical stuff like this (it’s so immature) and actually try to govern this nation as he is constitutionally permitted to do! He’s such a disappointment!

    Comment by Gayle Miller — 10/23/2009 @ 1:56 pm

  7. “I could keep going but I have limited time today.”

    You should. Any discussion of modern TV news journalistic integrity that fails to include the infamous “fake but accurate” record of CBS News misses the point …
    … and the point is not ‘bias’, they are all biased, but what the news outlets are telling us that is (a) false and (b) not the whole story, and that Fox is far from the worst of the lot, and indeed are telling real, sustantive stories not told elsewhere. the fact that say Van Jones story was not picked up by the ABCBSMSNBCNN/NYT/WaPa lib Media monolith condemns *them* for wallowing in ignorance, not FoxNews/Beck for pushing the story.

    As for CNN, formerly run by “friend of Bill Clinton” Kaplan … they hurt themselves on multiple occasions:
    failing to report Saddam Hussein’s atrocities so their Baghdad correspondents would be well-treated …
    Tweaking their lineup to please the Obama campaign:
    Engaging in bogus bias to help Obama campaign:
    Broadcasting an insurgent-made recruiting video …

    The list goes on. CNN’s only merit is that they are actually a news organization, at least most of the time, albeit a biased liberal one staffed by Obama koolaid drinking libs, unlike say MSNBC, which is naught more than an agit-prop house that fronts for Media Matters (a Soros org) material.

    It’s laughable that the Obama White house can ‘deprive’ Fox news of “legitimacy”. ROFLMAO…. They Obama White House is practicing Alinskite ‘isolation’, standard left-wing isolation techniques that will divide us from eachother and keep Democrats away from FoxNews … but guess what, who loses credibility? Obama! He shows he has a contempt for 1st amendment press freedom, is thin-skinned and cant take the heat of criticism, and fails to appreciate that attacking Fox only drives their viewership UP.

    Only FoxNews, by their reporting will add or detract from their own legitimacy, just as CNN and CBS hurt their credibility via their own actions, not based on how any President treated them.

    Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/23/2009 @ 2:11 pm

  8. Tom (and maybe even Rick?) don’t you think my man Michael Reynolds was being just a leeetle bit sarcastic in comment #2? Like maybe his real point was “Nothing the Obama White House does can possibly harm Fox News”?

    Mmmmmm - no, I think Michael was being serious (of course now he’ll come back and say of course it was satire).

    But your point about them not being able to harm Fox is, I think correct. So why are they doing it?

    The scary thing that hit me after I published was - suppose there is no why. Suppose there’s only “because:” - as in, because we can do it, because we don’t like opposition, because we hate conservatives.

    I think they will begin to backtrack this weekend.


    Comment by Transplanted Lawyer — 10/23/2009 @ 2:38 pm

  9. Is there anyone truly afraid that the Obama FBI is going to start wiretapping their newsroom and that a plumbers unit will be sent to break into the houses of Rupert Murdoch and Robert Ailes? If the answer is no, that comparisons to Nixon are silly.

    Obama administration officials will snub interview requests and say mean things about Fox. Oh the horror.

    Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/23/2009 @ 6:28 pm

  10. “Obama administration officials will snub interview requests and say mean things about Fox. Oh the horror.”

    And Fox is is reeling from the damage all the way to the bank. Let Obama keep it up and make Fox the “channel of choice” for the nation. You Laugh? I don’t see the Fox people laughing at all - they are LOVING IT! It puts them on a pedestel, above and beyond the reach of Obama.

    The Democrat tried to freeze Fox out of the debates - did it hurt Fox? Not so much as you’d notice. How can I say that - check the ratings.

    I have always been told that you never wrestle with a pig - the pig likes it and you get dirty. Obama has stooped to the level of mud in this fight and the only one getting dirty is Obama.

    Comment by SShiell — 10/23/2009 @ 6:50 pm

  11. Thanks, TL, for trying to give me some cover, but Rick is right, I’m serious. I think the Bush attack on CNN worked in this way: it demonstrated the weakness of the media. It showed that CNN could simply be dismissed and there wasn’t a damned thing CNN could do about it. It was a loss of face, a loss of a sense of importance and irreplaceability.

    The loss of access may not damage either CNN or Fox in direct economic terms, but it damages their prestige and their amour propre.

    And in the case of Fox I think it limits their growth potential. Fox is making a nice pile of money, and it’s winning in the ratings. But by defining them as a GOP house organ Obama limits them to that role. As you may have noticed, about 20% of the population is favorably disposed to the GOP.

    I think it’s all at the margins, and not a terribly important thing one way or the other, but linking Fox directly to a political party currently popular only in the South and Mountain states, is probably helpful.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 10/23/2009 @ 7:00 pm

  12. One other point: Rupert Murdoch. (Full disclosure, he pays my bills.) The man doesn’t see himself as anyone’s tool.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 10/23/2009 @ 7:46 pm

  13. Attacking Fox is about pleasing the left wing base of the Democrat Party. The downside will far outweigh any short term benefit. Keeping Daily KOS, Democrat Underground and Olbermann satisfied may keep them behind the sagging Obama agenda but they diminish the Obama White House and make it appear that they would rather picks fights with news outlets than discuss the merits of their failing ideas. It is Nixonian, making you appear thin skinned and paranoid. And that is something that is a critical chink in Presidential armor.

    Comment by Robert — 10/23/2009 @ 8:00 pm

  14. Let Obama keep it up and make Fox the “channel of choice” for the nation.

    No one who isn’t already watching Faux News is going suddenly switch because Obama is fighting back.

    Media Matters’ documentation of the extensive collaboration between Faux and the the Republicans as far as message is concerned is more widely disseminated than ever. Rick is correct however, this will die away after this weekend, but the marker has been laid, finally that the channel is nothing but a cheerleading squad for the Republican party.

    In the ongoing war of words, the administration has finally stopped bringing knives to a gunfight.

    Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/23/2009 @ 8:50 pm

  15. Who’d a thunk it that Obama would be a paranoid narcissist ?

    OK, narcissist yes, but virtually nothing would have made you think he would opt for the bunker mentality now on display. I know I thought his passing up the FoxNews primary debate in Las Vegas was more pandering to the paranoid masses rather than an early indicator of his own paranoia of FoxNews, which now has festered into something pathological.

    Apparently, that story of the auto czar invoking the “Madman theory of the Presidency” on the Chrysler bond holders wasn’t just the auto czar talking talking through his hat, but in fact was the real truth.

    Comment by Neo — 10/23/2009 @ 9:57 pm

  16. Neo:

    If Mr. Obama is a paranoid narcissist then so was Mr. Bush. I thought he was just an idiot and an incompetent. But if you insist on adding paranoia and narcissism to his CV, I guess I can live with that.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 10/23/2009 @ 10:04 pm

  17. Found this quote from Mickey Kaus [h/t Balloon Juice] that sums up pretty well the real problem with FOX:

    I think Fox is also not neutral (which, again, doesn’t bother me) but it’s also not independent (which does). This isn’t because it’s owned by Rupert Murdoch—moguls are, typically among the more independent sorts. It’s because it’s run by Roger Ailes. I have zero faith that Ailes is independent of the Republican party or, specifically, those Republicans who have occupied the White House recently—the Bushes. As I said, I think if Karl Rove called Ailes in 2003 and said “We don’t want so much coverage of X” it’s extremely likely that X would not be covered on Fox.

    Being “conservative” isn’t the issue, the issue is that FOX news is in the pocket of the GOP in a blatant and direct manner. Don’t tell me that any other MSM outlet is in the pocket of the Dems in the same way.

    Comment by Surabaya Stew — 10/24/2009 @ 6:27 am

  18. Surabaya Stew

    Who interviewed the President in the WH? Wasn’t Fox.

    Comment by Ronald Earl — 10/24/2009 @ 8:30 am

  19. No, Obama isn’t Nixon because the latter was an intelligent, capable leader. They do share the same paranoia, though. The FOX episode is just more stupid and transparent than Nixon’s war on the press, which simply reflects Obama is more of a fool. As this Administration continues to tank and drag the Democratic Party into irrelevancy, watch Obama grow worse about this business.

    Comment by obamathered — 10/24/2009 @ 8:45 am

  20. Ronald Earl:

    Where is is written that all major news outlets must interview the president? Should this be a law? What do you want to do, bring back the fairness doctrine?

    Comment by Surabaya Stew — 10/24/2009 @ 9:22 am

  21. Michael Reynolds=Rick Moran sox puppet? What say ye.

    Heh - I’d take that as a compliment except Reynold’s head would explode.


    Comment by MooseH — 10/24/2009 @ 9:22 am

  22. I am stunned to find out Faux is lying about how they were excluded from an interview and “saved” by the full throated defense of their brothers in arms.

    Adding to the Fox News v. White House feud today is a dust-up over an interview with pay czar Ken Feinberg. Turns out, it was a sort of miscommunication, but the White House adds that if they had left Fox out it would be a case of “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”

    The version Fox has pushed all day is that the network was excluded from an interview roundtable with Feinberg yesterday, and that bureau chiefs from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN came to Fox’s defense.

    TPMDC dug into it, and here’s what happened.

    Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).

    But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who’d asked for the interview.

    The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn’t on the list, was told that they hadn’t asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox’s Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

    The not really for primetime players caught with their pants down… again.

    Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/24/2009 @ 10:03 am

  23. “the issue is that FOX news is in the pocket of the GOP in a blatant and direct manner”

    And ‘friend of Bill Clinton’ Rick Kaplan was head of CNN during much of the Clinton years aka Clinton News Network. And the New York Times is in the pocket of a raving Bush-hating leftist named Pinch Sulzberger.

    And news outlet after news outlet - from newspapers like LA Times to TV outlets like ABC News or CBS - is staffed and run by liberals who let their bias seep into reporting. Here’s Newsweek’s latest liberal-media-bias joke:
    Here’s LA Times, letting an ACORN board member defend ACORN while posing as an outside observer:

    Ailes has Republican ties, sure, but Dan Rather has Democrat ties, gave many Democrat fundraising speeches on numerous occasions.Chris Matthews was former lege aide to Tip O’Neill; we know George Stephenopolous’ role in the Clinton White House, etc. Claiming that Ailes is unique is bizarre and incompetently false. Measuring ties by contributions - the media is 100 to 1 Democrat:

    And so it goes … obvious blatant liberal media bias happens on a daily basis.

    “Don’t tell me that any other MSM outlet is in the pocket of the Dems in the same way.”

    No, we wouldnt dare accost you with the TRUTH. In the USA, the highly partisan Obama administration is picking favorites in terms of its news channels,
    and is blatantly favoring their boot-lickers and liberal sock puppets in the media, while trying to freeze out voices of dissent. It’s beyond Nixonian and into BananaRepublic-style Strongman manipulation:

    Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/24/2009 @ 10:04 am

  24. Moose:

    It’s true that like Batman and Bruce Wayne we are never seen in the same place at the same time. But that’s more about concerns that no floor could support our combined weight.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 10/24/2009 @ 10:08 am

  25. “Who’d a thunk it that Obama would be a paranoid narcissist ?”

    A critic pegged him as such in FEB 2008, a guy named “Spengler” from the Asia Times (aka David Goldman). I read it and thought it a bit harsh, but we see Obama’s critics far LESS surprised with how things are turning out than his supporters - so who was really closer to the truth back in 2008? …. here’s a Spengler update on the topic:

    Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/24/2009 @ 10:35 am

  26. “Media Matters’ documentation of the extensive collaboration between … ”

    Will Media Matter out themselves and their own sordid agit-prop campaign to twist news stories and to plant leftwing bias and liberal ‘memes’ into the news narratives??? When will they admit that - in effect - they are egging on the Obama White House from the puppet-master George Soros on through his coterie of left-wing special interest groups, and poster like you are just the foot soldiers in his sordid army?

    “To summarize, Soros and his Open Society Institute pour millions of dollars into the coffers of MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and Democracy Alliance. In turn, these organizations funnel some of that money to Media Matters. ”

    “Media Matters for America, the self-described “progressive” research center and media monitor, has called on “folks” to “really go at” Fox News while demanding other media organizations stop treating America’s top cable news outlet as a journalistic enterprise..”

    Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/24/2009 @ 10:47 am

  27. “In the ongoing war of words, the administration has finally stopped bringing knives to a gunfight.”

    How apropos to call it ‘war of words’. Obama cant fight the Taliban, but he can fight Shep Smith. Truth is the first casualty of war, so the Obama administration’s fight against media dissent is a fight that harms truth.

    Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/24/2009 @ 10:50 am

  28. Truth is the first casualty of war, so the Obama administration’s fight against media dissent is a fight that harms truth.

    Faux News is a dedicated propaganda arm of the Republican party. That’s the truth.

    Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/24/2009 @ 2:33 pm

  29. MR
    I never heard of of a stupid person being competent. Well I guess you heard that from your “intelligensia” friends-so chic, or youread it in the weekend NYTRegular subscriber).
    How do you know he is stupid?Do you have his IQ score?Was Ted Kennedy stupid?If Bush is so stupid why did Blair and our congress back him in the war on terrorism
    Incompetent: he got rid of a bad man,won the war in Iraq when he left office, restored our militaries reputation (funny the brits are not so vocal on how to run military tatics after Basara -quagmire?), left office with America safer than when he started his presidency,and got us back from the brink of financial collapse with TARP.Not a bad record and certainly not incompetent, but hey you read it in the NYT.

    Comment by MooseH — 10/24/2009 @ 2:38 pm

  30. @Moose:

    “Incompetent: he got rid of a bad man,won the war in Iraq when he left office, restored our militaries reputation (funny the brits are not so vocal on how to run military tatics after Basara -quagmire?), left office with America safer than when he started his presidency,and got us back from the brink of financial collapse with TARP.”

    That sounds pretty amazing.

    In what galaxy did this occur?

    Comment by busboy33 — 10/25/2009 @ 12:42 am

  31. Fox News is certainly the winner as a single network in the cable news wars, though as recent ratings show, the audience that skews toward the “liberal” outlets is divided into 3 networks whose total viewership bubbles just under Fox’s:


    However - if you check the actual Nielsen numbers, you’ll see that nearly 2 times more people watch the network CBS, NBC, and ABC nightly news shows than all of Fox’s multi-hour hosted shows combined (roughly 22 million for the broadcast networks to 12 million for Fox). Brian Williams and Charles Gibson each more than doubles Bill O’Reilly’s audience (scroll down to the “Spotlight” on evening news):


    If you factor in the audience of around 1.5 million from the first chart for Mattews, Olbermann et al., the audience preference for the programs of the “left”-type outlets absolutely crushes the viewership numbers for FNC.

    Whatever Fox News may be, it is not “America’s choice for news.” It is the choice of the splinter represented by many of Rick’s readers who make the politically dangerous assumption that they represent a majority. In a country with 85% of all households having either cable or satellite access, the figures, as they say, are what they are. Americans prefer their “news” from the opposite camp’s sources by a much greater factor than they voted for Obama over McCain.

    That makes the question of “why” the administration is carrying out this war even more a mystery and makes it look even more like personal pique on the part of the president.


    Comment by Your Brother Jim — 10/25/2009 @ 3:44 pm

  32. To all you pseudo-intellect NYT readers;

    “Then the satisfaction of seeing my faith rewarded by none other than Frank Rich, doyen of the BDS community, guardian of the BDS crystal ball, all-knowing user of Bush as a metaphor for everything:

    The Colorado balloon may have led to the rerouting of flights and the wasteful deployment of law enforcement resources. But at least it didn’t lead the country into fiasco the way George W. Bush’s flyboy spectacle on an aircraft carrier helped beguile most of the Beltway press and too much of the public into believing that the mission had been accomplished in Iraq.”

    Too much BDS at this website including the moderator.

    Comment by MooseH — 10/26/2009 @ 6:24 am

  33. The losers in all of this partisan yammering are the public. The liars that are spinning merrily away for their party, their man, or their programs,or manufacturing negative issues (even blowing up minor things to crisis proportions)with which to tag their opposition, are seriously short-changing the average citizen that does not have the sources or the critical skills to penetrate the multiple levels of spin. Honesty is suffering.

    We thus have elections driven by feel-good emotions, promises not meant to be kept, snake-oil salesmen (including on the networks), distortions of the truth, and with great disdain for facts.

    I submit that the Democrats today are far, far better at this kind of thing than Republicans have ever been, especially the Conservative segment. Mudslinging, distortions, and lying have not been core skills of Conservatives to be nurtured and displayed at every turn.

    Comment by mannning — 10/26/2009 @ 10:55 am

  34. Every time I talk to Bill he waits till I am out of the room and then calls me bad names and then tells people partial truths and outright lies about some things I have said and done. I am going to make sure that people know I do not trust Bill, and call him out in public on his actions. Does this make me an idiot?

    Comment by KenGirard — 10/26/2009 @ 1:32 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress