What follows is the text of a Media Research Center press release issued this morning by MRC President Brent Bozell:
Alexandria, VA – The top liberal media are extensively reporting on the Bush Administration’s replacement of eight federal attorneys in 2006, calling it a political scandal and relaying demands by Democrats for the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But this same liberal media treated the firing of 93 U.S. prosecutors by President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno in 1993 as largely routine, and did not fuel demands for Reno’s resignation.
This blatant double standard in coverage further confirms the fact that the top media in America are liberally biased and committed to promoting liberal Democrats and denigrating conservative Republicans. In reference to this liberal media hypocrisy, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell issued the following statement:
“The replacement of federal prosecutors, who are political appointees in the first place, happens with nearly every Administration yet the liberal media are treating Bush’s actions as some sort of shocking political scandal – poppycock! The Bush Administration fired eight—eight!—U.S. attorneys while the Clinton Administration fired 93 of them. The liberal media are screaming about Bush but, by and large, yawned about Clinton. The double standard is nauseating.
“The Washington Post says, Bush ‘Firings Had Genesis in White House.’ Well, so did the Clinton firings, but The Post called those routine. The New York Times has hyped the Bush and Gonzales story but completely ignored the Clinton-Reno firings. And so have ABC’s Good Morning America, ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson, and other top liberal media.
“The liberal media are promoting the agenda of liberal Democrats on this attorneys’ issue, and the double standard, the rank hypocrisy is evident for the world to see. This type of grossly slanted coverage only further erodes the credibility of the networks and the top newspapers.”
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This relates to (and trumps
March 14, 2007 - 11:27 ET by dervishThis relates to (and trumps) several arguments going on in other threads, but I'll only post it once here:
The WSJ weighs in.
Bada-bing.
I posted it on another thread
March 14, 2007 - 11:35 ET by florida_chadI posted it on another thread.
Oop -- my B. That's what I
March 14, 2007 - 11:47 ET by dervishOop -- my B. That's what I get for reading Drudge first....
Thanks loads Dervish! The par
March 14, 2007 - 12:00 ET by tracheostomyThanks loads Dervish!
The part in particular concerning Washington state in 2004 (my neck of the woods) was pretty much buried in the local news.
-PJ
"I'm not a theologist. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm a documentary filmmaker." -James Cameron
The WSJ was wrong. Not for th
March 14, 2007 - 13:19 ET by OttoThe WSJ was wrong. Not for the first time. Reagan fired all his attorneys in 1981. It's sop to remove all or most of them.
BADA BING
How is it wrong? It didn't
March 14, 2007 - 14:20 ET by MightyMouthHow is it wrong? It didn't say Reagan didn't fire all his attorneys.
What is BADA BING? The sound of your argument flushing down the toilet?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sadly, Gonzales has already
March 14, 2007 - 11:35 ET by MightyMouthSadly, Gonzales has already put his foot in his mouth, saying "Mistakes were made". IMHO, the adminstration fuels it's own controversies by not having a backbone.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... Exactly! That's why I w
March 14, 2007 - 11:43 ET by bigtimerMM...
Exactly!
That's why I was so angry yesterday...still am.
How dumb can you be by stating those words.
Will they never learn?
I can't believe the ineptness...and he is the AG?
gone zalez
March 14, 2007 - 11:47 ET by the mad poleIt's like my dad said when Bush gave his bud this job,"How can you trust a guy named Gonzalez to close the borders"?
somehow that came out wrong, pole
March 14, 2007 - 13:32 ET by tumbler_2007You mean your dad wants us to close the borders ? You must be a REAL mad Polish family.
tumbles
March 14, 2007 - 19:20 ET by the mad poleTumbles. my mom was Cherokee, any insults you want to throw her way? Or is the last Gringo standing allowed a last smoke?
dear mad one
March 14, 2007 - 19:29 ET by tumbler_2007Believe it or not, I have no interest in your Mom.
Are you still here?
March 14, 2007 - 19:41 ET by Free StinkerAre you still here?
I thought you would leave after the last thrashing you got from Blonde.
Tumbler...
March 14, 2007 - 19:50 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasThe other day you complained that no one could stand you and maybe you should leave. I took the time to respond but apparently with no response by you or you failed see it, either way I'll give it the old college try...
Nobody can stand you? I thought you were happily married? There seems to be at least one person that can.
But neverminding that, let's examine your claim.
Haveyou polled every single person here or at least a majority of those who
have posted in the last 90 days so that this claim can have some
validation? No
If nobody here can stand you then why are you
here? Surely there are more places with similar formats where you can
discuss, debate and post that might have 3,4, 5 or many that like you.
So then why do you stay where YOU believe you are not wanted? Is this
how you live your life? Forcing yourself upon those that you believe
don't want you?
Tumbler, step back, does that make sense to be
somewhere you are believe you are hated by everyone? What kind of sense
does that make when on the internet there are SO SO SO many forums at
which you can register and post that have a greater chance of you
finding like-minded people? But what you are doing, being where you
believe you are least wanted and liked and fighting constantly seeking
an audience, is how a LIB thinks and lives! They force themselves where
they believe they aren't wanted!
Finally, if it were true that
nobody can stand you then no one is really listening are they...and if
it were true nobody can stand you then are you saying THEY are all
wrong and at fault and YOU are right in the way you think and your
system of beliefs that are articulated here? Is that what you are
saying? Because if NOBODY likes you then someone is at fault? Could you
be a contributor to this problem? If not then why be here if everyone
is that screwed up and if so, if you are a contributor to the problem,
instead of trying to adjust everyone around you...how about considering
YOU adjusting YOU, the life and person God granted to you to control?
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
guy art and tom,
March 14, 2007 - 20:18 ET by tumbler_2007Unholy three.
Why do you invest a portion of your day inquiring after me? I'm not your son. If I'm so interesting to you, couldn't you say it in 3 or 4 sentences and then button your cyber-lip? You can be so boring, all three of you.
I wasn't after your approval saying nobody wanted me here. I only said it to clarify why I'm forced to post so many times a day. With multiple opponents going after me every 15 minutes, I'm required to reply repeatedly, since I have no secretary and I don't write in a one size fits all template. I give everybody a fair shot at me; and reply with gusto.
My position is such that no one but me takes pity on those millions of hated illegals; therefore my noblesse obliges. The fact "nobody loves me" is irrelevant. I have this task. It's a thankless job and I must sustain many insults. But somebody has to do it, Guy Art & Tom. I don't have triple personalities like you do. One man jousts with the whole band of hate mongers and Mexico bashers. Yet I'm very capable of thrashing THEM. None of them is overly astute, know what I mean.
To get to the point: neither has Blonde "thrashed me" as our tarded free stinker estimates, nor have I resigned. It's a free country, I offend only a number of hate-mongers, and God gave me this gift; to be capable of starting a debate --and never failing to finish it.
Because, as Voltaire said: "Only once did I pray to God. I asked Him, "Make all of my enemies imbeciles." And He answered my prayer !" -- I have one or two imbecilic types online who persist in challenging me. I've been permitted by God to kick their butts here every day. You know who they are.
GAT,Well said the first time,
March 14, 2007 - 20:24 ET by BlondeGAT,
Well said the first time, and the second.
Tumbler, at that time, apparently cast my vote for "off the island" for me.
For once, I agree with him.
Blonde
March 14, 2007 - 20:35 ET by RJHi Blonde. I go away for a few hours and come back to the La Raza Troll still trying to shut down honest dialogue on the subject of the illegal aliens. What do you think? Gonna happen? Nope, I don't think so, either.
Consider something I heard today. We've gone from:
"Illegal Aliens" to "Illegal Immigrants" to "Undocumented Immigrants" to " Undocument Citizens".......and it's no longer illegal border crossing, it's Migration!!!!!
Thank you George W. Bush, you wolf in sheeps clothing. You have not protected the borders of our country and you are guilty of dereliction of duty.
Hey, RJ.I know. I have had
March 14, 2007 - 20:43 ET by BlondeHey, RJ.
I know. I have had a crazy, crazy day. Just got home and read all of this craziness on the open thread.
I must agree...I am well and truly over GWB.
I'm out...have a good one!
BT, I have really had my do
March 14, 2007 - 11:52 ET by MightyMouthBT, I have really had my doubts about the compentency of the Justice Deparment. Where were they when national security secrets were being leaked to the press? Why no investigations? Why no actions against the perps (both leakers and media that printed it)?
It's like this administration is content to roll over and play dead!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM, Yeah,I posted that yester
March 14, 2007 - 12:00 ET by bigtimerMM,
Yeah,
I posted that yesterday, other days and weeks and months, and today elsewhere!
I am so furious MM.
The Senate now is voting now and who knows how long on the war!
It is all meaningless, except the dem's will have something to stick in their pipes and say...see...we tried....those big bad Republicans...what can a guy do...just ask Obey!
dear mighty mouth
March 14, 2007 - 12:03 ET by tumbler_2007Maybe just maybe,
The reason is that once an investigation starts in public, the national security secrets are going to be laid out in detail page by page, allowing even more classified material to be spilled. If you've ever played Poker you'll understand what I mean.
dear mighty mouth
March 14, 2007 - 12:04 ET by tumbler_2007Maybe just maybe,
The reason is that once an investigation starts in public, those and more national security secrets are going to be laid out in detail page by page, allowing even other classified material to be spilled. If you've ever played Poker you'll understand what I mean.
Tumbler, I believe national
March 14, 2007 - 12:12 ET by MightyMouthTumbler, I believe national security interests trump disclosure. The only thing that would come out is the already leaked info(if that). Now I may be wrong on that, but it's a good guess.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I may be wrong too
March 14, 2007 - 12:24 ET by tumbler_2007Just a minute. National seecurity interests and disclosure are opposed, not running in tandem. It does not serve our national security to punish a leaker if the punishment betrays even more or more important secrets. It's absurd for one of our NB contributors here to expect the justice Dept. to function on a personal good guess.
Of course, as a citizen you're entitled to scream bloody murder. Call them nasty names. But let's not flatter ourselves that we can make decisions better than they can. It's not our job. Nor is it fair to demand our officials never make a conciliatory remark or gesture. Not everybody is up on your high horse just yet.
So let me try to understand
March 14, 2007 - 12:52 ET by MightyMouthSo let me try to understand your argument. You think it's pefectly ok for government officials to leak classified information without prossecution or penalty? AND you think it's ok for media outlets to release known(stolen) classified information without consequences?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
figure it out, MM
March 14, 2007 - 13:13 ET by tumbler_2007You say let's make these people go to jail ? -- It might happen.
But in DC, it could turn into a major embarrassment for our Republican Party too. You must be very naive not to realize we've got agents everywhere doing some leaking as well.
And maybe you don't think the Left will gain even greater credibility after they can show the President and his people are locking horns with their freedom of the press? In many cases it's OK to let sleeping dogs lie. Just try to control future leaking and stay cool.
So I take it that was a &qu
March 14, 2007 - 13:20 ET by MightyMouthSo I take it that was a "yes" to both questions?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well, if all this administr
March 14, 2007 - 14:05 ET by Tim the EnchanterWell, if all this administration is going to do is roll over and play dead, then they might as well appoint one of my dogs. He's good at it, and works for kibble. Substansial cost savings there.
Republicans
March 14, 2007 - 11:45 ET by iveseenitallLiberals deny, deny, deny, even when caught red-handed.Why Republicans are always so quick to admit and apologize for so-called "mistakes" is beyond me. What's their problem? But if they haven't realized that they must fight fire with fire by now, perhaps they never will. It's a big part of why they lose elections.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Hi isia...That is what tipped
March 14, 2007 - 11:56 ET by bigtimerHi isia...
That is what tipped me over the edge....this was a non-issue, all anyone had to do was watch the Specter/Schumer hearings with these clowns before him, he made mince-meat out of them, and Gonzales goes out there and bends over and kisses his arse for the leftists everywhere!
I could not believe it...
After the Walter Reed BS, then we have Peter Pace, then I heard this morning the GAO or some such is saying the VA is back-logged with paper-work and we aren't taking care of our injured troops and there will be an investigation into this...blah blah blah...
It never will end unless the President puts an end to it, a little bit of help from the conservatives in Congress in unison would help, a little bit of face time on television would help...but noooooo...we can't go there, the 'R' Party has to get on there knees and say....
Oh please kick me some more!
Punish me for I am guilty!
Even if they aren't!
Unbelievable!
This is one reason IMO that t
March 14, 2007 - 12:04 ET by midnight cowboyThis is one reason IMO that the 2008 prez race is heating up so quickly. Republicans in general are tired with the spineless approach of how the administration handles democrats and the press. Leadership is so lacking, most are focusing on the next president. If Reagan was early in his 7th year even with the advanced primaries, not as much attention would be paid to the race. This administration acts the way liberals do in dealing with the rest of the world. They just want to get along and be liked. Meanwhile the liberals domestically are acting like hawks when it comes to taking on republicans. This administration needs to grow a pair.
This is just another example
March 14, 2007 - 12:30 ET by mattmThis is just another example of why it's pointless for Republicans to try to appease the press and the Left (what's the diff?).
Bush should be their favorite. He's weak on the border; he kisses Mexico's culata; he caves to Ted Kennedy's education bureaucracy; he quit on SS reform; he quit on MSA's; etc.
If he has been trying to get the Libs to like him, he is sadly mistaken, and Republicans should learn their lesson from this.
The candidate who calls the Liberals traitors and the press propagandists and Hillary a crook and Obama an unqualified neophyte and Chris Matthews a fag (he's in love with BJ, y'know), etc. gets my vote.
Man, you guys just don't quit
March 14, 2007 - 12:45 ET by waka wakaMan, you guys just don't quit.
From Bush I Assistant AG, Stuart Gerson, in today's WaPo online chat ...
You guys really lose credibility when you hyperventilate over red-herring arguments that crumble under the most cursory fact checking. Same with the WSJ, whose editorial page has had factual errors before. They've got a big one today.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Am I correct in my conclusion
March 14, 2007 - 13:18 ET by waka wakaAm I correct in my conclusion that a lack of a response to my post means the matter is settled?
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
No. You are not correct (as
March 14, 2007 - 13:41 ET by mattmNo. You are not correct (as per usual). It's just that your idiocy doesn't justify a serious response.
Ignorance has a well-known Liberal bias - Publius.Hey, don't take my word for i
March 14, 2007 - 13:58 ET by waka wakaHey, don't take my word for it. Just ask Bush I Assistant AG, Stuart Gerson.
From today's WaPo online chat ...
"It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind."
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Let's see, who has more credi
March 14, 2007 - 13:37 ET by mattmLet's see, who has more credibility, the WSJ, or someone called Waka Waka? Hmmmmm
I guess I'll go with the WSJ...
Ignorance has a well-known Liberal bias - Publius.
If you follow this logic (i.e
March 14, 2007 - 12:48 ET by ding7777If you follow this logic (i.e, Clinton fired 93/Bush only fired 8) it means
1. The 8 that Bush fired were Clinton appointees
2. The remaining 85 are Clinton appointees
We know that's not true so why is that the RNC talking point? What are you not talking about while you obsess this red herring?
Bingo. This is a totally ridi
March 14, 2007 - 12:51 ET by waka wakaBingo. This is a totally ridiculous argument that shows the RNC's desperation over a snowballing scandal that stinks to high heaven no matter how much perfume they dump on it.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Reading most of the comments
March 14, 2007 - 13:36 ET by OttoReading most of the comments here it's fairly obvious none have ever practised law. Worse they show contempt for the law and due process. They are even oblivious to the problem of what politicized Republicans can do today, Democrats can do tomorrow with ample precedent provided by this administration. Why do you think there is a deafening silence from the Republican benches in congress. How little these posters know is demonstrated by how blind they are to the severe jeopardy the admin is in over this matter, because politicizing the role of the US attorney who is a mini king once appointed is a complete no no. There is a 70% chance Gonzales will get thrown out of the sledge over this, and some of these DOJ are probably going to have to take the fifth which would be a presentational disaster. Several prosecutions are probably in jeopardy, I'd be amazed if the defense in this NM case which I know nothing about don't move for a dismissal and if any link is found between the Lam firing and these corruption cases she has been pursuing, oh boy.
because politicizing the ro
March 14, 2007 - 13:45 ET by MightyMouthbecause politicizing the role of the US attorney who is a mini king once appointed is a complete no no.
Interesting point, I am sure a legal scholar such as yourself can back the "mini king" asertion. The rest of us have been told that the US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be appointed as well as "unappointed" at any time.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Bogus.If anything is being po
March 14, 2007 - 13:50 ET by mattmBogus.
If anything is being politicized it's this whole non-scandal. It's just another in a long series of phony attacks on the Bush Administration.
If Gonzales is ousted, it won't be for any other reason than media/democrat hype. The overblown accusations over something completely legal and trivial is a clear indication that this is pure Leftist political scandal-mongering.
Ignorance has a well-known Liberal bias - Publius.
I have to disagree. The Dims
March 14, 2007 - 13:53 ET by ThisnThatI have to disagree. The Dims can, and will, do anything, regardless of precedence. They know they have a compliant MSM that allows them to get away with it. Remember when they pulled a candidate switch in NJ because "their guy" was going to lose? That was against the law, in fact. But they manipulated everyone, called in their MSM chips, and got away with it.
All the Dims have to do is to declare that anything that happened more than 5 minutes ago doesn't count anymore. And then invent their own on-the-spot rules. This "rules changing" is also what's eating at society. Want queers to get married? Re-invent the rules. Want to remove the Ten Commandments? Re-invent the rules.
I am disgusted with the Republicans for not standing firm on this and taking the MSM heat for directly confronting these communists.
What I'd like to know is wh
March 14, 2007 - 13:55 ET by Tim the EnchanterWhat I'd like to know is when are these clowns going to quit practicing law and get it right for once? I mean, just how much practice do they need?
Blows that whole "prac
March 14, 2007 - 14:00 ET by MightyMouthBlows that whole "practice makes perfect" concept out of the water, doesn't it Tim?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
OK- who forgot to shut the
March 14, 2007 - 13:51 ET by Tim the EnchanterOK- who forgot to shut the door? Well, whoever it was, you just let a troll in, and he's making a mess!
Tim, two of them got out of t
March 14, 2007 - 13:53 ET by JABTim, two of them got out of the "Big House" today, look directly below my post :-)
"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
Um... I think that's prop
March 14, 2007 - 19:04 ET by dervishUm... I think that's properly termed a "non sequitur." Who has said that the 8 fired were Clinton appointees? I think it's obvious that they were Bush appointees. The point is that the President can fire them en masse, just because he wants to, and even a Democrat demigod has done so on a much bigger scale.
The red herring is to pretend that it's somehow ominous when you fire your own appointees instead of your predecessor's. What difference does that make?