The Washington Post, this morning, is demonstrating that they aren't biased in favor of liberals, nosirree. What, just attack Republicans? Us? No way! This fascinating column by Ruth Marcus, prominently positioned on page A21, demonstrates that they aren't going to just roll over on corruption just because it's a Democrat being talked about! Nope, Marcus is actively going after Jack Murtha, going so far as to say that "On its own, Murtha's ... conduct is disqualifying."
"The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history," Pelosi pledged on election night. Five days later she wrote Murtha a letter endorsing his bid to become her No. 2.
Not the most promising start.
Given that everyone knew for the two months leading up to the election that a) congressional ethics and corruption were issues and b) Murtha was in line to become the House Majority Leader if the Democrats took control of the House, this must be some issue that's only come to light in the past couple of weeks. Given the amount of time and ink that the Post spent on whether or not George Allen might have used the 'n' word when he was in college 30 years ago, surely they'd have spent the time, in an election cycle where corruption was an issue, covering the ethics of the expected-to-be-incoming Congressional leadership, right? So clearly, there's been some new allegation against Murtha, something that's come up only since the election, something that they couldn't get a fix on beforehand, and therefore that they couldn't cover before the election.
Uh, sorry. I guess that's wrong. Murtha's ethical problems, the accusations of corruption, stem from his behavior during the ABSCAM investigation. In 1980. This is corruption from so far back that anyone who's graduated from college in the last 15 years has probably never heard of it. And the Washington Post has decided that it's a relevant issue now, but wasn't before the election. I expect that we'll see more stories about Democratic corruption now that it's too late for them to affect the election...
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"I expect that we'll see
November 15, 2006 - 10:01 ET by Chris Norman"I expect that we'll see more stories about Democratic corruption now that it's too late for them to affect the election..."
I'm not too sure about that, but if so, expect any stories to stop in plenty of time for 2008...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
And thus the strawman Murtha
November 15, 2006 - 10:20 ET by dscottAnd thus the strawman Murtha (Anti-War) is left twisting in the wind along with all the dupes at the Daily Kos and DU who gave money and votes. Yes indeed, the Change to the New Direction promised (sales pitch) by the Dems was their control of Congress, nothing more. Bahahaha What a bunch of maroons, the ultra left got taken in just like the NAACP. I'm sure Pelosi has all the PC things to say to soothe those injured egos who are just beginning to realize they were taken for a ride.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I am surprised the Washington
November 15, 2006 - 10:51 ET by ww thumperI am surprised the Washington Post printed something like that! Too bad they are many YEARS late doing so!!.....ww
Predicted. Always happens.
November 15, 2006 - 10:54 ET by mattmPredicted. Always happens. What's new?
Very simple. The election was
November 15, 2006 - 11:10 ET by Ten7sVery simple. The election was about the control of congress; so they used their megaphone to influence it in favor of the Democrats. Now the issue is who among the Democrats leads; so they're using their paper to influence leadership decisions. Printing on 'page A21' is just the media version of a shot across the bow.
MSM
November 15, 2006 - 11:16 ET by iveseenitallIn the 70's, this story didn't fit the MSM agenda. Today, for whatever reason, it does. Hypocrites!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Hold on
November 15, 2006 - 11:25 ET by RackieI'm thinking Ms. Pelosi has some serious power issues or why else would she be in politics and thumping for a leadership position. I just know she dreams of the oval office, sitting behind the big desk. How this unfolds, I have no idea, but it will be fun to watch. Hold on to your seats, boys, this is going to be a bumpy ride.
Lyford
November 15, 2006 - 11:54 ET by Gary HallLyford. Standard proceedure. Disclosure of news which should have been on the front page for the past many years - especially in the past few months - quickly shows up in print, buried in the paper. In the future, in it's defense, the media can (and will) say, "Yea, we covered that in the news. We're not biased."
It's the 1% factor. They often can proove that they covered it, with the difference being, if the news is bad news for Democrats only about 1% of the voting population ends up with a actual recallable memory of the issue; if it's a negative issue for the Republicans, the timing, the placement, and the requency of the coverage is destined to get the recall % up in the 80% range.
We should poll the voters. 5 years after James Riady (record $8.6 million fine), and in a few years, Abramoff. The public will remember Abramoff and "the most corrupt Congress," but as far as James Riady (and the entire list of players) go, most folks, if they remember it at all, remember it just a part of the vast right wing conspiracy attempting to cause grief for Clinton, and there was never any convictions.
Standard Procedure? Absolutely.
November 15, 2006 - 15:49 ET by Lyford BeverageAnd that's what we do here - point out the standard procedure, and the ways that it reveals the bias of the press...
LyfLines - Lyford's other blog...
How dare they attack Murtha..
November 15, 2006 - 12:16 ET by connorinHow dare they attack Murtha...don't they know he's a veteran?
a lighthouse of news
November 15, 2006 - 12:24 ET by foolnomoreto quote from my hero Don Rumsfeld (my goodness)
but me thinks thees got chickens in the the hen house.
thank you troops <> job well done!!
no you are wrong. they are
November 15, 2006 - 18:21 ET by buddycno you are wrong. they are purging the ranks. murtha is a tool. his use has passed. the Speaker can't openly turn on him so she is sent her storm troopers in the mdia to stick it to him in the back. i must say he deserves it. they want all liberals in positions of authority. murther is a liberal but is isn't far enough left.
what you see happening to Murther is the lurch to the left that we were promised wouldn't happen.