It has been interesting, to say the least, to watch the MSM twist itself into knots trying to report this story of Pelosi backing the extremist Murtha for Party leadership over the objections of the so-called "blue dog" Democrats who were recently elected to Congress.
Pelosi has decided to ardently back the extreme anti-war activist, John Murtha (Dem, PA), for the Democrat's Majority leader position in a move that has 'baffled" many Democrats, especially those incoming Democrats who ran as conservative alternatives to Republicans -- as well as other incumbent moderate Democrats -- who are instead backing Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer.
Hoyer is well known on the floor not to be quite as extreme as Murtha is on a pull out from Iraq (Hoyer voted to give Bush the OK to go into Iraq in 2002, but he IS for gradual withdraw to be sure), but few Americans will have even heard of Steny Hoyer, he not being much of a "national" figure. On the other hand, anyone who had paid politics much attention knows that Murtha is against the war and is a vocal critic of President Bush. Murtha is well known for his many extreme positions and statements.
So, we have a "moderate" in Hoyer facing an extremist in Murtha in this fight for Party Majority leader. But, one would be hard pressed to see any MSM outlet presenting the facts in such a light. In fact, the MSM seems to want to present the story as a corruption issue instead of a war issue, even as they want to assume that the recent election is a vote by the electorate to get out of Iraq.
The New York Times lamented the loss of "unity" with this leadership fight, seemingly pleading for the Democrats to stop giving the GOP something to be so "giddy" about. Not a word, though that this is a fight between the "moderate" Hoyer and the more extreme Mutha.
Of course, at the top of the story are a few jabs at Republicans, even though this is NOT a Republican story. I think it is impossible for the NYT to publish a story without taking a shot or two at the GOP. Those mean Republicans are reported as the "(d)owntrodden Republicans" who were "were enjoying the spectacle" and as being "giddy" over it all.
But, the Times does not use descriptives like "extreme" to describe Mr. Murtha, oh no! As close as they get to it is saying that he played some role in "building Democratic opposition to the Iraq war, an issue that was crucial to the party’s victories last week."
The Baltimore Sun also heads their story on the Pelois/Murtha/Hoyer issue with jabs at the GOP by resurrecting Trent Lott's troubles from 2002 at the top of their story. Trent Lott is part of the Democratic Party Majority leader story... how? Obviously, the Sun wants to take as much of the light off the troubles in the Democrat leadership as they can with a they-are-bad-too type of finger pointing, with hopes that most people will only read the first few paragraphs of the story leaving them with only bad thoughts about Republicans, presumably.
The L.A. Times has used their story to highlight the allegations of corruption leveled at both Murtha and Hoyer, a common (and unavoidable) thread running through all these stories.
But to Murtha's obvious position as the leading extremist against the war, the L.A. Times merely describes Murtha as a "tough-talking veteran who made headlines last year by denouncing President Bush's policy in Iraq". No hint of his being an extremist on the war in comparison to Hoyer's somewhat less dogmatic stance on the war.
How often in the last 4 years did we hear pro-war Republicans as "Hawks" or "Neo-Conservatives", or "War supporters"? And how often has ANY moderation on the war been seen as a cause to highlight at the cost of all else?
But, where is the "fairness" and "balance" in this case where one man, Murtha, holds a very extreme position and one, Hoyer, a lesser one?
Interesting how suddenly there are no extremes and no moderates when we are reporting on Democrats, eh?
Comments Policy
The good Senator looks as if
November 16, 2006 - 10:24 ET by JPR1The good Senator looks as if he may be having some trouble with a kidney stone!
That can be a serious health issue. I don't think he should serve.
JPR1
November 16, 2006 - 10:26 ET by misterbillThe good senator is in the other half of his cycle. He breaks wind from both ends!
NOT a Senator, Mr. Bill, but
November 16, 2006 - 11:36 ET by PSPCplMurtha is a member of the House of Representatives. However, you are quite right about his ablility to flatuate from both his oral and anal orifices. He reminds me of that lawyer joke: "How do you know when a lawyer is lying? His mouth is open!" Likewise, "How do you know when Murtha is flatuating? His mouth is open."
Yeah, the "senator"
November 16, 2006 - 12:21 ET by Indiana JoeYeah, the "senator" comment had me going there too. I thought I'd missed something else about the election...
kidney stone ?
November 16, 2006 - 10:27 ET by Free Stinkerkidney stone
Perhaps he just needs a good swig of Pepto Bismo? ;-)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The MSM supports the troops. The enemy's troops!
Yeah, such a happy lookin'
November 16, 2006 - 10:29 ET by Warner Todd HustonYeah, such a happy lookin' feller, eh?
Murtha
November 16, 2006 - 10:34 ET by BBallleaperI'm confused. Not unusual, but confused. Are you intimating that Murtha is a Senator????????? He's a Congressman from PA. Wait, allow me to edit. A dirty, bribe-taking, slimy on the take, pork for dough sleaze bag who should be in jail. Speaking of jail, Maryland has to be the MOST corrupt state in America. Hoyer is the #1 "earmarks" Congressman in Washington. If Hoyer is clean then I'm O.J!
Opps, my bad. Yes, Representa
November 16, 2006 - 10:58 ET by JPR1Opps, my bad. Yes, Representative Murtha. How I made this error I don’t know; Senators never project this low level of decorum or have histories of shady financial dealings. Your adjectives are spot on!
Forgiven JPRI
November 16, 2006 - 11:38 ET by PSPCplYou know how it is with Libs: after awhile they all look and flatuate alike.
Looking at that picture again
November 16, 2006 - 12:57 ET by JPR1Looking at that picture again I see Chris Matthews in 15 years or so. Maybe Olby as well, but I suspect he will be “confined” somewhere by then.
" Senators never project
November 16, 2006 - 12:25 ET by Indiana Joe" Senators never project this low level of decorum or have histories of shady financial dealings."
JPR1,
Forgot the </sarc> .... ;^)
( I know...unnecessary, LOL!)
Good point Indy. I’ve found
November 16, 2006 - 13:04 ET by JPR1Good point Indy. I’ve found myself crossing my fingers hoping it came through on other occassions. A guy could take a needless pummeling if he’s not careful!
Oh, yeah, we "far right-
November 16, 2006 - 13:31 ET by Indiana JoeOh, yeah, we "far right-wing fanatics" can be BRUTAL about stuff like that!
LMAO!!!
I am a doctor
November 16, 2006 - 12:16 ET by James AnthonyThe man is clearly choking on ethics. Perhaps the good barney franks will perform a Hindlique manuver. They met at the nambla march with pelosi.
Oh, no... no....
November 16, 2006 - 12:29 ET by Indiana JoeOh, no... no.... the image is forming... the new Capitol Hill casual eatery....
"Barney's Franks!"
Ahhhh! Make it stop!!!!
Franchise opportunities comin
November 16, 2006 - 13:06 ET by JPR1Franchise opportunities coming soon!
NO THANKS!!!Motto: "Just
November 16, 2006 - 13:40 ET by Indiana JoeNO THANKS!!!
Motto: "Just say 'no thanks' to Barney's Franks!"
Extremism in attacking Bush is Moderation
November 16, 2006 - 10:33 ET by pilsenerThe media has routinely labelled Murtha as supportive on defense issues until Iraq. I'm actually surprised that you expect the media to name any Democrat as "extreme".
Has the MSM labelled any of these positions as extreme:
Al Gore on Global Warming & the environment.
John Conyers on Slave Reparations
Barbara Boxer on almost every issue
I rest my case.
Didn't expect that they WOU
November 16, 2006 - 10:38 ET by Warner Todd HustonDidn't expect that they WOULD, just pointing out the bias.
WTH,The MSM, apparently, does
November 16, 2006 - 11:01 ET by Chris NormanWTH,
The MSM, apparently, doesn't even recognize there is such a thing as liberal extremism, do they?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
NOPE!This story SCREAMS for
November 16, 2006 - 11:05 ET by Warner Todd HustonNOPE!
This story SCREAMS for the label, though. Hoyer the "moderate" and Murtha the "extremist". They would have gone for such labels if it were all about the GOP, you can be sure!!!
Pursuing the truth further, t
November 16, 2006 - 12:27 ET by Chris NormanPursuing the truth further, the MSM regards just about any Republican, to the right of Lincoln Chaffee, as a "Right-Wing Exremist", yes?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
"Silence is assent."
November 16, 2006 - 12:31 ET by Indiana Joe"Silence is assent."
So, in MSM parlance, we have
November 16, 2006 - 12:47 ET by Chris NormanSo, in MSM parlance, we have
1 "pragmatic, conscientious Moderate Republican" (we call them RINOs)
2 "Right Wing Extremist" (most all other Republicans)
3 "Democrat" (as long as the news is good - otherwise, no label at all).
*For #2, I'm sure there are other labels that are equally ominous sounding
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
C'mon Chris, 'fess up.You cop
November 16, 2006 - 13:43 ET by Indiana JoeC'mon Chris, 'fess up.
You copied that straight out of the MSM's "Basic Writer's Guidelines" book, right?
...show-off... ;^D
Oh, I think we could write it
November 16, 2006 - 14:52 ET by Chris NormanOh, I think we could write it for 'em, based just on observation...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
"Could?" If we co
November 17, 2006 - 07:10 ET by Indiana Joe"Could?"
If we combed the NB archives and collated it, I think we're already working on the 2nd or 3rd edition, no?
Publish it. I smell Pulitzer. .... ;^D
'extreme anti war activist'
November 16, 2006 - 10:42 ET by troublemaker'extreme anti war activist'...
didn't he visit some war zones before, doesn't he have some acquaintances in the military, wasn't he a reservist or something? i know he had some military service... probably just reluctantly called up in the draft or something... probably just one of those pretend patriots who puts on boots for or 2 years to service his long term political agenda.
“…boots on for 2 years to
November 16, 2006 - 11:05 ET by JPR1“…boots on for 2 years to service his long term political agenda.”
Yes, and he sure makes John Efnn Kerry look like a slacker.John Murtha volunteered for t
November 16, 2006 - 12:23 ET by Agnostic frontJohn Murtha volunteered for the Marines in 1952, and was awarded the American Spirit Honor Medal for outstanding leadership during training. He eventually became a drill instructor at Parris Island, and then was selected for Officer School at Quantico. After Quantico, Murtha was assigned to the Second Marine Division. In 1959, Murtha, then a Captain, took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown, PA. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty, until he volunteered for service in Vietnam, serving from 1966 to 1967 as a battalion staff officer, where he received the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Distinguished Service Medal.
Sure sounds like two years to me. No wonder all those hawks don’t trust him.
Doesn't matter if he was Audi
November 16, 2006 - 12:27 ET by MightyMouthDoesn't matter if he was Audie Frigin Murphy, the man is a disgrace to the uniform today.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
So 38 years of military servi
November 16, 2006 - 12:31 ET by Agnostic frontSo 38 years of military service doesn't lead you to believe that Murtha has the troops' best interest in mind when he offers an objective opinion as to the state of Iraq? You may have a different opinion of how we should conduct the war, but to say that he is a disgrace to his uniform is uncalled for and offensive.
Are we talking about the same
November 16, 2006 - 12:37 ET by MightyMouthAre we talking about the same Mutha who jumped to judgement about our "murdering troops"? Get off your high horse. I have talked to several marines and ex marines about Murtha (some my brothers) and they all agree, disgraceful is he.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
What those troops did at Hadi
November 16, 2006 - 12:46 ET by Agnostic frontWhat those troops did at Haditha was potentially murder. Three Marines are still facing the possibility of facing indictment for murder.
"potentially murder"
November 16, 2006 - 12:56 ET by MightyMouth"potentially murder", "facing the possiblilty".
If you recall, he called it "murder", BEFORE the investigation. In doing so, fuled the anti war philisophy and put other soldiers at risk for retaliation. If he had the "troops best interest at heart" why did he not assume them innocent until proven guilty? Even "real" murderers in this country are afforded that right. You can defend Murtha all you want but what he did was just wrong.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"What those troops did a
November 16, 2006 - 13:14 ET by Indiana Joe"What those troops did at Haditha was potentially murder. Three Marines are still facing the possibility of facing indictment for murder."
"Potentially murder?" Has it been determined yet that it was "murder?" Or did you mean to say that "What those troops allegedly did at Haditha was murder?" I merely ask for purposes of clarification.
Your second sentence quoted above strikes me as being rather over-filled with supposition: "facing the possibility of facing indictment...." Strikes me as similar to saying "He could might possibly be...." A bit thin on substance, if you catch my meaning.
I hope that the military justice system works this all out, and that true justice is served in this case. But I must say that it sounds to me like you may have jumped to some conclusions of your own here, sir.
IMHO, of course.
"You may have a differen
November 16, 2006 - 12:48 ET by Indiana Joe"You may have a different opinion of how we should conduct the war, but to say that he is a disgrace to his uniform is uncalled for and offensive."
No argument here. Although I believe it is possible for a former military member to become a "disgrace to his uniform," I'm not aware that Murtha qualifies for that kind of descriptor.
While I can agree that Rep. Murtha's service should not be denigrated, neither does it give him cover when being an active politician. Plenty of military personnel, including those who have been or ARE IN Iraq, disagree with his opinion. And I also question his "objectivity" when expressing his opinions about the war in Iraq, again because he IS a politician, with possible political motivations. (Yes, I know, DUH!)
When we decide that questioning our politicians and their motives, military heroes or not, is off-limits for any reason, we've lost the Republic.
You have hit it on the head.
November 16, 2006 - 13:00 ET by Agnostic frontYou have hit it on the head. Murtha may have political motivation for wanting to withdraw from Iraq, and you have every right to believe this. I just don't think that any reasonable discourse can be had when you start lobbing "disgrace to his unifrom" around.
Of course having worn a unifo
November 16, 2006 - 13:07 ET by MightyMouthOf course having worn a uniform may cause a different view point. Not trying to be antagonistic here. I think you'll find that (especially among Marines) those in uniform and those who have worn it are very sensitive about being called a "murderer" for prosecuting our country's wars. (see vietnam)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"Of course having worn a
November 16, 2006 - 13:29 ET by Indiana Joe"Of course having worn a uniform may cause a different view point. Not trying to be antagonistic here. I think you'll find that (especially among Marines) those in uniform and those who have worn it are very sensitive about being called a "murderer" for prosecuting our country's wars. (see vietnam)"
Can't argue with you there, MM. I never had the honor to serve, so I always defer to the judgement of those who have "been there and done that." But it's not hard to understand why being accused of ANYTHING unjustly, particularly "murder," would be inflammatory, uniform or no. The treatment of our returning servicemen during the Viet Nam era is to our everlasting shame, IMO. And attempts to draw that parallel with Iraq are counter-productive and entirely unjustified. Again, IMHO.
Having said all that, I also must state that I believe very strongly in one of the founding principles of our nation, and that is: the military is controlled by civilians. It's why the "Commander-in-Chief" is not required to be an active member, or even a veteran. So, while I do defer in matters of tactics, logistics, even opinions of those in uniform to those who have worn it, I don't agree with the opinions of some that civilians have no right to comment on any matters regarding the military. I have run into that viewpoint, but, I hasten to add, not in this thread, nor anywhere else on NB. But it is out there.
(btw, am I spelling "civilian" correctly? It just doesn't look right to me.....)
I Joe,Try dictionary.com
November 16, 2006 - 13:33 ET by BlondeI Joe,
Try dictionary.com
"civilian" is cor
November 16, 2006 - 13:34 ET by JasonC"civilian" is correct. It does look a little off though, doesnt it...
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Okay, I'm usually pritty gud
November 16, 2006 - 13:49 ET by Indiana JoeOkay, I'm usually pritty gud at speling.
And how a word looks just seems to be my cue. Maybe it's just the font or something.....
Have you talked with John Ker
November 16, 2006 - 16:59 ET by FastEdHave you talked with John Kerry lately? (he served in Viet Nam y'know)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
know, ahm two dum to ivin bi
November 16, 2006 - 17:20 ET by Indiana Joeknow, ahm two dum to ivin bi in da miltari.
hey daid? i din no dat!
"Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have" - R. Limbaugh
I prefer to work without a ne
November 16, 2006 - 13:51 ET by Indiana JoeBlonde,
I prefer to work without a net. ..... ;^D
LMAO!
(I checked, JasonC is right. It just LOOKED weird...)
Thanks Joe, I would like to m
November 16, 2006 - 13:46 ET by MightyMouthThanks Joe, I would like to make it clear that I do not wish to be-little those who have not served, even though all the male members of my family have.
I do think that anyone who becomes president should have serverd, but that is a personal opinion.
With regard to the Vietnam comparison: The only comparison I can see is that the country is divided and the MSM very anti-war. I would have hoped that we as americans would have learned a lesson from Vietnam. That lesson being; unity when our President and Congress go to war. There is a hindsite 20/20 popular opinion that Vietnam could have been won if the country had been unified in that purpose. Iraq will only become another "Vietnam"(read: we lose) if we allow it to.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Agreed about any "parall
November 16, 2006 - 14:04 ET by Indiana JoeAgreed about any "parallel" with VN. These guys are doing their DAMNEDEST to make it so. And they wonder why the question, "Don't you want us to win?" is even raised.
Also, from what I've heard, many veterans OF Viet Nam are of the opinion that we DID "win," and then just let that victory collapse due to the political turmoil back home.
One similarity DOES strike me, though. Or maybe it's more of a contrast. I turned 18 in December of 1974. That's how I missed the draft, but it was a near thing. Point is, I'm old enough to recall some of the debates going on at the time. And one thing I remember is that a lot of people felt the "micro-management" of the war from Washington was a major tactical blunder. "Let the field commanders run the tactics," was the outcry of those who wanted to win versus pull-out.
Now, it seems that the MSM wants Iraq to be "micro-managed," with every Republican in the Administration explaining and defending and being completely "plugged-in" to every single troop movement and tactical situation in the whole country.
Similarity? No. Contrast? Maybe. Hypocrisy?
BINGO!!!
( gotta catch some zzz's....insomnia.....L8R all)
He is a disgrace to the unifo
November 16, 2006 - 18:18 ET by UnsaneHe is a disgrace to the uniform at present. Oh yes, and he sure as all hell was and is no logistician. He proves that last point with his idea of merely redeploying to Okinawa.
By the way, why is the front part of my statement "uncalled for and offensive", but Kerry's anti-military blast of a few weeks back perfectly OK?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Americans didn't choose Lib
November 16, 2006 - 10:55 ET by troublemakerAmericans didn't choose Liberals, they went for Democrats who ran as conservative alternatives to Republicans. The Blue Dogs:
For now they will do: Here is what MSM darling (secret conservative Jim Webb wrote recently).
The most important--and
unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our
society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which
we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown
infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not
unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country.
Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send
their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making
the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of
working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national
income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they
protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.
Incestuous corporate boards
regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others
that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the
average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a
year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a
year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from
college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average
worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much......
http://www.opinionjo...
Of course when you draw the p
November 16, 2006 - 12:40 ET by dscottOf course when you draw the picture in such stark contrasts it all looks so unfair, right? First off, the tax code does not protect the top 1%. In fact, the bottom half (50%) of wage earners do not pay any federal income tax at all and on top of that those who qualify get EIC which means they actually get federal tax money instead of paying nothing. The reality is the top 50% of wage earners pay 100% of the federal income tax in this country. So much for whining about tax cuts for the rich and middle class when the poor doesn't pay any federal taxes.
Secondly, the point of wage disparity is to reward those who take the risks of time, effort and education. Since you are whining about how much CEO's make you take notice that those folks are salaried and have stock options. Salaried means they work anywhere from 40 to 80 hours per week, the value of stock options are only reaped when the CEO makes good business decisions benefiting the company, much like an outside salesman getting a commission on sales. To compare a low wage hourly worker to a high wage salaried executive is Socialist nonsense of equating apples to oranges.
As to your reference to private education versus public education, thank you for admitting that the public school system as currently operated does not serve the poor or middle class well. You can thank the libs and their support of the Teacher's unions.
“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
Well-answered, dscott. One mi
November 16, 2006 - 18:25 ET by Indiana JoeWell-answered, dscott. One minor point, and it may be my misunderstanding.
You appear to be engaging troublemaker in this debate. My understanding is that he is quoting a piece by Jim Webb, and doesn't seem to agree with it, IMO. So, you are actually debating Webb's points.
If that is indeed your take on it as well, then the misunderstanding is mine.
Regards,
IJ <edit> 0558 - Okay, let me get this egg off my face. To be fair, clicked a link troublemaker left below. Umm , yeah apparently he DOES agree with this type stuff.....Curses, fooled again! ;^)
And after all of that - how m
November 16, 2006 - 16:55 ET by FastEdMr. Webb - if you were to read this - And after all of that - how much has come out of your pocket? Why no get a job that put you on the fast track to become a CEO and make the money they make. I make what I do, cause I'm satisfied with what I'm making, and when I want more I look for a position that pays more, apply, and if I get hired - so be it. I am responsible for what I do/am. Don't blame other for what YOU don't have - go out and get it, if it means so much to you.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Fairness?
November 16, 2006 - 18:30 ET by Unsanetroublemaker, since it is clear you are so deeply pained by the concept of fairness, maybe you can explain to this math-impaired poster what is fair about the top 40% of wage earners paying 99.94% of all income taxes (from the 15 April issue of The Economist)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Democratic implosion
November 16, 2006 - 11:17 ET by Ruths husband BenI personally think we should all shut up for about a year about these dumbasses Democrats and just feed them rope. Malkin said it right when she said they can't help themselves. We can spend the next year better by getting our house in shape for '08.
crooks
November 16, 2006 - 11:44 ET by iveseenitallAmerica's traded one set of crooks for another.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
You have hit the proverbial n
November 16, 2006 - 11:52 ET by kwOf course, at the top of th
November 16, 2006 - 11:43 ET by JDWOf course, at the top of the story are a few jabs at Republicans, even though this is NOT a Republican story. I think it is impossible for the NYT to publish a story without taking a shot or two at the GOP. Those mean Republicans are reported as the "(d)owntrodden Republicans" who were "were enjoying the spectacle" and as being "giddy" over it all.
Each is struggling to regain their identity.
The dems, as much as they fight the urges, cannot escape innate leftist perspective. Hoyer is not one of the club, Murtha will in the end fight for what is needed.
On the other side, Trent 'I cannot impeach Clinton/Let's share' Lott is back. Along with the Menendez 'let's invite the world in' attitude we might as well vote with cell phones from country clubs.
The dems can stand up for themselves, and tell lies. We cannot stand up for ourselves let alone defend the truth. A Lynne Cheney tape should be produced and made mandatory watching for these people.
We are observing before us the unfolding of the real party characteristics of each. Fortunately the dems have exposed themselves for who they truly are, hopefully Mr Murtha will be a part of it. Unfortunately, as identified in the story, we are not yet able to conquer.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
When your starting point is o
November 16, 2006 - 11:45 ET by kwMurtha is a strawman, Pelosi
November 16, 2006 - 12:51 ET by dscottMurtha is a strawman, Pelosi had to make a big deal out of him because of his anti-war stance. He will be left twisting in the wind with the rest of the dupes at the Daily Kos and DU when Steny Hoyer is choosen over him. Pelosi can count votes like anyone else, she knew this would be the end result before she tossed Murtha out there.
Mark my words, as soon as January 2nd occurs, it will be business as usual for the Democrat Party, Iraq won't be on the radar screen other than the obligatory rhetoric for the ultra left's benefit. Remember Howard Dean waffled on the pull out.
“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
"The New York Times lame
November 16, 2006 - 12:55 ET by Galvanic"The New York Times lamented the loss of "unity" with this leadership fight, seemingly pleading for the Democrats to stop giving the GOP something to be so "giddy" about."
The unity was between Schumer (DSCC) and Emanuel (DCC), the architects of the DP victory. Dean was tenuously linked to that unity, but was irrelevent in the end.
But that was an election, where the gameplan was agreed upon. Governing is a different animal, and thanks to the seniority system, brings in a whole different herd of animals: the old liberal brahmas. Since their incumbent seats were safe, they weren't part of the team that won the election, and feel no obligation toward the architects.
So, the old infighting stirs out of its 12-year hybernation and resumes..
Not a word, though that this is a fight between the "moderate" Hoyer and the more extreme Mutha.
If you'll recall what Bernard Goldberg has written about the MSM, it all comes down to where they sit. The MSM does not consider itself liberal, but rather 'centrist' (Dan Rather is a good example of this; he does not see himself as liberal). Thus, from that reference point, Moyer becomes a moderate, and Murtha ain't all that extreme.
They are also reluctant to see Pelosi's first steps as provocatively Leftist. Her early endorsement of Murtha was designed to keep rival Hoyer at arm's length.
MSM Leftward Bias Unintentionally Revealed
November 16, 2006 - 13:01 ET by daveinbocaApropos of the MSM inability to call a spade a spade, read <a href="http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/2568.html">The Washingtonian</a> which has a short article which unintentionally reveals the leftist bias of the Mainstream Media, but also disses those leftist bloggers who were thumping their chests and claiming credit for the GOP losses.
Under the headline "Another Election Winner, The Mainstream Media," author Harry Jaffe says:
<blockquote>In time, journalists freelancing as bloggers on the Internet might have greater impact on American elections, but if last week’s voting is any indication, the political landscape is still being painted by the reporters working for major media outlets.</blockquote>
There is simply no doubt in the MSM's mind that it is totally Democratic in its leanings and prejudices. This was extensively outlined by a UCLA/U of Missouri study last winter which gave the MSM a 70 on the Americans for Democratic Action scale, in which only rabid bomb-throwers get a 100 for leftist insanity. Even the WSJ and Drudge scored around 50 in this study which took THREE YEARS!
Guess what. The Mainstream Media did not report the study of its own very-left bias. Who wouldda thunkit? The old days of Pravda and Izvestia are still with us, only now it's the NYT and the Washington Post.
If you have any doubts, just click on the link above.
Wow, daveinboca (Raton, I gue
November 17, 2006 - 02:05 ET by Indiana JoeWow, daveinboca (Raton, I guess, you ludky dog! 40 degrees and rainy here!),
Never have I seen such self-congratulation. These guys are in serious danger of rotator-cuff injury from patting themselves on the back! And the fact that they concentrated on only PART of each of the stories listed to their "credit" either bothers them not one bit, or they truly are blinkered to it.
I also note that the ONLY race they grudgingly credit to "bloggers" is the "macacca" moment first noted on YouTube, which they credit with Allen's loss. In other words, only liberal blog-work is effective or needed, although even that is rare. Point taken.
I guess we all may as well pack it in and go home. We're not having any effect on anything. We're just a bunch of "upstarts," fooling no one but ourselves. Last one out of the blogosphere, please turn out the lights. The party's over.
It must be true, because the MSM tells us so!
Pelosi and Murtha loseJDWKe
November 16, 2006 - 13:15 ET by JDWPelosi and Murtha lose
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Wow. Not even a close vote? 1
November 16, 2006 - 13:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberWow. Not even a close vote? 149-86 is embarrassing.
Was this a statement of Pelosi being an poor leader, or is it a matter of Hillary's influence on Dems in Congress, preserving her "#1 Bitch" status?
At any rate, the Dems haven't even taken over yet, and the fun has already begun.
Dem Feeding Frenzy
November 16, 2006 - 13:31 ET by BlondeRTS,
Oh, the feeding frenzy has begun for real.
I saw this morning that Carville is going after Howard Dean....shoulda, woulda, coulda and the dem's would have won bigger....blah, blah, blah.
Clintonistas are on the move, big time.
It's going to get ugly. Me, I'm laying in a supply of popcorn.
We still have Dean, the med
November 16, 2006 - 14:08 ET by JDWWe still have Dean, the media will be going in circles. The economy is sailing, Iraq is doing well, Iran has nukes, N Korea wants to serve up nukes, there are tornado warnings, illegals are driving down wages, and the dems are fighting.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Blonde - move over, I'll brin
November 16, 2006 - 16:50 ET by FastEdBlonde - move over, I'll bring some beer and some dip (no, not a lib). When the tax propsals get announced, and the so-called "dogs" start contradicting the party line, the spin and other things should be very interesting to see.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
I prefer a sweet red wine, li
November 16, 2006 - 16:55 ET by bassndudeI prefer a sweet red wine, like a sangria or a concorde, and lots of butter on the pop corn...:)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Sounds like a party! Comedy o
November 16, 2006 - 17:04 ET by FastEdSounds like a party! Comedy on the TV, poped corn, beer, wine, maybe other adult beverages. Should I bring extra "smoking jackets" for y'all, or is this a non-smoking house?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
I dont smoke.. except for the
November 16, 2006 - 17:12 ET by bassndudeI dont smoke.. except for the occasional cigar on the back patio...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Wow,Leave you guys unsupervis
November 16, 2006 - 18:45 ET by BlondeWow,
Leave you guys unsupervised for a couple of hours and the party's on!
Where's RJ & the rum?
Check under the couch.Save a
November 16, 2006 - 18:49 ET by bassndudeCheck under the couch.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bigger cooler in the van! The
November 16, 2006 - 21:34 ET by FastEdBigger cooler in the van!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Thought it was at Blonde's pl
November 17, 2006 - 02:19 ET by Indiana JoeThought it was at Blonde's place?
The fun has started and it
November 16, 2006 - 14:00 ET by JDWThe fun has started and it ain't 07. How will they spin it?
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Seems I saw it somewhere (may
November 17, 2006 - 02:17 ET by Indiana JoeSeems I saw it somewhere (maybe another thread) that Murtha was really just a "sacrificial lamb," and Pelosi wouldn't really back him if it came to a fight. So maybe this isn't such a big surprise....?
New Gun Totin Dems Called Moderates - GOP called Right Wing
November 16, 2006 - 14:04 ET by pearlNew Gun Totin Dems Called Moderates - GOP called Right Wing
The newly elected Dems (pro-life,pro-gun,anti-gay marriage) are rightly called moderates. Republicans with the same mainstream views are called right wing idealogues/zealots.
I have been wondering about w
November 16, 2006 - 14:20 ET by bassndudeI have been wondering about what the dems would call me if I were to switch parties. And I am thinking about it. Just to drive them crazy.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
And you'd become crazy in the
November 16, 2006 - 16:45 ET by FastEdAnd you'd become crazy in the mean time - so DON'T do it! What would your sig become? "Save a LeAF, hug a tree!"?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
bassndude name change
November 16, 2006 - 16:59 ET by misterbillwere you to switch and still want to be fish related how about crappiendude???
Sliver eel, or maybe blowfish
November 16, 2006 - 17:06 ET by FastEdSliver eel, or maybe blowfishdude (nah, we'd think it was Clinton)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Just wondering how they would
November 16, 2006 - 17:10 ET by bassndudeJust wondering how they would classify me guys...lol. I am a Vietnam vet, pro gun, pro life, pro hunting, pro military pro tax cuts. What would Nancy do with me??? Bet I could give her heart burn for days...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
She'd hire ya as a body g