This morning on a local news/talk show which I watch only occasionally, it interested me that they mentioned that some lawyer who worked at the White House during the Bush administration had been arrested for beating his wife. What interested me the most was that the newscaster looked into the camera and said "The Bush family has no comment."Seems to you like this might be a silly little post, what's the point, who's heard of this? But, I was curious as to what comment the leftwing news show might have expected any Bush to make? Does this have bearing on his past work for the White House? Curious, isn't it? (Sorry, I Googled a bit and can't find a link to the story, let me know if you can...thanks)
z
36 comments:
I would ask that reporter what comment the Obamas have over their budget director's jilted-baby-mama-drama and his new fiancee?
[***sound of crickets chirping***]
This has nothing to do with the Bushes. Just more piling on by a press that is completely servile to the left.
oh, cube..good one. Excellent...imagine Robt Gibbs if HE was asked at a press conference what the Obamas think?
I guess we'd get the typical answer "There's a war in Afghanistan...we have bigger fish to fry..no story here, move on....oh, and oh, 'take a deep breath...see? that works with my little boy, too'....." remember THAT line to WH press corp member who DARED ask uncomfortable questions of THE ONE'S MINION MR GIBBS? WOW.
Funny. But then you can't question Bill Ayers, Wright, etc...
FrogBurger, well, remember....Obama ONLY knew Ayers from 'living in the same neighborhood.'
The media corrected that with the many ways by which he actually DID know Ayers quite well and people STILL voted for the man.
So....the leftwinger gets the total pass. Slam/dunk. And the country loses.
Funny. But then you can't question Bill Ayers, Wright, etc...
---------------------
Are you insane? Not a wee k goes by when some right wing bed wetter doesn't bring them up.
Seriously? This is getting so sad and pathetic in the blogosphere when media bias is chalked up with a simple inquiry as to whether or not the subject's former employer has a comment.
If in fact it was merely a case of the man beating his wife, I might grant you the benefit of the doubt (albeit even that would be a stretch). But, the man is being charged with attempted murder.
What's more, it is not merely the media that continues to invoke Bush's name when things go awry, why the Republican establishment and their loyalists play the same game whenever they ask:
"Can you imagine if Bush had done this???"
it all goes back to my theory. The left is for the whiners, the cry babies. They have to blame others when they're not up to the job instead of saying they're not suited for it. That applies to Obama, who, when trying to look strong, looks actually like someone who tries to play it strong. It's pretty pathetic.
Ducky, my point was about the type of relationships. There's a difference in the nature of the relationship with the lawyer and the relationships of Obamarx. If a President was tied to a terrorist, or would nominate a criminal for his cabinet, left or right, he should be blamed for it. If the president has a friend who's having personal problems with his wife, that's a different context. Especially if it happens AFTER the relationship was initiated.
Kinda logical. Oh wait the left has no logic and no depth in its analysis. It's child-like thinking.
"It's child-like thinking."
One might say it's not all together different than crafting pet names (Obamarx, Obummer, etc.) for one's political adversaries eh?
Ducky, are you insane? We're talking the AMERICAN MEDIA...ABC NBC CBS CNN MSNBC etc.
And, please remind us, WHEN was the last time a rightwing 'bedwetter' brought up Ayres or Wright on the air?
Soapbox, you can't be serious. What in the world should the Bush's say about a past employee they might not have even MET?
By the way....when fairness strikes a beat, let us know.
You think any of those Obama monikers (none of which I or any of the bloggers here have used, by the way) are as bad as BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED, HURRAH THAT TONY SNOW"S DEAD..TOO BAD CHENEY LIVED....pictures of Bush as Hitler and Durbin CALLING him Hitler?
I just don't see why Conservatives can get on a subject like this and people come here and act like everything's fair in the media/on the air, and 'you conservatives are just over the top'.
Please, address the point. Then address another excellent point that was made here. When did ANYBODY in the mainstream media ask "How could Obama not told the truth about his friendship with Ayers? How could he have sat in church 20 years and not heard the things Wright said..? "
etc etc
Yet, MY GOSH...let a lawyer in the Bush admin hurt somebody and the Bush's are supposed to COMMENT? Think about this...stick with the POINT, let's not reinvent the "Conservatives whine" crap.
I will say, the Conservatives Whine crap bears some semblance of truth when you take into consideration their incessant drones about media bias.
One dare ask themselves why then the very Republicans whom they claim bear the brunt of media's criticism, haven't taken to crafting legislation over the years which thwarts said media's ability to become a subsidiary of the Democratic party?
frogburger, if you think you can't bring up his (nonexistent) relationship with Ayers or his relationship with Wright then you must spend your time in a sensory deprivation tank.
One dare ask themselves why then the very Republicans whom they claim bear the brunt of media's criticism, haven't taken to crafting legislation over the years which thwarts said media's ability to become a subsidiary of the Democratic party?
Republicans prefer free market solutions, like the sucessful Fox News and talk radio that Democrats want to shut down.
The words "the government should" rarely pass a conservative's lips, unless the rest of the sentence has something to do with the government going to screw itself or a variant thereof.
"Republicans prefer free market solutions..."
Perhaps "prefer to pay lip service to" is a much more accurate statement.
The fact of the matter is that a great many Republicans ditched free market solutions when they endorsed smoking bans on privately owned businesses, public subsidies for professional sports team stadiums, subsidies for agricultural firms and corn growers, advocating the imposition of a temporary ban on pharmaceutical ads, et al.
Sorry kid. Facts are stubborn things.
If we remember one thing it should be this:
Not all Republicans are Conservatives and not all Conservatives are Republicans.
"One dare ask themselves why then the very Republicans whom they claim bear the brunt of media's criticism, haven't taken to crafting legislation over the years which thwarts said media's ability to become a subsidiary of the Democratic party?"
Soapbox - It's that little thing called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Conservatives don't cherry pick which amendments to adhere to, or to ignore.
Unfortunately, the press, media, have chosen to abuse this freedom, which at this point for the most part, makes them irrelevant.
Pris
It's got nothing to do with the First Amendment Pris and everything to do with Corporatism and special interests. It's not about merely penning an Op-Ed and saying what's on one's mind. It's about deliberately serving policy interests and getting a kick back in return.
Newspapers are in the tank and yet a great many of them are still surviving. And why and how?? Two words...AD REVENUE (and I'll concede that even that is down).
Connect the dots between some of the biggest companies and the media empire and you just might begin to see the disturbing trend.
This merely points out the literal OBSESSION with Mr Bush and the untouchability of Mr Obama. I'm not a big fan of Michael Savage but he's correct when he says that Leftism is a mental disorder. And wrong, Mr Duck; those persons have everything to do with the individual CURRENTLY in office now. When Mr Obama is OUT of office then those persons mean nothing.
BZ
Sorry kid. Facts are stubborn things.
Indeed gramps, they are. Including the fact about conservatives mostly identifying themselves as Republicans and Republicans mostly identifying themselves as conservatives.
Now if you want to take a libertarian purist stance against all government welfare subsidies both private and corporate (we do, after all, have a government that subsidizes tobacco farming with taxes meant to discourage smoking) I'm right there with you (I'm more libertarian than conservative, but live in middle of the overlap of the two). But I don;t think you can argue honestly that Republicans et. al. should compromise their 1st Amendment principles to shut down speech they don't like (something Democrats are all for, by the way) because they've compromised a libertarian or conservative principle elsewhere.
You are spot on about "connecting the dots" on the "media empire" though.
It's pretty sick to realize the conspiracy trail of David Letterman's lame anti-Bush jokes lead back to a plasma screen manufacturing company in Taiwan.
"1st Amendment principles to shut down speech they don't like (something Democrats are all for, by the way)..."
Let us remember, Trent Lott was a Republican. And so it's not merely a Democrat vs. Republican thing.
It's two sides of the same coin if you ask me.
But, I wasn't inferring that there should have been a move to squelch free speech rights. What I am suggesting is that the very Anti-Trust laws that have been used against business ventures could have very well been aimed, by Republicans at the time they held a congressional majority, squarely at a target somewhere between corporate conglomerates and the media empires which serve their interests.
Just like instead of doubling the size of the Department of Education under Bush, we ought to have been headstrong in breaking up the monopoly and the teacher's unions to boot.
What's more, when it comes to the First Amendment and Republicans, let us remember that the GOP, again with there own media assistance, annointed a 2008 candidate who played quite a pivotal role in stifling said amendment vis a' vis his infamous campaign finance reform legislation.
"Including the fact about conservatives mostly identifying themselves as Republicans and Republicans mostly identifying themselves as conservatives."
Simply because someone identifies themselves as conservative doesn't imply that they've any conceptual understanding of the principles which define said term.
As a perfect example I refer to that subset of (ahem) conservatives that support smoking bans on privately owned businesses as well as public stadium funding for their favorite sports team.
Would that be the 2008 campaign that cost Obama and McCain $5.3 Billion dollars?
If the much-maligned "Campaign Finance Reform Act" stifled free speech (or reformed campaign financing), someone forgot to be told.
Simply because someone identifies themselves as conservative doesn't imply that they've any conceptual understanding of the principles which define said term.
I'm all over that at my blog today.
frogburger, if you think you can't bring up his (nonexistent) relationship with Ayers or his relationship with Wright then you must spend your time in a sensory deprivation tank.
I can't even understand what you mean? Of course, I can and I will bring it up.
You must spend your whole time in a sensory tank b/c your rationality is gone and your senses are trumping you. But that's normal, you're on the left. Logic, facts are not pleasureful enough. The eternal philosophical passion vs reason debate.
Campaign Finance Reform stifles free speech in that, by way of the limitations placed on individual donations, an individual (presuming they had the financial resources to do so) essentially "voice" their right to donate a large sum of money towards the campaign of an individual whose values they most align with.
In essence, under the provisions of this ridiculous piece of legislation (No thanks to McCain), the candidacy of Eugene McCarthy would have never been possible. In the case of Eugene McCarthy, it was the wealthy donations of individuals voicing their opposition to the Vietnam War that made is candidacy possible.
Now, say what you will about Eugene McCarthy, but the underlying issue is that while this legislation was intended to make the political process much more open with respect to potential candidates, it has had the opposite effect.
"Will the media ever let up on Bush?"
No and neither will the left, you see Bush committed the worst crime of all in the eyes of the left, he freed two nations from tyranny and kept America safe.
Unforgivable to the left.
You have to watch Chris Matthews...it's getting to where it's almost fun! It used to drive me crazy but the one-sidedness, the lack of Conservative input/good discussions, is absolutely humorous, you guys. And to see the smugness.
They have ZERO fun, the Left. At least on Hannity, he's humorous, he gets the other side on and gives them a chance and treats them with respect....that, at least, is entertaining and even educational. O'Reilly has the other side on, Olbermann never (NEVER EVER) does....no wonder people are watching FOX more often.
I came into this late and was going to comment on your blog Z, until I saw this idiocy
One dare ask themselves why then the very Republicans whom they claim bear the brunt of media's criticism, haven't taken to crafting legislation over the years which thwarts said media's ability to become a subsidiary of the Democratic party?
This is a typical statement from the folks who want to bring back the "fairness doctrine"
Z,
As usual, everything is caused by Bush and the Repubs. I want to know how a party that is supposedly irrelevant can cause so many things to occur. Strange.
As Goldstein was to Oceania in 1984 so Bush is to the modern left.
Soapboxgod,
Be serious. You probably know as well as I do about 527 organizations used quite effectively to circumvent "campaign finance reform" laws by groups seeded with money by George Soros.
So, Eugene McCarthy wouldn't have any more trouble raising money for his campaign than this guy did.
There's been 2 Presidential and 3 Congressional elections since McCain-Feingold was passed.
There wasn't any, any trouble hearing anyone's free speech during any of those, and plenty of 527 organizations on both sides to work through. Heck, you can even set up your own 527 organization if you know the right Iranians or Chinese businessmen.
Shoprat,
LOVE the 1984 reference!
You know Emmanuel Goldstein is a neo-con, right?
Puloneous said:
BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT.
Post a Comment