Political Crossfire Forums

[sublime]

During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:

Now you see their media trying to "fix things." They are saying Pelosi is already failing; she got a smackdown over Murtha; that Murtha was never a good choice, etc.

The media controls that party, folks. Watch the show as it unfolds. It's going to be interesting.......a largely Far, Far Left media and the money of George Soros vs. the Moderates or those posing as moderates, like Hillary is prior to 2008.................

Enjoy!

From the New York Times:


"Editorial
Speaker Pelosi Tempts Disaster

Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.

But Ms. Pelosi’s damage to herself was already done. The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see — from his quid-pro-quo addiction to moneyed lobbyists to the grainy government tape of his involvement in the Abscam scandal a generation ago. The resurrected tape — feasted upon by Pelosi enemies — shows how Mr. Murtha narrowly survived as an unindicted co-conspirator, admittedly tempted but finally rebuffing a bribe offer: “I’m not interested — at this point.”

[Last I heard of it, Murtha told another guy he could go back and pick up the money. If this is not true, then how is Mr. Murtha "tarnished?"]

Mr. Murtha would have been a farcical presence in a leadership promising the cleanest Congress in history. Ms. Pelosi should have been first to realize this, having made such a fiery campaign sword of her vows to end Capitol corruption. Instead, she acted like some old-time precinct boss and lost the first test before her peers.

As incoming speaker, Ms. Pelosi will be dogged by skepticism — from within the party and without — about her political smarts and her ability to deliver a galvanized agenda.

It was a no-brainer for the caucus to end the misguided fight for Mr. Murtha, who belittled the need for reform. Now the pressure is even greater for Speaker-elect Pelosi to recover by leading the House to something actually worth fighting for — starting with credible anticorruption strictures. For this she needs gaffe-wary advisers, among them Mr. Hoyer, who has his own questionable record of flourishing in big-money politics. The new majority — led by a presumably wiser speaker — must realize by now that intramural vendetta is hardly a substitute for productive government"


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/opinion/17fri2.html?ei=5090&en=822f450cc0697b4f&ex=1321419600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[Nathyn]

sublime wrote: During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:
That's because the media's job is to objectively report the news, not smear Democrats.

Are you trying to argue that the media is biased because it doesn't attack Democrats?

Come on, now.

[Dookiestix]

Nathyn wrote: sublime wrote: During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:
That's because the media's job is to objectively report the news, not smear Democrats.

Are you trying to argue that the media is biased because it doesn't attack Democrats?

Come on, now.
Exactly. That job belongs to Fox News.

[00timh]

Nathyn wrote: sublime wrote: During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:
That's because the media's job is to objectively report the news, not smear Democrats.

Are you trying to argue that the media is biased because it doesn't attack Democrats?

Come on, now. Really Nathyn, a majority of the msm is extremely biased and the reporting is extremely biased. There have been numerous studies on this that show a decided advantage in the msm reports regarding democrats. The Republicans have their favored media outlets as well but they are far outnumbered.

[sublime]

Nathyn wrote: sublime wrote: During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:
That's because the media's job is to objectively report the news, not smear Democrats.

Are you trying to argue that the media is biased because it doesn't attack Democrats?

Come on, now.

So you call this a smear? My point is that they never countered prior to the election that they consider Murtha corrupt while hammering Republicans as corrupt.

Is this too difficult for you? It proves a lack of objectively at the least; and manipulation of American elections by not giving Americans both sides of the issues.

[mr.snruB]

00timh wrote: Nathyn wrote: sublime wrote: During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:
That's because the media's job is to objectively report the news, not smear Democrats.

Are you trying to argue that the media is biased because it doesn't attack Democrats?

Come on, now. Really Nathyn, a majority of the msm is extremely biased and the reporting is extremely biased. There have been numerous studies on this that show a decided advantage in the msm reports regarding democrats. The Republicans have their favored media outlets as well but they are far outnumbered.

Back that up. Find the studies and post them

[Sands]

A smackdown??

No... more like a tiny speedbump in that HUGE parking lot known as Political maneuvering. It will hardly slow her down, sublime. Face it...you'll have Pelosi to rag on for years and years to come... I can visualize at least 6 maybe 8.

[Charlie Man]

What "they," sublime? This is an opinion piece. Not representative and all that. Calm down and yell at the author of it for hypocrisy or something.

And yes, it has been shown that reality has a strong liberal bias. As for the media, that goes back and forth. Remember the favorable/unfavorable portrayals of Gore study? Now, I'm sure there are plenty of conservative think tank studies that count moderate viewpoints as liberal and get skewed results that way, but really, what littel bias there is is in the name of sensationalism, not liberal or conservative.

[Dookiestix]

00timh wrote: Nathyn wrote: sublime wrote: During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:
That's because the media's job is to objectively report the news, not smear Democrats.

Are you trying to argue that the media is biased because it doesn't attack Democrats?

Come on, now. Really Nathyn, a majority of the msm is extremely biased and the reporting is extremely biased. There have been numerous studies on this that show a decided advantage in the msm reports regarding democrats. The Republicans have their favored media outlets as well but they are far outnumbered.
Really? Which numerous studies are those? What's the "extreme" bias?

What would you consider objective reporting?

When Sublime talks about not seeing a major "liberal" paper (whatever that means) suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea, that's most likely because it would then be considered an op-ed. And the NYTimes has their op-ed page in the very back, where there were conservatives saying exactly what Sublime mentioned.

See, you and Sublime want all our journalism and news reporting to be biased. That's the problem. Somehow, unbiased and objective reporting equates to "liberal" bias. Unfortunately, you are getting your wish, as much of the MSM these days IS biased and interjected with opinion. That's because corporations run this country, and are effectively in an ideological and economic fight with one another. As a result, the press rolled over backwards and gave Bush free reign to completely screw up Iraq without that objective reporting the American people deserve.

This is a common fallacy with rightwingers. Afterall, there have been numerous studies on this. :wink:

Murtha was never guilty of a crime, which is what the right are attempting to allude here without actually accusing him of outright guilt. They are predictably narrowly focusing on someone who has been an extremely vocal critic of the war, and who probably helped the Dems win Congress with his strong criticisms of the war and the pResident.

[00timh]

Dookiestix wrote: 00timh wrote: Nathyn wrote: sublime wrote: During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:
That's because the media's job is to objectively report the news, not smear Democrats.

Are you trying to argue that the media is biased because it doesn't attack Democrats?

Come on, now. Really Nathyn, a majority of the msm is extremely biased and the reporting is extremely biased. There have been numerous studies on this that show a decided advantage in the msm reports regarding democrats. The Republicans have their favored media outlets as well but they are far outnumbered.
Really? Which numerous studies are those? What's the "extreme" bias?

What would you consider objective reporting?

When Sublime talks about not seeing a major "liberal" paper (whatever that means) suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea, that's most likely because it would then be considered an op-ed. And the NYTimes has their op-ed page in the very back, where there were conservatives saying exactly what Sublime mentioned.

See, you and Sublime want all our journalism and news reporting to be biased. That's the problem. Somehow, unbiased and objective reporting equates to "liberal" bias. Unfortunately, you are getting your wish, as much of the MSM these days IS biased and interjected with opinion. That's because corporations run this country, and are effectively in an ideological and economic fight with one another. As a result, the press rolled over backwards and gave Bush free reign to completely screw up Iraq without that objective reporting the American people deserve.

This is a common fallacy with rightwingers. Afterall, there have been numerous studies on this. :wink:

Murtha was never guilty of a crime, which is what the right are attempting to allude here without actually accusing him of outright guilt. They are predictably narrowly focusing on someone who has been an extremely vocal critic of the war, and who probably helped the Dems win Congress with his strong criticisms of the war and the pResident. WEll, for starters there is this

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

If you would like I can get plenty more.

[JLB]

Nathyn wrote: sublime wrote: During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:
That's because the media's job is to objectively report the news, not smear Democrats.

Are you trying to argue that the media is biased because it doesn't attack Democrats?

Come on, now.

This is an opinion piece, not news.

If it were news, the Times would get it wrong. :lol:

[JLB]

Sands wrote: A smackdown??

No... more like a tiny speedbump in that HUGE parking lot known as Political maneuvering. It will hardly slow her down, sublime. Face it...you'll have Pelosi to rag on for years and years to come... I can visualize at least 6 maybe 8.

I doubt she'll make it through the year as Speaker.

They just overwelmingly voted to place her rival in the #2 spot because she was putting corruption before the country.

She's already a failure. 8:)

[sLiPpY]

I'd agree, it's an opinion piece and I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself...thank you. :-D

[sublime]

JLB wrote: Nathyn wrote: sublime wrote: During the campaign the Leftwinger media uttered nary a word that I heard against Mr. Murtha......

Not once did I read a major Liberal paper suggest that Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops was probably a bad idea.........except occasionally one tried to imply that calls for troop "redeployment to Okinawa" did not REALLY mean "cut and run."

And I recall NO TALK that John Murtha was actually "tarnished" (see below) by CORRUPTION when all the Leftwinger whining about corruption in the Repubs was going on. In this editorial, the NYT calls both Murtha and new leader, Mr. Hoyer, "tarnished."

Perhaps, like Mark Halperin of ABC saw such things in 2004, the Times believed that the "corruption on the Left" "does not rise to the level of corruption on the Right" so "why mention it?" (Halperin and ABC News apparently having a very sensitive built-in device for such measurements.) :wink:
That's because the media's job is to objectively report the news, not smear Democrats.

Are you trying to argue that the media is biased because it doesn't attack Democrats?

Come on, now.

This is an opinion piece, not news.

If it were news, the Times would get it wrong. :lol:


:lol: So true.

I can assure that the Opinion of the New York Times Editorial Board means a great deal to the Dem Party leaders. This is a tip. Nancy is on a slippery slope! :wink:

[Klondikekat]

Everyone has an opinion. As objective as the media tries to be, it's impossible for some impression of the author to not be felt in the article.

[sublime]

Klondikekat wrote: Everyone has an opinion. As objective as the media tries to be, it's impossible for some impression of the author to not be felt in the article.


The media makes little attempt to be objective, especially the New York Times, and especially during a political campaign.