DescentBB

It’s all of our jobs to forget the attempts to destroy Bush, when the media dropped the ball and called Florida early, and then it was used to invalidate the Bush administration right from the start.

I was very civil during the Clinton years, even after listening to the lambasting my favorite president went thru. (Reagan) but nothing changed, as soon as Bush was elected….Blam, it all started again.

Why should I give this guy a chance, The Democrats turned on Bush the first chance they got, then setting him up to fail, by voting for the war, and letting him flip in the wind after things got tough.

To me it’s simple…Be civil under Democratic administrations so they can succeed, and be divisive under Republican ones, so they will fail.

Now I hear all this stuff about coming together, and working hard to make everything all pretty like…sorry…you first!

I was very civil during the Clinton years

Maybe you Spidey, but not your party.

Tell me, which one got impeached?

Say what you will about the democrats during bush, and I wont sit here and defend most of it, but at the end of the day we kept Kussinich in his very small cage. Your equivalents ran free....over a blow job none the less...

Total BS, the media used sex as a smoke screen to divert the attention away from the real issues like the Republican FBI files, Whitewater & illegal campaign contributions.

JFTR I am no longer a Republican, as of 2004, but I was then.

BTW, who will be the bigger party and stop the cycle of BS, or will the party that does simply be suckers?

Suckers, imo. I mean it would be nice, but there are too many random factors to bank on them not being suckers.

Acording to wiki,

Former President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones law suit. The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 50 senators voted \"not guilty,\" and 50 voted \"guilty\" on the obstruction charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast as \"not guilty,\" and 45 votes as \"guilty.\" It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

I would rather not debate the Clinton impeachment. But you can't deny that it was a partisan event.

I know you were referring to yourself, (and noted that). But my point was that as a party any notion that the Republicans were saints with Clinton compared the the democrats with Bush is just wrong.

The republicans were just as bad, if not worse. We just tend to remember more recent events.

You're missing my point, It's not that one party is worst than another, the question is why should the right give Obama a break. I mean I just heard someone say “Now that those Horrible Republicans are going out of power, lets start the healing process” Why? There has never been a precedent set for any such thing, it’s business as per usual. They want to “heal” but they still can’t resist a parting shot. Lol.

Why should anybody give Obama a chance to succeed? why? That’s the question. If you can somehow justify why the right should do any such thing, I will give it a shot.

It depends on what you mean by succeed.

On many things you shouldn't want Obama to succeed. Gun Control, Gay Rights, etc, on issues of this nature you should want him to fail miserably because it goes against your beliefs. And I don't fault you for that.

But there are other issues, like Iraq for instance, that you should hope he succeeds in bringing peace to that region. Its ok to think that his strategy is all wrong, but you should still hope that you are wrong and pray for its success. (or the economy)

His foreign policy will be a stark contrast to Bush.

I hoped that in 2003, that Iraq would be a short war, soon be a thriving democracy, and they would be throwing Candy in the streets.

I didn't think that would happen, and I didn't want to go into Iraq because of it, but once we were in I hoped that my beliefs were wrong and Bush would succeed.

Good point, why should anyone cut off their nose to spite their face? Been asking that for years. Your points are logical, politics are not.

Is your argument that it’s in the right’s best interest to help Obama? And of course I would have to agree with that, but it’s not how politics work here in America.

The objective to to destroy and vilify the other side at all costs. The question still remains, why should it stop here?

They should support Obama in trying to help America, because they are Americans and he will be their President. Anything else is subversive.

That doesn't mean they can't disagree and vote against him. On the contrary, they SHOULD disagree and vote against whenever they believe that the best choice is different from the choice he chooses. When the choice he presents is good for America and the people, then they SHOULD agree and do that choice. THAT is what supporting the U.S. President should be. Oppose when a different choice is better, Agree when the President's choice is right.

Working against him to make him fail is un-American and is the same as working against this country.

I think the tingle in Chris Matthews leg has given a jolt to his brain.

His job (as a newsman) is not to support this presidency.

As a member of the press, his job is to investigate and report the news. When the actions and policies of the Obama administration are congruent with fact and good judgment, then he should report that and help to explain why. When the actions and policies of the Obama administration are contrary to fact and good judgment, then he should report that and help to explain why.

As citizens, it is all of our jobs to support the Presidency, and all of our government. However, each citizen who temporarily is voted into one of these public offices should not expect to receive carte blanche approval for any policy they might seek to implement. Respectful disgreement should be expected.

Gooberman wrote:...Say what you will about the democrats during bush, and I wont sit here and defend most of it, but at the end of the day we kept Kussinich in his very small cage. Your equivalents ran free....over a blow job none the less...

You didn't keep him in a cage because you thought it was the right thing for the country. You didn't have the grounds for impeachment or else Bush would have followed Clinton in that shame!

You call it a blow job but a citizen was told by a federal judge she had grounds for her sexual harassment lawsuit, it was a democrat judge who ruled on that! Clinton lied in his deposition to that grand jury about relevant behavior that the citizen had a right to examine. He used the power of his office to avoid the law and subvert justice.
She was denied her day in court because the highest ranking law enforcement official in the country lied to the jury and had his secretary hide evidence.
At about the same time he got away with that crap another citizen was convicted of the same crime and she lost her law license permanently and spent time in jail. She didn't have the benefit of being tried in a political court where half the jury was her own party, she faced the same court and laws that all the rest of us face.

So go ahead and call it just a blow job if you want to but it is really lame to do so.

If Bush had lied to a grand jury you guys would have impeached him.

And siting the partisan vote doesn't mean shitaki. Would some of the Crips break ranks and join the Bloods to testify against their own?!?

dissent wrote:....
His job (as a newsman) is not to support this presidency.

As a member of the press, his job is to investigate and report the news....

without an objective press our form of government is crap. Completely worthless! We might as well let the local High School clique decide who's cool enough to have the job instead of have elections!

Mathews and most of the mainstream media know that but their elitist mindset lets them rationalize their despicable behavior as something honorable. He just slipped and admitted to it out loud. Probably because his job is being terminated and he wants to go work for Obama..

He's a pathetic excuse of a man these days.

Spidey wrote:Is your argument that it’s in the right’s best interest to help Obama? And of course I would have to agree with that, but it’s not how politics work here in America.

The objective to to destroy and vilify the other side at all costs. The question still remains, why should it stop here?

Its probably not in their best interest to help. I remember during the semi-early days of the war getting in a heated argument here with someone that no longer posts, about whether or not some democrats want more soldiers to die in Iraq because it would help them in 04'.

Looking back, he was probably right. I've never understood that kind of party loyalty though, but it does exist. Only one democrat got my vote this year.

In truth, I'm just bull shitting because I don't know the answer. It would nice to have open support from conservatives on more "good of the country" issues for Obama, but like you said it would probably turn them into suckers, and harm them on other positions. So on such issues, I quietly support, publicly criticize....which doesn't really mean anything at all.

Isn't Mathews a commentator?

I havn't had a chance to see the clip, but weren't he and Olbermann canned from the reporter position? I'll watch the tape later tonight, but I see so many on the left criticize fox news by showing me clips of Shawn Hannity...

...I hope you guys arn't just doing the same.

Will wrote:if Bush had lied to a grand jury you guys would have impeached him.

Oh give me a few weeks Will, I'm just so burnt out on defending politicians. The point was both sides go after eachother, thanks for confirming.

Here ya go Will, from The Guardian




p.s., thanks Myrna.

The left is miffed that their former hero Clinton was put up for impeachment so now they would like to do the same. Only problem is...on what grounds? If they try the illegal war/war crimes, the left has to remember they voted to approve the war and thus complicit in all the followed. They also voted for funds that enabled the war to continue. A war crimes charge would be a very interesting case indeed.

I clicked it. I watched. And here's my answer. The question posed in the thread is just silly. Matthews isn't a reporter - he's an editorial guy. Also, he appears to be the guest on the other show featured in the clip, not the host. He was being interviewed about his beliefs - not reading the nightly news.

Some of you here have truly gone off the deep end. You've ceased to think about politics except with your emotions. You are no longer engaging in dialogue in this forum. You're just ranting. You can claim to value dialogue. But when your starting point is absurd (patently propaganda ripped from Hannity, Savage, Ingram, etc) how should reasonable people react? Your entire starting point begins in cloud cukoo land, which is a fair description of the starting point for many of the threads in this forum. My answer is that you're acting like a silly person.

Ya, I watched it...

\"Hey look everyone, the media has a conservative bias, here is a clip from the EIB network; their main news reporter thinks its his job to help the republicans!\"

[Note to self: link clip of Rush, any clip whatsoever....though my personal favorite is him flailing his arms around making fun of Michael J Fox]

dont deny that the media has a liberal slant you only make yourself look stupid

How the Media Vote. Surveys of journalists’ self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin.

Admissions of Liberal Bias. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.

Los Angeles Times Survey

In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted one of the most extensive surveys of journalists in history. Using the same questionnaire they had used to poll the public, the Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. The survey asked 16 questions involving foreign affairs, social and economic issues. On 15 of 16 questions, the journalists gave answers to the left of those given by the public.

KEY FINDINGS:

* Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.

* 84 percent of reporters and editors supported a so-called \"nuclear freeze\" to ban all future nuclear missile deployment; 80 percent were against increased defense spending; and 76 percent opposed aid to the Nicaraguan Contras.

* 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.

* Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Me ... -6664.aspx

Media Defeats McCain?
The election of Barack Obama was certainly historic, and the great attraction of that historic moment led to more history: an Obama-smitten news media that completely avoided their responsibility to test the nominee with hard questions. The big question now: If the media couldn’t scrutinize the man before he was elected, why would they feel the drive to do so afterwards? They won’t. They worked for his election. They will now work for his administration. Past is prologue.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Good post Cuda

why thank you I Googled it all by my self

Palzon wrote:I clicked it. I watched. And here's my answer. The question posed in the thread is just silly. Matthews isn't a reporter - he's an editorial guy. Also, he appears to be the guest on the other show featured in the clip, not the host. He was being interviewed about his beliefs - not reading the nightly news.

Sorry Palz, but you either don't know or you're simply dissembling here.

Chris in his own words
About me

I have been interested in national politics since I was five years old. My main concerns are the role of the federal government in our daily lives and the role of America in the world. My main ambition as a journalist is to cut through the public relations and find the truth in what politicians are saying and doing.

from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080432/

Matthews does not work "behind the scenes" as an editor; he's the public face of his own news commentary and interview programs. And no, he was not just commenting on his beliefs, he was talking about what his "job" is - his words.

Obama is the President-elect. I think that pretty much everybody - Liberal and Conservative - want to see him have a successful Presidency. Even Hannity has said as much - his words. It's in all of our best interests that he be successful. (some on both radical fringes will disagree, of course) But that doesn't mean we just blithely accept every policy prescription as correct and unquestionable. Such analysis is one function of the press - or not.

Some of you here have truly gone off the deep end. You've ceased to think about politics except with your emotions. You are no longer engaging in dialogue in this forum. You're just ranting. You can claim to value dialogue. But when your starting point is absurd (patently propaganda ripped from Hannity, Savage, Ingram, etc) how should reasonable people react? Your entire starting point begins in cloud cukoo land, which is a fair description of the starting point for many of the threads in this forum. My answer is that you're acting like a silly person.

everyone is entitled to their opinion, I guess.

Gooberman wrote:
Tell me, which one got impeached? ...over a blow job none the less...

I really wish the Clinton apologists would stop saying this; because it minimizes the severity of what he did. He wasn't impeached for getting some on the job. He was impeached for lying under oath. That is a felony and it is an impeachable offense. Even though I voted for Clinton twice, I thought the impeachment was deserved on the grounds that he broke the law and got caught.

What he should have said to the witch hunter's question about improper sexual conduct in the oval office was: None of your business! Next question. /off topic

these are summary posts. its too extensive an article on both to post in detail.

Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstate ... /nixon.htm

Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

Article 1: Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.
Article 2: Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case.
Article 3: Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case.
Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstate ... linton.htm



so there are the Facts. Nixon tried to cover up Watergate, although he was not directly involved with the break-in, and would have been impeached for it had he not resigned.

and Clinton perjured himself in a case that he WAS directly involved in. and was impeached for it.

so where was the witch hunt??(Ded after re-reading my post it seems like the witch hunt comment was directed at you, it wasnt)

Palzon, Mathews is just one of many, one of the majority of media talking heads who all got on board the Obama ticket. You are dissembling as dissent suggested.
The bias has become so bad that foreign media are starting to report on it. And now that the election is over you'll see the domestic media try to find their way home and rationalize their behavior just like Mathews did in that interview.
The details are there to see for yourself, the ratio of coverage broken down by favorable or unfavorable and just about any other category you can imagine are off the charts compared to previous elections.

Is my pointing this out a rant? Sure, but just because someone is ranting about it doesn't mean it has no foundation. Mathews is a commentator, sure, he commentates on politics and held up by his network as an expert on the subject. He is an expert in fact, he worked for Tip O'Neil when he was Speaker of the House. He's been reporting on politics for years with different job titles.
Just because he's not a NBC anchor doesn't mean his slant isn't taken by the left as news! You have to be really in denial to go there!

Will Robinson wrote:The details are there to see for yourself, the ratio of coverage broken down by favorable or unfavorable and just about any other category you can imagine are off the charts compared to previous elections.

here are those details you spoke of

CUDA wrote:(Ded after re-reading my post it seems like the witch hunt comment was directed at you, it wasnt)

No worries.

In using the term "whichhunt" in my post I was referring to the questions that were asked in relation to sexual misconduct. It is my opinion that that is when the witch hunt started. At that point Ken Starr's goal shifted from investigating Whitewater to getting Clinton at all costs.

I disagreed with that goal shift and felt it was politically motivated. Having said that however, I felt that Clinton was absolutely wrong to perjure himself, especially over an issue as inconsequential as getting a hummer on the job. As soon as he did that, impeachment was warranted.

In regards to that matter, he got what he deserved.

I'm with Dedman on the impeachment/witchhunt thing. They went after him knowing that it wouldn't lead to resolving their initial inquery. It was like, we can't catch him in his lies about the real estate scam but we have him in a lie to a grand jury so lets go with that.

He deserved all the grief it brought him even though the republicans didn't necessarily deserve anything they think they gained from it.
As a citizen I think I deserved the satisfaction of watching him pay a price for trying to power his way out of the courts authority.

The media may have a well-known liberal bias, but, as we all know, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Jeff250 wrote:The media may have a well-known liberal bias, but, as we all know, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

wow, who knew liberalism could also be funny.

In reality, if you fall off a building, there is no safety net at the bottom.

Or, did you have some other liberalism in mind, like how the big lions always let the smaller ones have plenty to eat before they begin.

except who falls from a building without jumping off?

Those who are pushed.

No, reality definitely does not have a liberal bias.

Ferno wrote:except who falls from a building without jumping off?

Dedman wrote:Those who are pushed.

Well, if you're going to belabor the analogy, there are many reasons for falling off of a building: maybe you just didn't appreciate the danger of your situation, maybe your parents failed to educated you on the finer points of gravity, maybe you didn't plan ahead when you became determined to walk 50 feet in one direction, maybe you were wearing your favorite blindfold, maybe you're a klutz, maybe you were pushed.

Then some liberal ambulance chaser comes along and convinces you that the only way to fall off of a building is to be pushed, and not only should there have been nets and even people there to catch you (sue the city), but the people who made the building should have to pay for not protecting you from yourself (sue the owner), and as for the people who pushed you, well, we'll just sue all the folks who didn't fall off... What a relief: not only is it not your fault anymore, but you're getting money out of the deal!

Sergeant Thorne wrote: What a relief: not only is it not your fault anymore, but you're getting money out of the deal!

Except you are dead and the money will now be taxed as a inheritance and the govt. will get most of it.

No, you see what Ferno did was divert the issue, instead of addressing the point.

If you want to know who falls off buildings, just ask a construction worker, window washers, drunk students, or a child in a high rise.

And Thorne…hopefully “that” moron didn’t survive. (unless they \"were\" pushed)

Oh yea, and I forgot roofers, they fall off buildings every day.

Especially if they are playing a fiddle.

I like where this thread went.

TRADITION!

Spidey wrote:No, you see what Ferno did was divert the issue, instead of addressing the point.

sarcastic reply to a ridiculous statement.

try again.

back on topic -

Michael Malone on 24 October

via
http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings/2008/ ... ia-bubble/

This reminds me. I was watching TV with my family on election night, and we flipped across two different shows that had woven voting for Obama into their stories. One was William Shatner saying that he voted for Barack Obama because it just felt right, in a very personal conversation with a friend.