Friday, July 21, 2006
So, Mr. Cokie, What did you mean to say?
Just now on Diane Rehm's show when asked if the Reed defeat was bad for Republicans you said "that kind of thing never happens,". What kind of thing, that REPUBLICANS never suffer for the hypocrisy and crimes of other Republicans? That, thanks to you and the rest of the media whores, is true.
Or did you mean that no politicians, Republicans or Democrats suffer from being painted with a broad brush in that way. If so: What? You don't listen to your wife's Monday morning hokum sessions?
Diane, Friday mornings on your otherwise fine show, pee-ewww!
Just now on Diane Rehm's show when asked if the Reed defeat was bad for Republicans you said "that kind of thing never happens,". What kind of thing, that REPUBLICANS never suffer for the hypocrisy and crimes of other Republicans? That, thanks to you and the rest of the media whores, is true.
Or did you mean that no politicians, Republicans or Democrats suffer from being painted with a broad brush in that way. If so: What? You don't listen to your wife's Monday morning hokum sessions?
Diane, Friday mornings on your otherwise fine show, pee-ewww!
Comments:
<< Home
So I'm not the only one who's noticed the double standard in coverage of Reed's defeat vs. what happens when liberal-base candidates are defeated?
Perhaps the worst was last night, from the usually esteemable J. Malveaux (sp?): the defeat of Ralph Reed was not a defeat of conservativism per se as it may have reflected merely his involvement with the Abramoff scandal.
Hmmmm ... I guess people don't understand the full depth of that scandal: like Lobby-gate in Britain (which also ought to have had more political fall-out than it did: and it did not because the Tories are perceived to be "as bad as" Labour: "both sides do it" -- let that be a lesson to Dems. trying to run on anti-corruption in 2006 or 2008, especially when in NJ, MO and IL we have such wonderfully corrupt local Dem. governments) this scandal wasn't a case of a few bad apples spoiling a barrel but rather the inevitable consequence of "the new way of doing business" of people in power. Abramoff wasn't some isolated incident you can blame on us Jewsians ... he was part of the K-street machine that was designed precisely to give wheeler-dealers the sort of scandal-iferous influence he had.
Reed's involvement in the Abramoff scandal wasn't some tragic failing that sunk his candidacy -- his involvement was part and parcel of his involvement in the so-called conservative movement. If Reed was defeated due to his involvement with Abramoff, that means he was defeated for his "conservative" views, not in spite of them.
Why don't even people who are nominally "on our side" get this. We should be given the opportunity to gloat over Reed's defeat and spin about what it means -- after all, when base-friendly liberal Dems. are defeated the SCLM gives Republicans an opportunity to gloat.
But what do you expect from a media that always concern trolls against the Dem. net-roots and such without even mentioning groups like Club for Growth?
Post a Comment
Perhaps the worst was last night, from the usually esteemable J. Malveaux (sp?): the defeat of Ralph Reed was not a defeat of conservativism per se as it may have reflected merely his involvement with the Abramoff scandal.
Hmmmm ... I guess people don't understand the full depth of that scandal: like Lobby-gate in Britain (which also ought to have had more political fall-out than it did: and it did not because the Tories are perceived to be "as bad as" Labour: "both sides do it" -- let that be a lesson to Dems. trying to run on anti-corruption in 2006 or 2008, especially when in NJ, MO and IL we have such wonderfully corrupt local Dem. governments) this scandal wasn't a case of a few bad apples spoiling a barrel but rather the inevitable consequence of "the new way of doing business" of people in power. Abramoff wasn't some isolated incident you can blame on us Jewsians ... he was part of the K-street machine that was designed precisely to give wheeler-dealers the sort of scandal-iferous influence he had.
Reed's involvement in the Abramoff scandal wasn't some tragic failing that sunk his candidacy -- his involvement was part and parcel of his involvement in the so-called conservative movement. If Reed was defeated due to his involvement with Abramoff, that means he was defeated for his "conservative" views, not in spite of them.
Why don't even people who are nominally "on our side" get this. We should be given the opportunity to gloat over Reed's defeat and spin about what it means -- after all, when base-friendly liberal Dems. are defeated the SCLM gives Republicans an opportunity to gloat.
But what do you expect from a media that always concern trolls against the Dem. net-roots and such without even mentioning groups like Club for Growth?
<< Home
