Actually I think you have to cite that such a 30 year disparity of treatment has actually existed before you demand that anyone justify it. This seems more about your opinion that anyone else’s to be honest.
Did the press treat Dukakis better than Bush 1? Did the press treat Kerry better than Bush 2?
There’s a slant here, but it isn’t the entire media leaning to one side, its you. Perception is everything, when you aren’t standing level, everything else seems off.
It isn’t.
Percent of PBS stories about Democratic candidates that were positive - 8.3
Percent of PBS stories about Republican candidates that were positive - 0
:shrugs: Nobody is reading the cites anyway.
Regards,
Shodan
In their defense, if you wanted to write a positive story about a current Republican, what could you say?
Kinda reminds me of Lenny Bruce’s line, about how many people were leaving the church and turning to God.
And Watergate was just a two bit burglary. Jesus bleeding Christ …
Ordered by, and carried out for the benefit of, the president. That’s the “Z” babygoat666 was talking about.
The media narrative is now set:
CHARLIE ROSE: You have seen lots of second terms. This one came in on a big political victory, wanting to do things. And you have this picture, one, of intrusive government and yet a president who seems like a bystander in his own government.
BOB SCHIEFFER: People were talking in Washington about – some people were saying, “Are we back to the Nixon administration? This is what they did in the Nixon administration.” This is not the Nixon administration, where you had burglars and people talking about blowing up the Brookings Institution. This is more of a case, is anybody home?
Well, he wanted to be like Ronald Reagan. He’s succeeding on at least one front.
I’m sure that meant something, but what it means is beyond me.
Reagan didn’t seem to be aware of anything that was going on in his administration. I don’t recall Bush 41, Clinton, or even Bush 43 having to give press conferences claiming that they didn’t know nuthin’.
Do you recall the firing of several U.S. attorneys who wouldn’t follow political orders and investigate Democrats? You know, that thing that’s sort of like the IRS scandal except it was much more serious and actually came from the White House? I can’t even take credit for noticing the parallel because I think someone else asked you about it in another thread. Or the Valerie Plame thing, which involved senior White House staff and the Vice President claiming he wasn’t part of the executive branch? There were some minor kerfluffles involving detainees who were tortured or died while in custody. When did Bush say he was up to date and well aware of all of this stuff?
Bush didn’t say, “I knew nothing about it.” Now I’m not saying his behavior was excusable, Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history and a lot of bad things were done on his watch. But never once did he deflect blame or throw his underlings under the bus. In fact, he was often criticized for being too loyal to his people and never holding anyone responsible. BAsically he just flipped America the finger whenever these scandals came up. And he did it again when he pardoned Scooter Libby. And again when he gave George Tenet the Medal of Freedom. This guy wouldn’t even throw a Clinton appointee under the bus.
Say what you want about W, he didn’t weasel. And by effectively taking responsibility for his administration, he was rightly punished by the public with record low approval ratings and lame duck status.
Obama is headed in that direction, but seeks to avoid it by pointing fingers elsewhere.
When did he assert his awareness in these matters and his responsibility for them?
I actually don’t agree at all, but I’d rather stay on track here.
I shouldn’t wonder.
One sees so many hot white girls in the media, after all.
I kind of recall the Cheney Administration throwing Valerie Plame under the bus. Perhaps you just inhabit a different reality to the one I do.
The President has two people now that he needs to fire if he’s serious about dealing with the IRS: One of his Deputy Treasury Secretaries, who the NY Times reports knew about the targeting before the election and didn’t bother to tell his boss, and the official in charge of that division of the IRS at the time, who now heads the health care law implementation division.
Both need to be fired and every day the President doesn’t act is a day he shows that he supported the IRS’s actions.
And this is suspicious:
An Obama foundation gets speedier approval than normal. Granted, it actually was a “social welfare” group, but the normal application time is 5-6 months, whereas they not only got special treatment, but also retroactive tax exemption.
Whether or not the President had anything to do with the IRS scandal, it’s clear they were working for him politically. They may even have rigged some downballot elections for him, since liberal groups got speedy approval and many Tea Party groups had to disband.
Unless he fears that, once dismissed, they’re prone to turn around testify that the president’s inner circle had knowledge of their actions.
What is really odd is that the IRS deliberately planted a question to be asked of them regarding the problem as if it was accidentally leaked out. They then turned this into a public announcement.