Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Liberal Media?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Are you talking about this (from Washington Post)? Even so, is this really anything substantive? To me this seems more like teasing Bush for his made-up words ("Strategery"). Obama Unplugged W. was famous for his Bushisms, but Obama critics aren't swayed by his eloquence. Says Powerline's John Hinderaker: "I don't believe Barack Obama is an idiot. Truly, I don't. And yet, whenever he talks without a teleprompter, he makes you wonder. This verbal excursion is from today's 'townhall,' conducted in California before a cheering throng of, no doubt, carefully selected fans: "The same is true with AIG. It was the right thing to do to step in. Here's the problem. It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger . . . "On the bright side, though, at least Edward Liddy knows he won't be waterboarded!" |
Anonymous
No. My case proved. |
Anonymous
Care to explain? I think you are referring to the criticism that Obama is not good without a teleprompter. Is there some other teleprompter scandal out there? Cause I think this report just implied Obama is an idiot without a teleprompter. |
Anonymous
| The following is from CBS news analyst regarding Ted Stevens--you would think that Stevens is somehow getting away with something. The reality is that this man who had a great reputation bascially almost went to jail and lost his Senate seat over what is essentially prosecutorial misconduct.. and somehow we should believe that he was guilty. How about he wasn't guilty and shouldn't have been convicted. |
Anonymous
|
whoops here is the article
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)Former Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) benefitted this morning from the exquisite timing of perennial politics. His corruption case didn’t fall between the cracks of the Bush and Obama Administrations so much as it bridged the legal and partisan gulf between what the old regime did and what the new regime wants to do when it comes to professionalism at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department. On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder himself declared that he had reviewed the record of the Stevens’ case and was not willing or able to continue to defend it in court against allegations that government lawyers and investigators improperly withheld evidence from the Stevens’ defense team—and even apparently fabricated evidence that was shown to jurors! As a result, the old pol’s conviction melts away, his looming date with a federal prison cell gets scratched from the schedule, and he will forever be able to argue to his fans and family and friends that he was railroaded. The Bush Administration had “successfully” prosecuted Stevens last fall on charges that he had failed to properly report gifts given to him by a lobbyist. And then for months afterward the government had defended the jury’s verdicts against efforts from Stevens’ attorneys to get a new trial. It’s a dynamic that happens all the time in criminal cases—our law books are filled with decisions about the constitutional rule that requires prosecutors to turn over to defense attorneys any evidence that could potentially exculpate their client. Usually, the government wins the close cases in this area of the law. And even when the feds lose it takes years and years for the courts to decide what’s right and what’s wrong and who gets a new trial. Had the Obama Administration chosen to fight Stevens’ move for a new trial the matter would have been tied up in the courts for a year or two longer even though the government itself now has admitted that it is finding new evidence now that Stevens’ trial was unfair and improper. A drawn-out court battle didn’t happen here for one very obvious reason. Between Stevens’ conviction last year, and his scheduled sentencing later this year, the Justice Department changed hands. Because Holder owes little fealty to Bush-era decisions at Justice—indeed, because he has taken strong steps to separate himself from some of the worst policies and practices of his predecessors—the move to dismiss Stevens’ convictions is both a political no-brainer and a legal necessity. It was the right thing to do on many different levels. Stevens wins by freeing himself from the possibility of prison. Holder wins by appearing as a reasoned leader capable of showing integrity and ethics in helping even a Republican politician avoid an unfair prison sentence. The Justice Department wins by ridding itself of the shame of trying to defend the indefensible in court. And the criminal justice system wins by the disclosure of yet another reminder that cheating government lawyers sometimes get caught. There is no need for outrage. The process was messy but the end result was true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Anonymous
He still took money from these people as charged. The issue is that there was prosecutorial misconduct. Do you not understand the difference between the two? |
Anonymous
| He did not-did you even follow the case? There was work done on his home and he paid a lot of money for it and believed he had paid for services. Apparently the contractor held back some charges that he wasn't aware of. If it was all so cut and dry the prosecuter who was out to get him wouldn't have "cut corners" so to speak. |
Anonymous
Clearly the answer to that question is, "No." It's useless arguing with folks who think it's an example of the Post's intrinsic Liberal Bias that they're not reporting "how bad Obama's policies are going to be for the country." Given that most economists who work for a living--as opposed to the welfare cases at places like Cato--don't believe Obama is going far *enough*, what is there for the Post to report? I mean other than uninformed speculation of economic Flat-Earthers? |
Anonymous
|
Correct me if I am wrong please, but weren't these career civil servants? They didn't work for either administration really, they worked for DOJ.
The constant congressional "investigations" into the prosecution of the war (waterboarding, AbuGraib, Gitmo, etc.) kept the Bush DOJ appointees pretty busy. Not surprised that Holder has a little time on his hands now to right some wrongs, and hats off to him for doing so. Too bad there cannot be an electoral do-over - if this was done to a Chuck Schumer or Bob Byrd the media would be having fits! |
Anonymous
|
Here is an example of the Post's bias. This is from a thread on Sarah Palin last fall.
Poster 1: "Also, it's worth notinng that no matter how terrific or not she may be as a parent or Governor, she voted to reduce funding for a program aimed at helping teen moms get on their feet. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09...ding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot" Reply: "This thread has run its course but I thought I'd point out that this story in the Post is totally misleading. While Gov Palin did do a line item veto for that one line, the budget as she signed it actually tripled the funding for Covenant House over 2007 levels. So why didn't the Washington Post see fit to publish the whole story? How can we trust them to be impartial? Sounds to me like the news media could use their own fact checker! " "Contrary to a report from the Washington Post, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, did not slash funding for a program for teen mothers. The Washington Post’s Paul Kane reported late yesterday that “Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms.” To support this contention Kane pointed out that “Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million.” Covenant House Alaska is a faith-based, not-for-profit agency which provides a variety of services to troubled teens, including a home for teen moms. Although the work with adolescent mothers is only one component of their work, Kane focused on this aspect of their work due to the revelation that Governor Palin’s teen daughter is 5 months pregnant. In Alaska, the governor is allowed to reduce spending allocations in the service of sound management and fiscal accountability. To prove his contention that Palin slashed funds for teen mothers, Kane produced the Alaska 2008 budget with Sarah Palin’s line by line adjustments. It is true that lawmakers allocated 5 million to Covenant House Alaska and that Mrs. Palin cut that allocation to 3.9 million dollars. However, what is misleading about the Post headline is that the allocation of 3.9 million is three times more than Covenant House Alaska received from government grants in 2007. According to records on the Covenant House Alaska website, the organization received just over 1.3 million dollars from grants in 2007 and nearly 1.2 million in 2006. Even with the reductions, Governor Palin signed a budget which provided three times more funds than the organization received in 2007. Thus, the Post report is misleading on two counts. One, the funding in question went to an organization which engaged in many different services, including work with teen mothers. There was no funding exclusively earmarked for pregnant teens. Two, the report leaves the impression that the Governor reduced existing funding levels, when in fact, the Palin-approved budget allowed a massive expansion of funding for this worthy faith-based organization. The organization’s total revenue for 2007 was just over 3 million dollars and so the 3.9 million approved by Palin and the Alaska legislature was a huge increase. Viewed within the context of prior expenditures, it becomes clear that Governor Palin increased funding for social services which benefit kids, not “slashed” them as the Post reported. However, it also appears clear that she is not afraid to exercise some measure of fiscal discipline, even when the reduction targets those of similar ideology. " |