host

The background for this development was detailed in an article that I posted on Sept. 22, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=95107
Has the indictment of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the reports that his key assistant, Susan Ralston, ended up being appointed as special assistant to Bush and to Karl Rove, combined with a new awareness of the level of qualification and background of numerous Bush appointees, in the wake of "Brownie" at FEMA, made it much more difficult for Bush to move his appointees through the senate confirmation process? With his party enjoying a 55 to 44 majority in the senate, Bush should be able to routinely expect to appoint qualified candidates and then watch the senate quickly confirm them. Bush is having difficulty doing this, even with his party in the majority.
Is this the fault of a flawed selection process on the part of Bush?

I've endeavored to use my research to give those who are interested, a "heads up", in advance of stories that break about the Bush administration.
Recent examples are a thread that reminds members that Bush sought personal representation from a criminal defense attorney, Jim Sharp, more than a year ago, and that the MSM fell silent about it.

I posted the news report that Bush demoted a prosecutor (Frederick Black) who was investigating Jack Abramoff's lobbying in Guam, and then stopped the investigation. Shortly after my post, the press reported that the DOJ inspector general is now investigating the demotion of prosecutor Black and the Bush administration decision to stop his investigation. It also reported that the administration appointed a successor to Black who was "Karl Rove approved".

My point here is that the recurring theme of my posts and threads is that the MSM is NOT "liberal", and that republican politicians and Bush and his administration are not MSM "victims". I also reiterate that those who lean to and sympathize with the "right", use the false premise of "media bias" as an excuse to ignore much of what MSM reports. I try to post at TFP, what is ignored by the right, "un" or under reported by the MSM.

I appeal here for equal treatment. The articles that I post are from MSM and other respected sources. An example are articles by Murray Waas, most recently in the new "Rove" thread. How many have ever heard of Murray?

His latest article on Rove is published in the respected National Review. He may turn out to be the most reliable and definitive source reporting abou the Plame leak investigation.

I do not observe that I have any competition here in regard to the depth and variety of the content of my posts and threads. Whatever your opinion of me personally, if you read my posts, you would know what the withdrawal of Timothy Flanigan's name from nomination means.

These are historic days. I see a presidential administration that is "going down". I am a resource here who is "covering" these momentous political developments.

It alarms me that many MSM articles are not accessible without payment, just 5 to 7 days after they are published on the web. "Suggestion" here that I post small segments of articles and leave it to individual readers to decide whether to visit the source site for the entire article, belies a lack of recognition that these are reports of historic import that are only briefly available on the web. This is the wrong time to discourage "host" from posting long articles. Those who believe that they can simply "google" information for themselves, miss the point that much of what I post is time sensitive and stored in a "pay per article" private archive, soon after I post it here.