Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - And now the NEXT Republican Congressional scandal: Randy Cunningham

host · 12-10-2005, 11:58 PM

Lebell, your response implies that you did not read, or if you did read, you did not consider the point in the first parts of my post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=53

You posted "bingo" earlier, as if it is obvious that we are currently experiencing a wave of "bi-partisan" scandal. It isn't obvious. We aren't.

If you want to go back five years, ten, fifty, or one hundred, for the purpose of comparing scandals, propose doing that yourself. I compared what the talking points in the media today are, with the reality of the current situation. Quote Rush, quote a long list from a site that is sending out a smokescreen of "damage control" in response to current and recent MSM reports. They hardly rise to counter what I pointed out was coming from a WaPo reporter who had set a comparsion criteria of elected officials, federal and in governor's mansions, who had been tainted by corruptionj scandals in the past year. The point that he confirmed was that the current reports of scandals are so skewed towards current and very recent republican office holders, that his editor had to depart from the comparison criteria of timeframe to add a fallen democrat whose scandal and resignation did not even take place in that time frame.

He admitted that a WaPo editor had inserted the out of timeframe democrat to balance the survey. Republican CT governor Rowland, who is currently in federal prison and resigned in the same timeframe as the democrat who was inserted "for balance", was not added to the survey.

Rush Limbaugh and you seem to have a strikingly similar agenda.....a spin that
we are currently in a period of bi-partisan scandal. I submit that this cannot be possible if the overwhelming majority of those recently indicted, convicted, or who have resigned, as well as those reported to be targets of criminal investigation, are of one party.

I solicited posts that counter the premise that current and recently identified scandal suspects and convicts are overwhelmingly republican, and you resorted to targeting me personally, and citing Rush's talking points about past scandals. I suspect that you resorted to responding that way because that was all you had to go with.

The American electorate has gotten as far down to the bottom of historical scandals as we are likely to get. The current ones need attention; if for no other reason, than to examine, via, as in the past, congressional ethics and other committee investigations where targets are subpoenaed and questioned under oath. Thus far, it is unprecedented that this process is not taking place. It is vital to find the depth and breadth of the dereliction of duty taking place, as the Cunningham guilty plea and to some extent, the Libby indictment, exemplify. How does a media that picks up and repeats Rush's talking points that highlight historic scandals, do anything but downplay and mislead us as to the seriousness of what prosecutors are investigating, and congress, the white house, and republican dominated state houses are not;
so far, at least.

I'm not talking about exaggeration by the media that would beat up on one party. I'm simply observing that the media is not calling it as it is unfolding in a contemporary setting......or do you, Lebell, think that it is fair to all of us that there are no ethics hearings taking place in congress, and no relevant committee investigations into activities like Cunningham's admission of taking $2.4 million in bribes to influence defense spending, or of Libby's and Rove's involvment in the deliberate outing of Plame?

Will we get closer to dealing with current scandals and getting a sense of who is at fault by printing Rush's talking points as news, or by printing the
survey linked early in my post that was accurate, but, in the view of a WaPo editor, needed an out of timeframe former democratice congressman named
"Ballance", added to the survey in an attempt to "balance" it.

Just like Rush's talking points, that WaPo editor's effort obscured the public's view to what is going on.....the scope of the scandals that justice must respond to...the ones that are relevant and where much is still unknown and can hurt the national security, finances, welfare, and integrity of the government.

Lebell, you went around or missed my first question, here's another for you:

How does....well....Bill Clinton wagged the dog in 1998, help us meet today's scandals head on.....identify and investigate them, exonerate or punish those accused, and fix the problems that are identified in the process?

12-10-2005, 11:58 PM	#60 (permalink)
host Banned	Lebell, your response implies that you did not read, or if you did read, you did not consider the point in the first parts of my post: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=53 You posted "bingo" earlier, as if it is obvious that we are currently experiencing a wave of "bi-partisan" scandal. It isn't obvious. We aren't. If you want to go back five years, ten, fifty, or one hundred, for the purpose of comparing scandals, propose doing that yourself. I compared what the talking points in the media today are, with the reality of the current situation. Quote Rush, quote a long list from a site that is sending out a smokescreen of "damage control" in response to current and recent MSM reports. They hardly rise to counter what I pointed out was coming from a WaPo reporter who had set a comparsion criteria of elected officials, federal and in governor's mansions, who had been tainted by corruptionj scandals <b>in the past year</b>. The point that he confirmed was that the current reports of scandals are so skewed towards current and very recent republican office holders, that <b>his editor had to depart from the comparison criteria of timeframe to add a fallen democrat whose scandal and resignation did not even take place in that time frame.</b> He admitted that a WaPo editor had inserted the out of timeframe democrat to balance the survey. Republican CT governor Rowland, who is currently in federal prison and resigned in the same timeframe as the democrat who was inserted "for balance", was not added to the survey. Rush Limbaugh and you seem to have a strikingly similar agenda.....a spin that we are currently in a period of bi-partisan scandal. I submit that this cannot be possible if the overwhelming majority of those recently indicted, convicted, or who have resigned, as well as those reported to be targets of criminal investigation, are of <b>one party</b>. I solicited posts that counter the premise that current and recently identified scandal suspects and convicts are overwhelmingly republican, and you resorted to targeting me personally, and citing Rush's talking points about past scandals. I suspect that you resorted to responding that way because that was all you had to go with. The American electorate has gotten as far down to the bottom of historical scandals as we are likely to get. The current ones need attention; if for no other reason, than to examine, via, as in the past, congressional ethics and other committee investigations where targets are subpoenaed and questioned under oath. Thus far, it is unprecedented that this process is not taking place. It is vital to find the depth and breadth of the dereliction of duty taking place, as the Cunningham guilty plea and to some extent, the Libby indictment, exemplify. How does a media that picks up and repeats Rush's talking points that highlight historic scandals, do anything but downplay and mislead us as to the seriousness of what prosecutors are investigating, and congress, the white house, and republican dominated state houses are not; so far, at least. I'm not talking about exaggeration by the media that would beat up on one party. I'm simply observing that the media is not calling it as it is unfolding in a contemporary setting......or do you, Lebell, think that it is fair to all of us that there are no ethics hearings taking place in congress, and no relevant committee investigations into activities like Cunningham's admission of taking $2.4 million in bribes to influence defense spending, or of Libby's and Rove's involvment in the deliberate outing of Plame? Will we get closer to dealing with current scandals and getting a sense of who is at fault by printing Rush's talking points as news, or by printing the survey linked early in my post that was accurate, but, in the view of a WaPo editor, needed an out of timeframe former democratice congressman named "Ballance", added to the survey in an attempt to "balance" it. Just like Rush's talking points, that WaPo editor's effort obscured the public's view to what is going on.....the scope of the scandals that justice must respond to...the ones that are relevant and where much is still unknown and can hurt the national security, finances, welfare, and integrity of the government. Lebell, you went around or missed my first question, here's another for you: How does....well....Bill Clinton wagged the dog in 1998, help us meet today's scandals head on.....identify and investigate them, exonerate or punish those accused, and fix the problems that are identified in the process? Last edited by host; 12-11-2005 at 12:21 AM..