host

I posted the following, back on April 19. It seems to me that, unlike back when there was only the WMD deception for the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq, Tom Delay's Texas indictment, runaway federal budget deficits, tax cuts aimed to almost solely benefit the rich, the leaking of Plame's name for political revenge, the collapse of FEMA amid the disclosures that it was mismanaged by incompetent political hacks, the indictment of Scooter Libby, Bush's campaign to privatize SSI, officially sanctioned CIA & DOD secret prisons and abuse and torture of detainees, and even the NSA's illegal wiretapping, the "liberal" press had "a handle" on reporting those stories.

Bush supporters, republican party platform or policies supporters, and some other conservatives who posted here, seemed able to defend, minimize, explain away, or blame the liberal press in reaction to most or all of the above. Those who were critical could be branded as unAmerican...unpatriotic in a "time of war"...guilty of failing to "support our troops"!!!

Folks who never voted for the "candidates" responsible for those other scandals, were accused of being wrong for merely critically discussing those controversies and condemning those practices, and those who promoted them.

My concern now is that, with the advent of the guilty pleas of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Jack Abramoff, the "balance" here has changed. The "defenders" post less and less, even as the scandals grow more alarming, more intertwined; larger in scale, in the cost to our government and in it's very ability to function. Now, whole government agencies seem destroyed. FEMA has been described by senators as irretrievably "broken". The CIA, punching bag and scapegoat for all that went wrong with WMD "intelligence", even though the VP had to visit their HQ ten times, and the CIA feat of "turning" Saddam's foreign minister had to be ignored before the CIA, in the administration's eyes, "got it right", is also broken.

Blaming the CIA was not enough. Porter Goss was sent there to chase out the entire covert section, and demand partisan loyalty as a prerequisite for continued employment of the rest of the agency personnel. Even the CIA Inspector General, John Helgersonin one of Porter Goss's last destructive edicts, was <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/24/news/cia.php">forced to take a polygraph</a>, the agency "watchdog", appointed by the POTUs, and only removed by him, was marginalized because he was supposed to investigate the CIA, not to submit to it!

Goss appointed a new executive director of operations, the #3 position, "Dusty" Foggo, in Nov., 2004, and the now "too complicated" scandals of Cunningham, Wade, Wilkes, and Abramoff, Delay, Buckham, merged.

Can the "liberal" press even cover these intricacies, let along convince any of Bush's remaining 31 percent "base" to reverse course and vote for a democratic party congressional candidate in November? Is there any other way to <b>realistically</b> trigger actual congressional investigations and oversight, as soon as next January, without voting in a house or senate democratic majority? is the press even liberal? Are they covering the third Cunningham briber, Thomas Kontogiannis, even now? Check the <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Thomas+Kontogiannis&btnG=Search+News">google news link</a>....they aren't!
....and here's the problem...even for a "liberal" biased, anti-Bush, anti-republican press cadre, there's greed, treason, conspiracy, and racketeering, but there are too many players, and it's too effing complicated:

Yesterday, in Post #11 in the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=104278">"Why did Goss Resign?"</a> thread, I mentioned Jerry Lewis, before posting an article about Rick Gwin:
Now, there's this in today's news:
and, if this is true, isn't it treason?:
Mods, I had to leave out descriptions of how Wilkes, Foggo, Goss, Abramoff, Delay, Buckham, and even Delay's wife are all interrelated in this "mess". Even with self imposed brevity, small posted news article excerpts, I fear that this thread will be locked for having a"too wordy, link rich" OP. Bear in mind that I don't make this stuff up. Please allow this thread to proceed.

Is the liberal press covering this in any way that is an example that they are "liberal" ceasing any opportunity to smear non-liberals? Will anyone who still supports Bush or congressional republicans be influenced to vote against them? Where will all of this lead?

ubertuber

I'll read your links when I get off of work - but I do have one immediate thought.

I have a feeling that the issue of diminishing returns works in reverse - that as that approval figure gets lower and lower, it will take exponentially larger bad news or energy to turn supporters into doubters. Below 31%, you're probably starting to talk about people who are supporters of the Republican party in ways that transcend any particular president's accomplishments or foibles. That's tough to chip into.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

host of all those links, there is one word that none of them contain.

Bush

We are talking about Bush's approval rating right?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

docbungle

While there is some truth in what you say here, the way in which you say it is the reason for a lot of those replies, imo. When posts are so front-loaded with bias, it is difficult for those with opposing views to not become defensive. Also, posts that start out with a sort of "I told you so" type of vibe are not going to fare well, regardless of merit. Also, only a certain type of person said the things that you state above. The vast majority of people don't think I'm a traitor because I don't always agree with Bush or his policies.

Again, yet another self-referential jab regarding your posts being edited by the mods? It seriously takes away from whatever you are trying to say.

Are you denying there is any sort of liberal press? Or are you saying it's just not as liberal as some people imply? I think there is a huge amount of reporting done from both the liberal and conservative points of view. Wouldn't you agree?

__________________
Bad Luck City

aceventura3

The frequency of my posts are correlated to the stock market, not the poor logic used here or in the media to demonize Bush. When I move money to cash, I have more time to kill.

All I know is that the economy is strong, business is good, the stock market is good, unemployment is low, homeownership is high, inflation is low, no attacks here since 9/11, schools are improving and my garbage gets picked up on time.

Oh I forgot - and the sky is falling - the sky is falling. Heck the sky has been falling for the last 5 years. When are the liberals going to actually find an impeachable offense or something? when are women going to start needing to get abortions in back alleys, etc, etc, etc. When is all the predicted doom and gloom going to occur?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Topper

I definitely agree, there is a percentage of folks that will follow and support no matter what event, scandal, poor policy, etc is brought to light, as long as some core fundamental theme is played to. And yes I do believe that's typically based on religious views.

Elphaba

I haven't personally experienced a liberal or conservative bias in the msp, but that may be due to not watching broadcast news. I believe the whole "liberal bias" nonsense is merely a clever talking point that has stuck. What I find disgusting is the lack of investigative reporting that was once considered the public's watchdog. We can't trust our politicians to investigate themselves so we are left with nada.

I honestly believed that the Abramoff scandal would result in serious ethics reform. The joke is on me and the rest of the country with the piddling little gesture currently being negotiated.

Do I endorse throwing all the bums out in November? I will look at my representatives and senators voting records and decide if they deserve my vote. My first priority is finding a fiscally conservative candidate with the hope of correcting the mess this administration has created. I thought I could trust the Republican party in that regard, but obviously I was wrong.

guy44

Well, I do think that the sheer number of scandals is simply overwhelming. I mean, off the top of my head, you've got this massive, gigantic, titanic NSA scandal, which ties into Hayden at the NSA (who told Congress under oath that this kind of monitoring wasn't happening) going to the CIA, whose head recently resigned because he had so obliterated the agency by politicising it and purging a generation of top analysts and officers and also because he was in a turf war with the Director of National Intelligence and also because his hack top appointee liked the hookers, who were supplied by corrupt contracters who have already pleaded guilty to bribing Congressman Cunningham, whose corruption was so bad that just-leaked memos show the contractors telling Cunningham how to go about shaking down the Pentagon for cash, a scandal which now officially ties in to Rep. Lewis, chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Hell, yesterday it turns out that Bush's HUD Secretary denied a government contract because the companies owner didn't like Bush.

I mean, shit. Those are the revelations of the past WEEK, just the ones off the top of my head.

You want to talk no-bid contracts for pro-Bush companies in Iraq and New Orleans? Or the neverending revelations about faked, hyped, and distorted pre-war intelligence meant to get us into a war of choice? How about that FEMA, huh? The Dept. of Homeland Security isn't exactly doing so hot, either.

Of course the media can't keep up. There are so many scandals that my brain just froze trying to think of them all.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

Ustwo

My how quickly some forget 1992-2000

Well in all fairness many of you were pretty young, but still

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

shakran

Well I remember 1992-2000. Starr tried for years (and wasted jillions of taxpayer dollars) trying to prove anything with Whitewater and couldn't. And if you really think getting a blowjob in the oval office is as bad as murdering thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers by forcing them into an unjust war that you lied to start. . .

host

I'm not that young...and I don't know what you are talking about. For the young....here is what happened, mostly documented by determinations of the Cheney endorsed, factcheck.org site, and the publicly edited, "Wikipedia" site.
What does your "party" or your POTUS offer the "rest of us", Ustwo? You've told us you're a practicing dentist. You probably have good health insurance coverage, and you don't like a progressive tax policy, like the one that Clinton fully supported. The majority of us are not as fortunate as you are, Ustwo. Clinton was "our POTUS". Sometimes, he represented the interests of the majority...the middle middle class....and lower. We, the majority...are America! Why do you hate America, Ustwo? If you disagree with my documentation, go to the Wiki links, and change what appears there.....make it more....accurate...if you can back up your opinions.....

Ustwo,are you referring to this?
(The 6 percent deficit was in fiscal year 1983, and the 4.7 percent deficits was in f-y 1992. Deficits decreased, turned to a 2.4 percent <b>surplus</b> in the seventh budget year of the Clinton presidency, in f-y 2000.......)
or....maybe you mean this? :
Maybe you objected to Clinton's policy of heavily taxing the rich instead of the rest of us?
or....was your comment about all that Clinton era corruption?
[quote]
Have you considered how the eight year, $110 million, unrelenting criminal investigtaion of the Clintons, came about?
Or....how Paula Jones lawyers were able to put Clinton in the position of lying under oath about having sex with Monica Lewinski, in a deposition triggered by Paula's suit against sitting president Clinton?
mercifully...but much later....David Brock "switched sides", exposed the rightwing "Op" against the Clintons, and then created: http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors

....or maybe...Ustwo, you're still smarting from that awful Clinton pardon of fugitive billionaire, Marc Rich? :
......not much "untoward" to see here, Ustwo. Just a two term president who was demonized by wealthy conservative republican extremists, hounded for eight years by the special prosecutor that their "Arkansas Project" spawned, and finally trapped into lying about his private sexual activity in a sworn deposition in a lawsuit that the extremists financed. The lies about his personal sexual activities were the core of the grounds for an impeachment trial that the republican controlled house of rep. prosecuted against Clinton, and the senate acquitted him. This was the same sort of "Op" as the campaign in 1993 to stop Clinton's attempts to draft a health insurance plan for nearly 27 million uninsured Americans:
If you are finished with the well..."Clinton did it", knee jerk response to the OP for this thread...can you answer these two questions? Would Bush fair as well as Clinton did if a special counsel was set up, with unlimited time and an unlimited budget, to investigate him and all of his appointees?

Was it appropriate for the republican house to almost instantly launch an inquiry into the "routine" end of term pardons that Clinton signed, just as Bush '41 had done before him...yet to, this day, ignore the disclosures and guilty pleas of Cunningham and Abramoff, and the indictment of Delay, showing no interest in launching congressional investigations or to legislate meaningful lobbying reform?

Compared to what Clinton tried to do to represent what is best for me, what is Bush or the republican congress doing, or
done...besides burdening my descendants with $4 trillion in new debt and a dismantled progressive income tax policy that might have mitigated servicing interest payments on that debt?