Comments on: Pelosi Implodes at the Gate

By: Godzilla

Godzilla — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:31:55 +0000

Maybe I’ll start reading the NYT again…NOT!

// channeling Boratz

By: Insufficiently Sensitive

Insufficiently Sensitive — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:03:35 +0000

NYT: “The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see”

Not by the NYT. For months they painted a halo on his chickenhawk statue, and gave him ‘absolute moral authority’ as a former military man in his commentary on the war in Iraq. And by extension, his morals could bear no question, and his shortcomings were swept under the rug to conceal them from the public.

Truly the mission of the MSM, with NYT in the lead, in the years before the 2006 election was to ensure defeat of Republicans. Informing the public, which bears directly on the idea of an informed electorate in a democracy, ran a distant second at the NYT.

Manipulating public opinion by concealing such news of ‘celebrities’ is evidence that the NYT prefers antidemocratic means to take control of US politics.

By: Sandy P

Sandy P — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:52:26 +0000

How can we tell Nancita’s hit the ground? Her face will never show it.

By: scott

scott — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:32:59 +0000

Roger,
Has Nancy hit the ground running,or what?Or just hit the ground(heh!).Even Democrats are appalled…Murtha?Hastings? Republicans are smiling once again!

By: freetotem

freetotem — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:36:15 +0000

The Times didn’t point out Murtha’s substantial shortcomings in the ethics, coherence or competence departments prior to the election, because the job then was to defeat the Republicans, and anyone who criticized the administration and got lots of attention served that goal. The Times editors are unscrupulous, but they aren’t stupid. The job now is to present the Democrats as people you might want to vote for in 2008. Perhaps with this and Carville’s bitch slap to Dean, we are seeing the beginnings of efforts to cull out at least the most extreme nut jobs. Although that doesn’t explain Pelosi. Or Reid. Or Durbin, Rangel, Hastings….hmm. Never mind.

By: chuck

chuck — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:56:55 +0000

Makes me wonder how much quid pro quo was involved in Murtha going public about the war. The Dems do have a record of recruiting veterans to shore up their position.

By: Rhod

Rhod — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:18:42 +0000

The most “well-known shortcoming” of Jack Murtha is that he’s a moron. And I’m serious. The man is an incoherent boob. I think this was critical to his rejection, and not his ethical deficiencies.

He spent years since ABSCAM growing fatter in the Whorehouse of Reps without the slightest objection. But crooked is one thing, daily public stupidity is another.

By: joe

joe — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:14:02 +0000

What is amazing about Hastings is that any exective branch of government he would not be able to obtain a security clearance.

By: daveinboca

daveinboca — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:55:07 +0000

Hastings will be much worse than the weird irascible Murtha. Can you imagine Alcee trading Intell secrets with John Conyers, the pro-terrorist head of the Judiciary Committee, for passing on to Al-Qaeda?

We down in Florida know Alcee and he is a rotten crook. Harman is one of the best members of Congress, but biyotch pelosi has a hissy-fit with women smarter than herself. And that takes in a lot of Congresswomen!!!

By: Sandy P

Sandy P — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:36:32 +0000

On to Alcee Hastings………