Part 1-Democrats.
Russert abandoned the news this morning and went straight to the Democrat spin machine. The entire program was devoted to the opinions of the following political commentators: Dan Balz, Ron Brownstein, John Harwood, Andrea Mitchell, Eugene Robinson and Chuck Todd. Brownstein, Robinson and especially Mitchell are extremely liberal and openly partisan, in reality little more than official Democrat spokesmen. Balz is a slightly more restrained, probably not in outlook but at least in journalistic integrity. Todd toes the NBC liberal line when appearing on NBC programming. Harwood, who is perhaps the most reasoned of the group, is a safe moderate Republican who won’t really confront the untruths and distortions that so frequently operate as the premise of the liberal doctrine.
The panel discussed the Evita/Obama feud this week, with everyone agreeing that it merely illustrated the difference between Obama’s lure as a change agent and Hillary’s posturing as an experienced leader. The consensus was that the Democrat primary voter wants change and doesn’t care about experience. America’s calling Jimmy Carter seems to be the theme song.
Todd did raise an interesting point about Evita, this was supposed to be her year, first woman, first spouse, worst person; etc… to ever run for President and Obama stole her thunder. As attractive as are women n the liberal pantheon of victimization, nothing trumps race when it comes to the officious pandering hat is an inherent part of liberal left doctrine.
All seemed to agree that Iowa was important, Balz said “critically important “ in shaping the Democrat contest. Each agreed that Edwards is a one state candidate but could emerge with some headwind following an Iowa win. It was also the consensus that Hillary could spin an Edwards Iowa win but would have a hard time with an Obama win. It was also , widely believed that Evita would have a hard time with a third place finish in Iowa.
Part 2-Republicans.
The first polls discussed was the disconnect between the generic vote, heavily Democrat and the very close candidate specific polls. Balz praised Fred Thompson, although he had a cautionary great line-its hard for the wheels to come off a band wagon that hasn’t left the shop.
The panel discussed the disconnect between Iowa and the national polls. Harwood thought the Romney Iowa lead was evidence of hidden strengths and Rudy’s clear vision of strength. Brownstein described the Iowa race as wide open and speculated that a Romney win in Iowa and New Hampshire would have a dramatic affect on the national race.
Robinson also hit on an important sign-Rudy’s strength in South Carolina. For whatever reason, Rudy isn’t campaigning hard in Iowa but he is in South Carolina-where Rs are far more conservative, on the average than they are in Iowa, and Rudy leads there. Todd managed to slur social conservatives as religious bigots by asking if it comes down to Rudy and Mitt would the “social conservatives hold there nose and vote for the Mormon or the pro choice guy.” All this time I have mistakenly thought that the politically correct, accepting and non-judgmental liberal press didn’t trade in stereotypes?
Russert turned to a sound bite from AG Gonzales in a hearing to try and expose a Gonzales “lie”. Russert played Mueller’s testimony about a “national security program”. Balz claimed not to know how you square the circle of Mueller and Gonzales’ testimony, so he must have skipped the New York Times this morning. Robinson mentioned the existence of the Times story but admitted neither he, nor any other panelist, had actually read the story. The panel mostly ridiculed Gonzales, although Harwood showed a little compassion in aksing how could Al get up and go to the office every day.
Brownstein said the White House was comfortable instigating fights with the Democrat Congress because it makes the Democrats look bad with their incessant accusations and complaining. Mitchell even pointed out that this Congress is so unpopular that even 71% of the people don’t like their own Congressman. Balz, predictable liberal, blamed it all on Iraq, as if nothing else could have caused the record unpopularity of the “ ear mark and investigate” Congress and it’s opera bouffe leadership.
I wonder how the liberals would spin a panel like Russert’s this morning as “fair” for Fairness Doctrine purposes if the Dems succeed in talking legal control of the political discourse in this country.
Russert abandoned the news this morning and went straight to the Democrat spin machine. The entire program was devoted to the opinions of the following political commentators: Dan Balz, Ron Brownstein, John Harwood, Andrea Mitchell, Eugene Robinson and Chuck Todd. Brownstein, Robinson and especially Mitchell are extremely liberal and openly partisan, in reality little more than official Democrat spokesmen. Balz is a slightly more restrained, probably not in outlook but at least in journalistic integrity. Todd toes the NBC liberal line when appearing on NBC programming. Harwood, who is perhaps the most reasoned of the group, is a safe moderate Republican who won’t really confront the untruths and distortions that so frequently operate as the premise of the liberal doctrine.
The panel discussed the Evita/Obama feud this week, with everyone agreeing that it merely illustrated the difference between Obama’s lure as a change agent and Hillary’s posturing as an experienced leader. The consensus was that the Democrat primary voter wants change and doesn’t care about experience. America’s calling Jimmy Carter seems to be the theme song.
Todd did raise an interesting point about Evita, this was supposed to be her year, first woman, first spouse, worst person; etc… to ever run for President and Obama stole her thunder. As attractive as are women n the liberal pantheon of victimization, nothing trumps race when it comes to the officious pandering hat is an inherent part of liberal left doctrine.
All seemed to agree that Iowa was important, Balz said “critically important “ in shaping the Democrat contest. Each agreed that Edwards is a one state candidate but could emerge with some headwind following an Iowa win. It was also the consensus that Hillary could spin an Edwards Iowa win but would have a hard time with an Obama win. It was also , widely believed that Evita would have a hard time with a third place finish in Iowa.
Part 2-Republicans.
The first polls discussed was the disconnect between the generic vote, heavily Democrat and the very close candidate specific polls. Balz praised Fred Thompson, although he had a cautionary great line-its hard for the wheels to come off a band wagon that hasn’t left the shop.
The panel discussed the disconnect between Iowa and the national polls. Harwood thought the Romney Iowa lead was evidence of hidden strengths and Rudy’s clear vision of strength. Brownstein described the Iowa race as wide open and speculated that a Romney win in Iowa and New Hampshire would have a dramatic affect on the national race.
Robinson also hit on an important sign-Rudy’s strength in South Carolina. For whatever reason, Rudy isn’t campaigning hard in Iowa but he is in South Carolina-where Rs are far more conservative, on the average than they are in Iowa, and Rudy leads there. Todd managed to slur social conservatives as religious bigots by asking if it comes down to Rudy and Mitt would the “social conservatives hold there nose and vote for the Mormon or the pro choice guy.” All this time I have mistakenly thought that the politically correct, accepting and non-judgmental liberal press didn’t trade in stereotypes?
Russert turned to a sound bite from AG Gonzales in a hearing to try and expose a Gonzales “lie”. Russert played Mueller’s testimony about a “national security program”. Balz claimed not to know how you square the circle of Mueller and Gonzales’ testimony, so he must have skipped the New York Times this morning. Robinson mentioned the existence of the Times story but admitted neither he, nor any other panelist, had actually read the story. The panel mostly ridiculed Gonzales, although Harwood showed a little compassion in aksing how could Al get up and go to the office every day.
Brownstein said the White House was comfortable instigating fights with the Democrat Congress because it makes the Democrats look bad with their incessant accusations and complaining. Mitchell even pointed out that this Congress is so unpopular that even 71% of the people don’t like their own Congressman. Balz, predictable liberal, blamed it all on Iraq, as if nothing else could have caused the record unpopularity of the “ ear mark and investigate” Congress and it’s opera bouffe leadership.
I wonder how the liberals would spin a panel like Russert’s this morning as “fair” for Fairness Doctrine purposes if the Dems succeed in talking legal control of the political discourse in this country.
5 comments:
You must be joking--Andrea Mitchell, aka Mrs. Alan Greenspan, is a liberal now?
She is a stenographer for GOP talking points most of the time.
desmoinesdem
desmoinesdem.
are you saying that wives always are of the same political persasion as their husbands? Is this because you believe that all wives should obey their husbands in all things, including political thought?
I'd have expected a different point of view from a progressive liberal.
If you paid more attention to her stories, you'd see how visibly upset she gets when things go bad for liberals. She can't hide her facial expressions. She is a Liberal apologist, despite her sexual desire for Alan Greenspan.
demdem: if you think andrea mitchell is doing the GOP talking points, you must be so WAY WAY WAY left of center that you think SHE'S on the left.
That perspective is illuminating as to how liberals see other liberals.
you must be so WAY WAY WAY left of center that you think SHE'S on the left.
Oops..typo. I meant to say "RIGHT"
Have you heard anything about how the Republicans feel re: renewable energy sources?
There's a "renewable on parade" showcase that will be happening in Washington, Iowa in late September. I watched last Sunday's debate and heard Mike Huckabee talk about renewable energy sources leading to the US not depending on foreign oil sources...maybe this is something that would interest your readers! I'll attach the link to the marketing company's website.
Post a Comment