Please help set this columnist straight.

In today's Harrisburg Patriot paper an opinion columnist wrote this article about the "liberal media." I am going to write a letter to the public forum about this article, but I am not able to put a rebuttal into words like you guys here at DU, so I thought maybe you guys to help to set him straight. This is a big red area of PA and I'm sure he has never gotten feedback on his columns before from this area. So can anyone help me?

Scandal of scandals
By Thomas Sowell

Now that ABC News has the list of phone numbers are given to them by the "Washington Madam," the question is: Whose names will they publicize if they find out that there are public figures whose phone numbers are among those they have? Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that these names include Karl Rove and Ted Kennedy. Are both names likely to be revealed? And if only one of these names is revealed, do you have any serious doubt which one the liberal media will reveal?
(snip)

Before the Washington Madam surfaced, the big scandal in town was the Bush administration's firing of the eight U.S. attorneys. But is was not a scandal as far as the media were concerned, when Bill Clinton fired every single U.S. attorney in the country. Everybody knew then -but seem to forgotten now-that all U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire any of them or all of them, at any time, for any reason or for no reason. In the case of Bill Clinton, U.S. attorneys back in Arkansas had been investigating corruption in his administration as governor before he became president. Firming all of them covered the fact that he was getting rid of those who were investigating him. But that was no scandal, as far as the media were concerned.
(snip)


This guy just doesn't seem to get, does he? The has an e-mail address for him or you can post a comment.

http://.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/05/08/the_scandal_of_scandals


Edited for spelling

advice; anything by Sowell, or anything spewed by that website, isn't worth your effort. They are both rabidly, unashamedly right wing, and will never change imo.

He's got such a massive persecution complex, bordering on certifiable paranoia, that anything that contradicts his fear will only be seen as confirming his feelings of persecution.

Also, he, like most GOPs, will never get that it isn't the sex, it's the pure hypocrisy. Kennedy has never pretended to be the Pope. The whole GOP has been ranting about their superior morals since Reagan handed the party to the religious nutcases.

However, if he is expecting ABC to out Karl Rove, he's completely nuts. No one but underlings will ever be outed. The main players can do no wrong.

(Oh, and he could do with a history lesson about how all incoming presidents fire the previous administration's attorneys, most of whom are nearing the ends of their terms, anyway. But that would just leave him feeling persecuted by those liberal facts.)

We have a lot Rush listeners in this area and I am so tired of people not getting the real story.

I don't think that I have ever heard the number for 2001...
All of them, some of them, how many?
Thanks!

...this was elicited during testimony before the DOJ, sorry I don't remember whose testimony it was.

the loud mouth in question.

...but testimony before the Judiciary Committee. But the 92 or 93 figure is still correct... :-)

I saw a column which stated something to the effect that "dismissing all attorneys for no reason is not the same as dismissing a few for an illegitimate reason." In other words, Clinton was perfectly within his rights to change all attorneys. That does not exculpate the top staff at Justice for bringing illegitimate pressure including dismissal against individual attorneys for partisan reasons.

It would be good to include some context of how serious a breach this is, preferably from a Republican, but I can't think of a good one other than Iglesias's account of his meeting with John Ashcroft, who apparently took the principles of independence and impartiality extremely seriously.

While partisan decisions in hiring and prosecution are often matters of judgment, the evidence and testimony are overwhelming in this case. You might refer him to Josh Marshall's Taking Points Memo which has excruciating detail on the attorneys issues.

sowell hates the constitution, he hates himself, he hates the thought of a free America, he hates Bill Clinton because Clinton was a blooming success and incredibly popular human compared to scum like bush, he hates the thought that he is in fact a liar, but he knows he has the ignorant trash audience (not you) who ensures him a living. Just look away.

If he's still trying to compare Clinton's administration of the USAs to the Bush Administration purgethen his a fool or an enabler of the anti-constitutional ways of the administration. Sowell is an enemy of our Democracy, period.

if you hear this sort of bs from somebody with whom you are speaking, ask them why it is that, whenever there is an article about a politician who has done something wrong, and that person is a republican, the so-called "liberal media" never refers to that person's party. however, if that person is a dem, the party affiliation is most prominently mentioned (they will deny this, of course, but watch for yourself).

oh, by the way, every incoming president has the perogative of asking for, and getting, the resignations of all USA's from the previous administration. please note that this is not the same as firing them, it is standard practice.