First In A Series Of Hit Pieces Against The New Dem Majority

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300778_pf.html

Boy, can someone remind me when the WaPo was this assiduous in attacking the crooks and liars that dominated the Repuke Congress?

It's a republicon rag.
I wouldn't insult a puppy by asking him to crap on it.

the news has been unfair to Nancy. They started pelting her before she even took over the speaker role. It wasn't on Keith's program. But, some have noticed.

Just because you have a (D) beside your name doesn't make you a saint. These are politicians. Politicians! And specific ones, ones named in this article for good, legitimate reasons, have histories that cause legitimate doubt in good people as to whether or not the Democrats' reform efforts will be real or just all talk. The Republicans don't need, or want, such legitimate doubt, so forget them - they'd prefer propaganda over reality about this anyday.

Now, sure, you can stand there and say the WaPo didn't go after the Republicans nearly as hard as they should have. But taken in isolation, this piece is scrupulously fair and legitimate. What do you want, a free ride here? I WANT the Democrats to earn the respect of the public, not to get a free ride because the media fears Congress, fears the Administration, especially in the case of the owners of media corporations fearing that failure to get along with the Republicans in power would directly damage their economic interests. So Pelosi doesn't make them afraid enough that they'll tip-toe around the truth on the eve of the first day. You have a problem with this? That fear was a mutant aberration, not normality for the American system. If this is the new normal, I am very grateful - we can do so much worse.

I have increasing confidence that Pelosi's speakership will make the goal of ethics reform a reality rather than the phantom illusion it was after the Gingrich revolution.

If there are some scumbag Democrats, sure attack them with both barrels, indict them and we move on. I could give a fuck, just as long as you go hard on the Republicans as well.

But they didn't. You can check their Abramoff coverage they got there on the right. They go through all kinds of hoops not to describe it as an exclusively Republican affair. They even go so far as to falsely implicate some Democrats.

But with Democrats it's always the same. When Pelosi promises reform, the rags come out and say "Jefferson! Reid! Murtha! Um, um, um, who wasn't indicted but there's rumors floating around, uh, uh. . . Jim Wright!" They haven't even told the whole story on Abramoff because they are so afraid of scratching below the surface. The Clinton years won't have nothing on the next two years of media coverage.

We can't just forget that such a thing exists and focus only on the tone and slant of coverage and compare it to under the height of Republican domination. That obscures the fundamental point: media coverage aside, the public has natural and well warranted skepticism that the Democrats will be good on their word. The proper response to this is for the Democrats to BE good on their word. The press has no control whatsoever over that!

truths comes in several forms, and craven media bias is one of them

let's give them a bit of a pass, shall we? It may not be embarassing to them but, it most certainly is embarassing to us to be seen doing so.

Let's take care of our own house and not be so concerned with the betting odds about whether we will do so or not.

That's why we need an unbiased media

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401701_2.html

one paragraph about unspecified "corruption scandals" involving pukes out of office, but other wise it's fun-fun silly willy with the bi-partisan, ideas-having Republlicans :eyes: