I wonder when George Steph decided to be harder on Democrats than on Rethugs?

Does he even pretend to be a Democrat?

Does he even pretend he treats both sides the same?

Geez, Russert did a lot better at putting on a facade of treating both sides the same than Georgie does.

The above is a general comment that seems to me to apply every single Sunday that Steph hosts This Week.

My specific reason for logging in to make this post:

He was a total jerk to the WH spokesperson (Jack Lew) who was on this morning about Obama's having insisted the mandate was not a tax, about Obama having voting against Robert's confirmation and about whether--wait for it--Obama was going to thank Roberts.

:wtf:

Georgie would show clips of Obama, smirk, and ask the WH Rep. The Rep would give some non commital answer, then George would ask the question again and again and again.

Even on the clip of then Sen. Obama saying he did not believe Roberts would protect the vulnerable in our society, Obama added several times, "I hope I am wrong." So even that was a paper club Georgie was trying to beat down Lew with.

And Since when do Presidents thank any Justice for a SCOTTUS vote anyway? That would be inappropriate, IMO. George really had to stretch for that one. Question is, why did Georgie stretch to be a jerk?



Next the *!@*% Paul Ryan is up. Not ONE gotcha question from George. To the contrary, when Ryan pulls out of his ear that ACA never would have passed if the mandate had been presented to the public as a tax, Georgie grins ear to ear says, "I think you're right."

:wtf:

Does either of them actually think healthy 27 year olds were thrilled to have to buy health insurance to avoid a penalty, but would have rioted if the exact same dollar amount had been called a tax?

And even if Georgie believed that people would have drawn the line at calling the penalty a tax, it's pure speculation. Is it really the position of a moderator to voice agreement with pure speculation?

Georgie also consistently allows Rethugs to say things like "this DemocRAT legislation" without correcting them or even shaking his head.

Things like those I have detailed are even more damaging to Democrats because Georgie is allegedly a Democrat. If a Rethug were doing the same thing, people would discount it some on the ground of partisanship.

As far as I am concerned, Georgie porgie is now officially classified as a turd.

He found that criticizing Democrats moved him up the ladder at ABC and made him more money.
Stuffenhorriblis is a dink

and the only reason I watched him a month or so ago was because Keith was on. but, yeah, he is more fair and easy on repubs...

Must pay well?

to show CNN or whomever, that he can certainly get along just fine with multiple newsfolk.



Get it here --->>>
www.zazzle.com/youre_not_in_the_1_why_vote_like_you_are_bumpe_bumper_sticker-128479630785214922?rf=238107662556833486

Hid moderating of a Democratic primary debate in 08 was nothing but a hit job. This is what I wrote about it at the time, before I became totally disenchanged with Obama:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5571299

whether or not we like the individual.

Much more than that, the American public deserves objective journalism.

"Objective" does not have sugar daddies and mommies, though.

said it and and is now, maybe more than ever.

Before Deep Throat summed it up so economically:

"Follow the money" was what led to "discovery" of the "New" "World," which had already been occupied for about 50,000 years before Magellan, Columbus and Vespucci (and perhaps a Viking or two).

"Follow the money" was also what led to financing of colonization of the New World, something to which an Original American friend referred as "infestation." We like to believe it was all about freedom of religion, but that was not the motivation nof the East India company and others like it.

IMO, when the U.S. Constitution was first presented to states for ratification, it was a very pro-business document, as well as being racist, protective of slavery and sexist.

The people rebelled against the total absence of protection for individual.

The Framers explained that the document was intended only to give the federal government certain powers. OF COURSE, the federal government was never going to interfere with individual rights because it had absolutely no power so to do. Hence the absence of provisions about individual rights, which would be and always remain between individuals and their respective states.

Thank God the colonists would have none of it. The states agreed to ratify only if both individual and states' rights were expressly protected. Hence, the states ratified only on the condition that the Constitution be amended ASAP. And it was.

Who knows whether that was because politicians kept their word back in the day, or because that same group of people had recently overthrown another government and therefore politicians had good reason to fear them.

If something similar happened today, would we be that smart and that insistent, I wonder?

Gee, I can't figure it out, either. ;-)