From the Capitol Hill newspaper: Plans laid for impeachment.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-14 01:19pm

Attempting to impeach Bush over Iraq is an incredibly stupid idea. To even begin to have a legal grounding Congress would have to invoke the War Powers Act and then have Bush violate it. Fat fucking chance of that.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-14 01:26pm

Hameru wrote:No one got on Newt Gingrich for his madness. No one cared that the bastard left his wife for another woman even when she was on her deathbed.

Which is why his approval rating was in the teens, right? How many Speakers of the House resign their speakership and refuse to run for reelection to a rock-solid Congressional seat (for anything other than retirement)? Gingrich and his pals got pummeled by the press and their agenda never got off the ground. They deserved most of the punishment they got for being so politically incompetent (for which they'll probably never be forgiven by either the Republican rank-and-file or the think tank crowd), but the near-total failure of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 wouldn't have happened with the kind of journalistic cocksucking you regularly accuse the media of.

I don't recall the press spying on republican dick.

Bob Livingston.

This ridiculous crap didn't stop with Clinton. The media has had quite the anti-democrat bias. Case in point : Gary Condit. Condit, despite the lack of evidence tying him with Chandra Levy's dissapearance, was considered guilty by the press.

Condit was a conservative Democrat who could have run as a Republican in most of the Northeast. What are you trying to prove here, a conservative bias or a Republican bias?

And btw, Clinton's policies reflected those of a moderate republican.

So you're trying to prove a conservative bias in the press by claiming that they jumped all over a de-facto Republican.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-14 01:53pm

Which is why his approval rating was in the teens, right? How many Speakers of the House resign their speakership and refuse to run for reelection to a rock-solid Congressional seat (for anything other than retirement)? Gingrich and his pals got pummeled by the press and their agenda never got off the ....

You're dreaming. Pummeled where? What failure of the republican revolution?

Bob Livingston.

Where, and how badly was his dick mangled by the press?

Condit was a conservative Democrat who could have run as a Republican in most of the Northeast. What are you trying to prove here, a conservative bias or a Republican bias?

Well, the anti-liberalism is clear, but the anti-democratism varies depending on who is in the hot seat. Zell Miller, for example, enjoys having his back scratched by the press because of his mega conservatism. We can take a look at McCain, considering his somewhat anti-Shrub attitude, and see him roasted whenever he doesn't agree with whatever the village idiot says.

So you're trying to prove a conservative bias in the press by claiming that they jumped all over a de-facto Republican.

Clinton's policies were moderate republican in nature mostly because he was stonewalled and counter-vetoed by the republicans. However, he was not a radical conservative, so that didn't exactly earn him brownie points in the post-Reagan press.

Of course, to say that the media went soft on Clinton, you would have to ignore how the right (which includes the rightwing editorial managers) plotted his overthrow even before his first night at the white house.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-14 02:02pm

Plotted his overthrow before he was even in the whitehouse?

Damn, Hameru, you are more paranoid than I first thought you were...

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-14 02:08pm

NF_Utvol wrote:Plotted his overthrow before he was even in the whitehouse?

Damn, Hameru, you are more paranoid than I first thought you were...

Apparently you know nothing of Reverend Moon, Karl Rove, and David Hale (admitted liar, tax evader, and felon on the payroll of Richard Scaife and the American Spectator).

Oh yeah, like this never EVER happens

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-14 02:51pm

Come On>> I get to claim that "I called Hameru paranoid first" The rest of you are just stealing it!!

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-14 02:56pm

Hameru wrote:You're dreaming. Pummeled where? What failure of the republican revolution?

Gingrich had 18% approval ratings by the time of the Clinton impeachment, not a sign that he had the media eating out of his hands. The Republican revolution was only successful if you count them forcing Clinton to the center (for which he should have sent them a big thank-you note, because he would have been killed in 1996 otherwise). I can re-check my copy of the Constitution if you like, but I don't recall there being a Balanced Budget Amendment, nor an amendment creating Congressional term limits. Last I checked, the Department of Education was still a going concern. The Brady Law hasn't been overturned. It's taken until now to get a partial birth abortion law with a chance of passing through Congress, never mind all other forms of abortion.

Bob Livingston.
Where, and how badly was his dick mangled by the press?

Heir apparent to Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House, instead resigned from Congress when it was discovered and widely publicized that he had had an affair. Dennis Hastert was elected instead.

Well, the anti-liberalism is clear, but the anti-democratism varies depending on who is in the hot seat. Zell Miller, for example, enjoys having his back scratched by the press because of his mega conservatism. We can take a look at McCain, considering his somewhat anti-Shrub attitude, and see him roasted whenever he doesn't agree with whatever the village idiot says.

You've yet to prove the anti-leftism. I'll happily agree the press doesn't support most radical-left (read: Democratic socialist) positions, but they're hardly a pack of slavering libertarians, either.

So you're trying to prove a conservative bias in the press by claiming that they jumped all over a de-facto Republican.
Clinton's policies were moderate republican in nature mostly because he was stonewalled and counter-vetoed by the republicans. However, he was not a radical conservative, so that didn't exactly earn him brownie points in the post-Reagan press.

True enough on Clinton's positions. That's the nature of the two-party system. You're kidding yourself if you think that the press goes easy on "radical conservatives". The only concievable way one could conclude that the entire media is dominated by Big Bad Evil Conservatives is if one's so far to the left that a press corps that regularly votes more than 80% Democrat (IIRC) seems like a pack of fascists.

Of course, to say that the media went soft on Clinton, you would have to ignore how the right (which includes the rightwing editorial managers) plotted his overthrow even before his first night at the white house.

In order to properly ignore something, one must first see evidence that that something actually happened.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-14 02:58pm

Well, the anti-liberalism is clear, but the anti-democratism varies depending on who is in the hot seat. Zell Miller, for example, enjoys having his back scratched by the press because of his mega conservatism. We can take a look at McCain, considering his somewhat anti-Shrub attitude, and see him roasted whenever he doesn't agree with whatever the village idiot says

Umm, McCain was the media's darling during his bid for the Presidency. You need to get your shit together, speedy.

Clinton's policies were moderate republican in nature mostly because he was stonewalled and counter-vetoed by the republicans. However, he was not a radical conservative, so that didn't exactly earn him brownie points in the post-Reagan press.

Which is why the extremely conservative Pat Buchanan has been consistently savaged by the media. Which is why the very conservative Jerry Falwell was bashed repeatedly for his 9/11 comments. Which is why the hardcore leftist Ralph Nader never ran into great criticism from the media.