Thursday, March 30, 2006

more Howie bashing

Howie discusses impeachment.

Politically speaking, this idea seems way overstated to me. The Democrats are going to try to impeach Bush in his seventh year rather than mobilizing to seize the White House the following year? Remember the last partisan attempt to impeach a president? How'd that work out? Bill Clinton remained popular, and the Republicans lost seats in '98.

This is the worst kind of false equivalence. Truly outrageous.

Clinton's impeachment. A possible impeachment of Bush.

Clinton gave a squirrelly answer when asked a question under oath about his sex life.

Bush started a war, in which, last count, a LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED. The war was started for reasons that are still unknown. There is plenty of evidence showing that Bush was set on invading, regardless of the reasons given in public. There is evidence that Bush lied about the reasons given in public, and hid the doubts and questions about the reasons given in public. And the invasion has led to a point where Iraqis are killing Iraqis, whether you call that a civil war or not.

Tell me that is equivalent. And in return, you will get from me a bitter, sarcastic bark of a laugh. And that's more of a response than is deserved.

And as an added bonus, here is Howie advocating for affirmative action for conservative writers at big media outlets.

"It's the perception that MSM outlets are hostile to non-liberals that stops conservative journalists from signing up with their liberal peers -- or counterparts. It's a self-reinforcing bias."

If that is indeed the perception, then the big news outlets need to do something to change it.

As if this needs saying, here is an alternate theory. Conservative writers don't go into big media outlets because they are not interested in doing unbiased research and reporting. They see that if they look at all the evidence, their preconceived conclusion blows up. And they can't have that. So they stay away altogether.


Post a Comment

<< Home