The media and politics
P
The media screams that congress’s polls are even lower than the president, which is news indeed, but it never informs the public why.
The media loves fractious politics, the more devisive the more they love it. Bi- partisanship is like kissing your sister to the media Look no further than the “blue dess’ journalism in the Clinton years for what the media likes to impart to us. There wasn’t enough of “blue dress” stuff in the hyped up pre-Iraq war garbage Bush dumped on us and consequently, the media must take its share of the blame that allowed him to get his war and here we are today, nearly a half trillion dollars poorer and over 30,000 needless casualties.
The distressing part about this is those reading this aren’t the ones not informed, the ones not reading this remain blissfully ignorant on what’s really going on. The media wins again but sadly, America loses again too.
This letter has not been edited.
All members of Congress should be impeached on grounds of "traitors" to this country.
According to the US CONSTITUTION, Congress has the power to call up the National Guard to stop invasions; so there is no need to create laws to stop this invasion of illegals coming across our borders(north, south, east and west).
And after we impeach congress then next we must turn our sights on the media who do nothing more then lie, lie and lie.
"The media screams that congress’s polls are even lower than the president,"
What the "liberal media" doesn't tell you is that the congressional republican's polls are even lower than democrats.
Posted by conservative media on July 25, 2007 03:01 PMMr. Kenny is quite correct. Unfortunately, we can't get enough people to watch C-SPAN, so most people don't care or know enough to find out why this farce continues.
Posted by Stan B on July 25, 2007 03:15 PMCan anyone list the number of bills thwarted by the reps?
Posted by KW on July 25, 2007 04:34 PMthe american people as a whole are too stupid and lazy to do anything about the traitors who rule over us. so stop complaining!
Posted by Fresh on July 25, 2007 06:36 PMIt will be many years before this country recovers from the dishonorable frauds who make up this castastrophic administraation. Bush and Cheney are dangerous fools.
Posted by gadfly on July 25, 2007 07:20 PMKW asked:
"Can anyone list the number of bills thwarted by the reps?"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18218.html
Posted by Charles B on July 25, 2007 07:28 PMMr. Kennedy brings up a very important point, if I take his meaning correctly. The press media has altered it's focus time and again throughout history, sometimes in shameless and sleazy ways.Fetid yellow journalism has crept into the fundamental purpose of newspapers, exposing lies, defending truth and informing the public, periodically throughout history.
The "blue dress" syndrome is yet again another example of the sensationalistic obsessions newspaper's create and which, it seems, people can't get enough of.
That said, there has been an even more disturbing change in the press media which I don't think the public is aware of.
I have contacted various editors of newspapers in Colorado recently about doing an in depth investigative story concerning a very contentious and on going issue involving legislation, big pharmaceutical companies, powerful billion dollar foundations, possible corruption within state health departments, and possible unethical and unwarranted influence and interference in the legitimate interest of government and the public.
But that issue is not the point. The point is, none of the newspapers I contacted will do the story, not because they think it unimportant, not because they philosophically or politically disagree, not because of advertizers concerns and not because of readership. The reason is because they have lost interest in and focus on investigative reporting ergo, they no longer have reporters who can do such reporting.
Why, you may ask, did this happen? It happened because of a change in the direction of funding. Newspapers have found that sensationalism, seedy, sexy and scandalous stories involving celebrities are cheaper, easier and more profitable for their advertizers and, ipso facto, for the newspaper.
I find this distubing on several levels but, the most disturbing is the idea that if profit has become more important than exposure of lies, corruption and defence of the truth within the fourth estate, then the public has lost, yet again, one more defender of the truth to rely on.
Who then does the public turn to, when questionable politicial action, private interest interference, big business influence and hidden, nefarious corruption runs amok in scociety. If no one is left to champion the just cause of the people, what hope is there that the truth will prevail and wrongs will be righted.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 26, 2007 06:24 AMThe original poster, as well as many of the following posters, are quite correct. The so-called "media", for the most part, is no longer fulfilling its duty of keeping the public informed. That is because its "owners" are only concerned with their "bottom line", and "the truth be damned." Of course, they are not solely to blame, so is the public, who would rather have their minds "pickled" and told what to do, what to believe, and what to think. It is so much easier than doing any work themselves. They would rather sit in front of the "boob tube" like an amoeba and "sop up" the pre-digested poop they are fed by the loud and obnoxious talking heads, many whose level of intellectual development is frequently less than their viewers. Such is the "mental state" of this country.
Posted by Robert I. Laitres on July 26, 2007 07:22 AMThanks for the link Charles B.
Did you read the story?
The dems are blaming the reps. The reps say it's because the dems aren't being bipartisan.
But the bottom line (per your link) is only 1 out of 6 bills are being held up by the reps.
1 out of 6 is hardly enough to claim the reps are blocking all of the dems bills.
Does the new direction congress have any other excuses they'd like to use for their incompitence or can we all finally agree that congress needs to be replaced?
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 09:06 AMKW
The numbers of bills being blocked aren't nearly as important as WHICH bills are being blocked.
The Republicans let the mundane legislation pass, but they block all the substantial bills -- like setting a schedule for a force reduction in Iraq.
Besides -- any bills that the Republicans don't like can always be vetoed by the chimp-in-chief.
I think it was a good thing for Republicans that the Democrats won a Congressional majority last November. Now you can start the finger pointing and the blame game.
If you're lucky, the unwashed masses will soon forget that the Republicans completely controlled government for the last six years.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 26, 2007 09:44 AMTree Hugger - You completely missed the point.
1 out of 6 bills being blocked is a weak and lame excuse by the dems for failing at their jobs. And there was only one Iraq bill as you mentioned. What's the excuse for zero productivity on virtually every other promise the dems made?
Don't be blinded by allegiance to your party. Look at the facts and realize no one in congress gives a care about you. It's all about power.
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 10:42 AMI guess the bottom line is that I would rather be ruled by corrupt Democrats who at least TRY to address the issues and take care of people.
In my book, they're much better than the corrupt Republicans who are only out to help themselves and large corporations.
Thanks to the horrible job that the president and Republican-controlled Congress have done for the past six years, a lot of voters agree with my point of view these days -- except for the die-hard Republican lemmings that don't mind following Bush and his cohorts over a cliff.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 26, 2007 11:36 AMSo Tree Hugger, you consider the 14% approval rating a sign that voters prefer this new direction congress? You can't be serious, can you?
I look for several long time (rep and dem) congressmen to be tossed out in the 11/08 elections.
Time will certainly tell.
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 12:29 PMKW:
"But the bottom line (per your link) is only 1 out of 6 bills are being held up by the reps."
I think you need to read the story again. The statistic you pulled out does not represent what you say it does.
Here's the relevant paragraph:
"Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office."
But you did offer this good advice:
"Don't be blinded by allegiance to your party. "
If only you would sip from your own medicine...
Posted by Charles B on July 26, 2007 04:21 PMThen let me repeat my question Charles since you obviously didn't answer it with your link.
Can you list the bills being blocked by the reps?
You offer this as an excuse for the lack of production after the "first 100 hours." You see, the bills passed by the house during that period are getting very stale.
So please, by all means, back it up. Or quit using as an excuse for your new direction congress.
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 04:43 PMKW, laid what he considered "fresh sting" into the rotting corpse of a horse which he'd painstakingly propped up with a series of wires and pullies like some twisted cavalier running a macabre freak show :
"..let me repeat my question Charles since you obviously didn't answer it with your link.
Can you list the bills being blocked by the reps?"
There's no last minute gambit quite so appealing as moving the goal-posts for a top tier Authoritarian Bush Cultist.
Here is your original question:
"Can anyone list the number of bills thwarted by the reps?"
For which my link provided an answer.
It's an instructive peek into the way K-Dub operates: If he doesn't like your answer to his question he takes out a few words and pretends he asked something completely different.
What a funny...funny.......joke.
Posted by Charles B on July 26, 2007 08:30 PMSo you can't answer CB? Put the excuse to rest then and realize the new direction congress sucks like all the rest.
I know it's hard to admit after you voted for them. But it is best to just let it go...
Posted by KW on July 27, 2007 09:19 AMIt'd be much harder to admit that someone voted for Bush.
Posted by conservative media on July 27, 2007 10:14 AMCM - The problem with CB he thinks when the dems vote to stop debate on a bill, yet the reps want more discussion, then the reps are at fault for blocking legislation.
Why on earth would you want to stop discussion about a bill?
When the reps were in power they only used cloture votes 4 or 5 times. In only 7 months the dems have tried to use it 13 times already.
What are the dems trying to slip through without discussing it?
Is this the new direction congress?
Posted by KW on July 27, 2007 11:39 AM"Is this the new direction congress?"
Yes. Vote on the bill already. "Up or down" vote as the Republicans have harped on.
Posted by conservative media on July 27, 2007 01:02 PMIn one breath you defend the senate saying they haven't been in office but only 6 months.
Now you say, 3+ months after the senate received the bills, that we need to vote, now, without anymore discussion?
I'd prefer the senate rationally discuss the issues before rushing to enact even more ridiculous bills that do more damge than good.
Posted by KW on July 27, 2007 03:50 PMKW asked stupidly:
"Why on earth would you want to stop discussion about a bill?"
You have to stop debating in order to vote on a bill. By voting to continue debate, the Republicans are effectively stopping bills with majority support from passing. But you know that.
The Republican strategy is to not vote on anything of consequence so they won't have to pay a political price for their unpopular views. They hope to stall all legislation so they can then say "See! The "New Direction" congress didn't do anything!"
You're a joke little buddy.
Posted by Charles B on July 27, 2007 06:30 PMI see CB. The dems need to rush through the discussion process so they can:
a) Appear to be actually accomplishing something, and...
b) Have more time for ridiculous witchhunts like the new purjury investigation they want over the Gonzales testimony.
Considering who is in power in the senate, that makes perfect sense.
Thanks CB!
Posted by KW on July 28, 2007 06:50 AMKW
You shouldn't assume things. It just makes you look foolish.
Posted by conservative media on July 28, 2007 09:05 AMKW:
I'll take that as your concession speech.
Posted by Charles B on July 28, 2007 09:46 AM