MaxedOutMama
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Congressional Royals And The NY Times
First, on the congressional royalty: Betsy Newmark has several succinct and pointed posts on the subject. I guess we now know what will produce bipartisanship in Washington - a threat to congress critters. This doesn't look good, and that is because it is very telling to anyone not mired in NY/DC groupthink.
Our senators and representatives were willing to play party politics with national security, with the borders, with wars, with Social Security and Medicare. They wouldn't sacrifice their little state slush funds in the wake of one of the worst disasters ever to hit this country. Suddenly we get a bipartisan consensus on the sacrosanct nature of the offices occupied by congressmen who take bribes? I think we should all draw the logical conclusion, email Bush and demand that the FBI investigate every last one of them. Those investigations should produce progress on many fronts.
Second, the NY Times has continued its slide into a willful, elitist irrelevancy with the slam article on Hillary Clinton's marriage. To the blithering remnants of a once-respectable news organization, I can only say "That's something the voters will decide, you idiots!" I won't link to the NY Times article, but I will link to David Broder's commentary on it, although it is far too kind to the NY Times.
Why did the NY Times send 50 reporters out to nose around to see who Bill may or may not be sleeping with? What, did they take a look at the Inquirer's circulation figures and develop a revenue-enhancing scheme? This reminds me of the attempt to nose around Roberts' adoption records, and is just as contemptible. Perhaps the Gangrenous Lady should considering assigning a few of those reporters to do a comprehensive, well-researched series about alternative energy technologies, or a survey of the public health and retirement strategies of other countries.... They could find something useful about which to research and write, but I suppose that would be a lot of work, whereas hanging in bars on expense accounts and gossiping is less mentally taxing.
I am not a Hillary supporter, but this was clearly not appropriate. That the Clinton marriage is somewhat atypical is already a matter of public record. Byron York brings up some more reasonable issues, but again, this is a matter for voters to decide. With dual-career families now the norm, voters will face the issue of the spouse's career and connections in other candidacies sooner or later. There is a reason we hold primaries - let that process work.
Our senators and representatives were willing to play party politics with national security, with the borders, with wars, with Social Security and Medicare. They wouldn't sacrifice their little state slush funds in the wake of one of the worst disasters ever to hit this country. Suddenly we get a bipartisan consensus on the sacrosanct nature of the offices occupied by congressmen who take bribes? I think we should all draw the logical conclusion, email Bush and demand that the FBI investigate every last one of them. Those investigations should produce progress on many fronts.
Second, the NY Times has continued its slide into a willful, elitist irrelevancy with the slam article on Hillary Clinton's marriage. To the blithering remnants of a once-respectable news organization, I can only say "That's something the voters will decide, you idiots!" I won't link to the NY Times article, but I will link to David Broder's commentary on it, although it is far too kind to the NY Times.
Why did the NY Times send 50 reporters out to nose around to see who Bill may or may not be sleeping with? What, did they take a look at the Inquirer's circulation figures and develop a revenue-enhancing scheme? This reminds me of the attempt to nose around Roberts' adoption records, and is just as contemptible. Perhaps the Gangrenous Lady should considering assigning a few of those reporters to do a comprehensive, well-researched series about alternative energy technologies, or a survey of the public health and retirement strategies of other countries.... They could find something useful about which to research and write, but I suppose that would be a lot of work, whereas hanging in bars on expense accounts and gossiping is less mentally taxing.
I am not a Hillary supporter, but this was clearly not appropriate. That the Clinton marriage is somewhat atypical is already a matter of public record. Byron York brings up some more reasonable issues, but again, this is a matter for voters to decide. With dual-career families now the norm, voters will face the issue of the spouse's career and connections in other candidacies sooner or later. There is a reason we hold primaries - let that process work.
Comments:
<< Home
The Clinton marriage is what it is. It serves everyone best to let it speak for itself.
As with the Lewinsky affair and other instances, no amount of editorializing can fundamentally change the reality or how that reality is perceived.
As with the Lewinsky affair and other instances, no amount of editorializing can fundamentally change the reality or how that reality is perceived.
Exactly. Everyone can make up their own minds on this. IMO it was a cheap shot, but it certainly was unnecessary.
Post a Comment
<< Home
