A collapse of credibility

Hugh Hewitt:

The Senate Democrats' #2 compares the American military to Nazis, Stalinists, and Pol Pot's killer, and the story never gets near to the cover of the Washington Post. Karl Rove makes a valid assertion about the behavior of liberals, backed by evidence, and the fake outrage of those Senate Democrats makes page 1, but in a story without the pointed reply of George Pataki which happens to pivot on Durbin's slander. At least the New York Times included a portion of the Pataki quote, which has now vanished from the original Newsday article.

But there is no MSM bias, right? My World column looks at the Minneapolis Star Tribune's repulsive editorial on Durbin's speech, but that's just the obvious bias against truth at work. Placement and pitch matter just as much. The contrast between the MSM's smothering of Durbin's slander and his non-apology versus its treatment of the false outrage directed at Rove joins the massive set of examples of MSM bias which, while it will never be corrected, will always be there to explain the collapse of credibility among the elite media.

Just so you don't miss it, here's what Governor Pataki said:

"I think it is a little hypocritical of Senator Clinton to call on me to repudiate a political figure's comments when she never asked Senator Durbin to repudiate his comments. Senator Clinton might think about her propensity to allow outrageous statements from the other side that are far beyond political dialogue --insulting every Republican, comparing our soldiers to Nazis or Soviet gulag guards-- and never protesting when she serves with them."

See also MartinPundit who nails the Dem reaction:

So what’s going on? What has Senators Clinton, Schumer, Reid, and Kerry so upset? What on earth could have put their knickers in such a twist?

Did he say that he hates Democrats and everything they stand for? Did he say that they’re losers and liars? Did he call them miserable failures? Did he say they’ve never made an honest living? Did he hold phony impeachment hearings? Did he compare them to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot?

Nope. None of the above. He simply told people what liberals stand for, and that, to paraphrase Churchill, is something up with which liberals will not put.

...

...In fact, it’s a significant tactical error - one of many which are adding up to a major strategic blunder. It makes the Democrats look weak. It makes them sound like the whiny child no one likes. Kerry even trotted out the threadbare “attacking my patriotism” charge. Rove might as well have done so given Kerry’s notoriously thin skin. Imagine how shocked Kerry would be if someone actually did question his patriotism. Would he even notice?

The problem liberals/Democrats have is that those statements are an accurate assessment of their positions, and those views are out of step with the American people as proven in election after election. But who would have really noticed Rove’s speech if the Democrats hadn’t sounded the trumpet? Not many.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains