Just wondering

So, what has to actually happen before we can say this is Watergate II, or worse? Where’s the point at which it is acceptable in mainstream politics to point out how this administration operates? Do we actually have to catch Bush with the still beating heart of Al Franken being brought to his mouth before we’re allowed to say anything?

Watch the video. Read the transcript.
The press grows some hair, and finally confronts McClellan on the whole Rove/Plame connection. Lying through his teeth through the whole thing, and finally caught at it.

God, I can’t wait for The Daily Show tonight. It’s gonna be a great one.

3 thoughts on “Just wondering”

  1. In response to the question of when it will be acceptable in mainstream politics to point out how the Bush administration operates: NEVER. Why? Because as shady as Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al are, most if not all of their crimes cannot be proven. The evidence that does exist is never strong enough to hold up in a court of law, and therefore remains an accusation. The job of the media is to be objective, or at least appear to be. So, they can only pursue an accusation for so long, and if it doesn’t lead to anything substantial, they move on. The accused are innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country, and that includes the president. Though the host of this blog will surely disagree with me on this, go right down the list of alleged Bush wrongdoings, everything from voter fraud in 2000, to the lead up to the war, to the Rove scandal: it is all based on accusations, none of which could possibly hold up in court.
    As far as the public is concerned, it depends on how you define “mainstream.” Anti-Bush rhetoric is totally acceptable among about 48.5% of the country, but if by “mainstream” you mean a majority, then as Donnie Brasco would say, “fuhhgedaboutit.”

  2. Good points. Except — Clinton was raked over the coals for years before anything was proven. Just for example, he was completely exonerated in all respects in the Whitewater issue, and you would never know for all the media’s reaction. By the mainstream media. The same mainstream media that had such a field day with every freakin’ -gate they could dream up has given GWB tongue baths for five years and counting. I strongly suggest regular stops at The Daily Howler (one of the links in the right column) to see how the political media operates.

    Considering the amazing amount of evidence needed to even bring a president to trial, the standard of evidence for what is reportable ought to be a lot lower than what is proven. The mainstream media ought to be able to point out what is going on well before a court of law does. Which for the most part they do. But really, what do you expect to happen? No one is allowed to mention the emperor has no clothes until he has been ruled so? Note that one of the Democrats big issues these days is that they are legally unable to open investigations into alleged GOP wrongdoings. Being the minority party, they don’t have the numbers to start independent investigators. So how could anything be proven?

    (BTW, I agree with you on two out of three issues. Voter fraud I don’t believe was much worse than usual, and wasn’t the deciding force in either GWB election. The net is closing in on Rove, but I agree nothing is proven yet. On the other hand, the false pretenses that got us into Iraq have been documented extensively, and are frankly self-evident.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *