Crush Liberalism

ABC News has a problem with Tony Snow as prez spokesdude?

Talk about gonads the size of grapefruits (easy, Congressman Frank…calm down)! The same network that hired Clintonista mouthpiece George Snuffalupugus…er, Stephanopoulos…thinks it’s improper that Bush chose Tony Snow to be his spokesman. From ABC News:

There’s just something about Fox News.

Not only does the cable giant have more than twice as many primetime viewers as the closest competition, but it’s often the network of choice for the White House administration in terms of big-name interviews.
…
Certainly, the White House offers exclusives to all the networks, including ABC. Media expert Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post says the Fox-White House relationship isn’t the problem here.

“The problem is that there is a perception that they’ve treated all the press corps with disdain,” Kurtz said. “That is more of an issue than what their favorite news channel happens to be.”

With all of the love that the MSM has showered on Bush since his 2001 inauguration, I can’t imagine why the man would hate them! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

Kurtz is being disingenuous when he says that he doesn’t care about the “Fox-White House relationship.” After all, the non-FNC networks were graced with Bubba’s love for eight years, and they reciprocated. Then again, with the exception of Hillary, who wasn’t graced with Bubba’s love? But I digress.

I’ve heard many a talking heads say “A-ha! Proof that Fox News has a GOP and Bush White House bias!” in the Snow hiring. Oddly enough, I’ve heard very few acknowledgements of leftist bias from these same people when you mention that NBC’s Tim Russert worked for Mario Cuomo (Democrat), or little-watched MSNBC’s Chris Mattews worked for Tip O’Neill (Democrat). Nosiree, Russert and Matthews and Snuffy can work for Dems and no one will question their network employers’ impartiality!

April 27, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Senators: "Everyone (but us) must conserve!"

The hypocrisy is thick but not surprising. It’s more palpable on the Democrats’ side, since they’re the ones squealing the loudest about conservation and their mythical “empathy” with the American consumer. However, Republicans aren’t much better in their “do as I say and not as I do” behavior. From the Washington comPost:

“Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!” charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. “They are too cozy with the oil industry.”

She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) — even though her Senate office was only a block away.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. “Get tough on big oil!” he demanded of the Bush administration.
…
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) made a plea for conservation. “We have to move quickly to increase our fuel efficiency,” she urged.

But not too quickly. After lunchtime votes, senators emerged from the Capitol for the drive across the street to their offices.

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) hopped in a GMC Yukon (14 mpg). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) climbed aboard a Nissan Pathfinder (15). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stepped into an eight-cylinder Ford Explorer (14). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disappeared into a Lincoln Town Car (17). Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) met up with an idling Chrysler minivan (18). (In light of this, and yesterday’s post about how Kennedrunk is opposing the windfarms off the coast of his Cape Cod mansion, does any leftist want to try and defend Chappy’s “green” record now? – Ed.)

Next came Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), greeted by a Ford Explorer XLT. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Menendez had complained that Bush “remains opposed to higher fuel-efficiency standards.”

If the politics of gasoline favor Democrats at the moment, the insincerity is universal. A surreptitious look at the cars in the senators-only spots inside and outside the Senate office buildings found an Escort and a Sentra (super-rich Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl’s spot had a Chevy Lumina), but far more Jaguars, Cadillacs and Lexuses and a fleet of SUVs made by Ford, Honda, BMW and Lexus.

At least one Senator got it right:

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) responded with an economics lesson. “Oil is worth what people pay for it,” he argued.

If a gallon of milk doubled in price, would the Senate be holding hearings on whether or not dairy farmers are “gouging” us? Somehow I doubt it.

April 27, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

FL "House passes bill banning bullying in public schools"

That’s what the headline reads, but my interpretation (which may differ from yours) is slightly different. From my local paper:

The state House on Wednesday passed a bill requiring Florida school districts to write policies prohibiting bullying in public schools, although time is running out for the Senate to join the effort.

It seems to me that the House isn’t banning bullying per se, but telling schools to come up with their own plans to do so. Maybe I’m nitpicking semantics here, but there is a difference. If the House bans it, it’s kind of a “one size fits all” approach, but if they direct the schools to do it, then…what? Do the schools get to define bullying, or lay out punishment guidelines, or what?

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, bullying is horrible: it scares weaker kids, it empowers stronger and more aggressive kids, and it disrupts the educational process. No one believes bullying is acceptable. On the other hand, is this really a matter for Tallahassee to be taking up? It seems that school districts should already have procedures in place to deal with bullies. Alas…:

…only about half of Florida districts have anti-bullying policies or programs.

Maybe the school districts feared invoking the wrath of the ACLU if they implemented such measures. I can see it now:

“Your honor, the school district violated Spike’s First Amendment right to free speech. Also, by prohibiting Spike from ‘requesting’ lunch money from his classmates, the only alternative for Spike to get lunch money is to either work (which is just WRONG) or to get it from his parents (which is equally WRONG)! Actually, lunch should be free for ALL students, but we’re working on that in another case. Anyway, does the school district expect Spike to starve?”

April 27, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment