Senator Dianne Feinstein’s resignation from the Military Construction Appropriations Committee

The Jawa Report has a post up this morning about Senator Dianne Feinstein’s quiet resignation from the Military Construction Appropriations Committee back in January due to conflict of interest issues involving her husband Richard Blum, who owns two major defense contractors who have been awarded very lucractive military construction projects over the years thanks, no doubt, to Feinstein’s influence on the committee.

Didn’t hear about this in the MSM? Neither did I. But MetroActive has been on the case:

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum’s ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband’s companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by Metro’s expose of her ethics (which was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute). Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?

The MILCON subcommittee is not only in charge of supervising military construction, it also oversees “quality of life” issues for veterans, which includes building housing for military families and operating hospitals and clinics for wounded soldiers. Perhaps Feinstein is trying to disassociate herself from MILCON’s incredible failure to provide decent medical care for wounded soldiers.

Two years ago, before the Washington Post became belatedly involved, the online magazine Salon.com exposed the horrors of deficient medical care for Iraq war veterans. While leading MILCON, Feinstein had ample warning of the medical-care meltdown. But she was not proactive on veteran’s affairs.

Read it all.

Senator Feinstein, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do. Question is, will your fellow “we will have the most honest and open Congress in history” Democrats compel you to answer some tough questions about the awarding of those contracts?

I won’t hold my breath.

Hat tip: ST reader DS

35 Responses to "Senator Dianne Feinstein’s resignation from the Military Construction Appropriations Committee"

David L says:

March 29, 2007 at 10:05 am

Would it help if we called her “Duke” Feinstein? The MSM is bound and derermined to ignore this story.
Leslie says:

March 29, 2007 at 10:43 am

“Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years . . .”

Umm, no. She couldn’t have been chairperson until this year. The GOP had all the committee chairmanships the previous six years.

Now she’s chair, and she, quite properly, resigned.

$\:d/$
stoo says:

March 29, 2007 at 11:58 am

“Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years . . .”

That wasn’t even a good try, Leslie.
Dan says:

March 29, 2007 at 12:07 pm

I don’t follow.

She was on the committee but couldn’t approve anything on her own and stuff until January, right?

And when she could, she resigned?
Sister Toldjah says:

March 29, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Indeed, she was a ranking member.
Great White Rat says:

March 29, 2007 at 12:42 pm

She could have resigned from the committee due to the conflict of interest at any time, starting from the day she was named to the committee. It’s not like a Senator has no impact on the committee operations until becoming chairman.

However, like most politicians, she did nothing until someone lifted the rock and her suspicious connections crawled out from under it.
sanity says:

March 29, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Read closer Leslie, there is nothing incorrect about that statement:

Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years

She was a ranking member AND was a chairperson.

It doesn’t matter that she was only a chairperson since Democrats took over, she was a chairperson, and before that she was a ranking member of that committee.

She resigned when an expose was brought to light on her dealings. In other words, she got CAUGHT then resigned, not that it matters, because the nutroots eat their own.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband’s companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

….

..her husband Richard C. Blum’s ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

Where is the screams of HALLIBURTON!!! from the left?

There is a bigger connection between Feinstein and this scandal, than there is between Bush/ Cheney and Halliburton.

Where is the calls for investigations?

I do believe the Democrats said they would be the party of investigations into wrong-doings….or was that just for the republicans and not their own?

The money quote from Wendell Rawls, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C.:
“I cannot understand how someone who complains so vigorously as she has about conflicts of interest in the government and Congress can have turned such a deaf ear and a blind eye to her own. Because of her level of influence, the conflict of interest is just as serious as the Halliburton-Cheney connection.”

Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit organization that analyzes defense contracts and who examined our evidence says, “The paper trail showing Sen. Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”

But did she profit from such a conflict of interest?

You betcha.

In 2005, Roll Call calculated Feinstein’s wealth, including Blum’s assets, at $40 million, up 25 percent from the year before. That made her the ninth wealthiest member of Congress. Feinstein’s latest Public Financial Disclosure Report shows that in 2005 her family earned income of between $500,000 and $5 million from capital gains on URS and Perini stock combined.

Stocks that would have gained because of her ifluence in granting BILLIONS to these two companies owned by HER HUSBAND.

Ah, now this is funny:

Feinstein says she is opposed to the creation of an independent congressional ethics watchdog. “If the law is clear and precise, members will follow it,” she assured the New York Times on Nov. 18, 2006.
Dan says:

March 29, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Well cuz she didn’t have the power to do anything without the Republicans knowing about it, right? She couldn’t approve anything without oversight from the opposition…?

Is that what I’m seeing here and when that oversight ended, she resigned?
Sister Toldjah says:

March 29, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Um, no. The ‘oversight’ has increased, because everyone knows that Democrats will hold their own’s feet to the fire just as much as they will everyone else’s.

Do you have a clue what “ranking member” actually means, Dan? Do you understand that just the appearance of impropriety should be enough to ‘do someone in’ (like the couple of photos of Bush in the same room with Abramoff?) according to Democrats?

Same double standard, different day for you guys. As always.
Settembrini says:

March 29, 2007 at 2:51 pm

The California papers, particularly the SFC, have been on this case for years. I don’t know why people on the right can’t make a point without whining about the “MSM.”

The point stands, however, the Feinstein, whether she was in the majority and therefore the chair of the committee, or whether she was simply the ranking member, has acted unethically, or has at minimum made a strong appearance of impropriety.

Of course, the military-industrial-political complex is a symbiotic relationship which enriches politicians in all sorts of ways. Having a husband in the industry just cuts out the middle-man. In that sense Feinstein is little different thant the other members of the plutocracy. It comes as no surprise that Feinstein voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq.

Californians can certainly find better a Democratic senator than Feinstein.
Leslie says:

March 30, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Umm for all you people who claim I was wrong. What should have been written was “chairperson OR ranking member.”

You all do know the difference between “and” and “or,” don’t you?

And I said she should have resigned. So get over yourselves.
Lorica says:

March 30, 2007 at 1:09 pm

LOL Actually And is correct not or. Just because she became Chairperson, doesn’t mean she suddenly gives up ranking member status. And would be correct not or. – Lorica
sanity says:

March 30, 2007 at 1:17 pm

sighs

leslie, get a grip. ST didn’t write the article, she used it to make certain points.

If you have a problem with how the article is written, lambasting people here about it is not the correct spot to do it. You will need to talk to the writer of the article on how they wrote it.

You do know the difference between someone posting about an article and writing the actual article right?

Article written by Peter Byrne.

Feel free to contact them Here if you have problems with the wording.

Now, I have no problem with the wording as you do, because I understood the exact context of what was being written about. She was chairperson (till she resigned) and she also was a ranking member (before and after she became chairperson). Even though she resigned as chairperson, she still is ranking member of that committee, unless she is resigning altogether fro mthat committee, but I didn’t see that – though I could have missed it.

To come out and seemingly attack those that point this out in the wording is rediculous. It seems you are taking this personally when others are not – they are just pointing something out.
Sister Toldjah says:

March 30, 2007 at 3:04 pm

It’s ok, sanity – Leslie and I are friends who go way back and I did not take what he said personally.

The article could have been better written to say she’d been a ranking member for six years and just become chairperson. I think the point of the article, though, is the same, whether she was chairperson, or not.

The bigger issue in this is, I think, is not that I think she did anything inappropriate, but how we have heard Democrats for years complaining about Cheney’s ties to Halliburton, and how he uses them in gov’t contracts to ‘get rich’ etc, but we don’t hear the same level of complaining from Democrats when their own have conflicts of interest. It’s another in a long line of their double standards.
Bob says:

March 31, 2007 at 10:10 am

I read about this story in the SF chronicle, the San Jose Merc, the NYT, The Washington post. I heard about it on three nationally syndicted radio shows. This story was all over the place. I agree that it’s an example of unethical behavior from a politician I’ve disliked for 20 years, but the hang wringing over lack of msm coverage is laughable.

I can’t wait for California to replace DiFi.
Baklava says:

March 31, 2007 at 11:57 am

It would’ve been WALL to WALL coverage for days with lawmakers asking for answers and demanding hearings Bob. A story in each publication is hardly the way things happen for the other party.

Let’s all look away now….
sanity says:

March 31, 2007 at 3:04 pm

You see the hypocracy all the time.

Clinton fires all 94 federal prosecutors (while he is being investigated) and not a peep from the press or the democrats.

Bush fires 9? It’s prosecutor-gate, the democrats are out with pitchforks calling for the destruction of the monster and the media is lapping it up making it front page news.

Democrat is in a ranking position, with confilcts of interest, is giving away BILLIONS to her husbands companies, and getting RICH while doing it…

in 2005 her family earned income of between $500,000 and $5 million from capital gains on URS and Perini stock combined.

Whch raises ethical problems, but she is on the ethics committee also.

Now, replace this with a Republican, and you would have the same democrats with their pitchforks calling for the republican to resign, to resign their office, calling for investigations, and audits of the committee and the company, dragging in witneses, indictments, ect. There would press conferences while democrats grandstand about corruption in the republican party and this just proves it, and see what they have to deal with, but they won’t stand for it, they will eradicate all corruption….ect

Democrat who is doing it? Democrat caught in a bribery scandal?

{crickets chirping}

Demcorats are hypocrites.

And before you jump me about previous Republican wrongdoings…I concur, they should be thrown out of office also, that includes any democrats that are guilty of wrongdoing also.

These people are OUR representatives, and they seem to keep forgetting that.
Randy says:

April 1, 2007 at 2:39 am

Well said Bob. I’m sick of the constant crying of “liberal media bias” from the right. It’s simply ridiculous.

As a liberal Democrat, I’ve never muched liked Feinstein. She’s always seemed like a closet Republican to me, now even moreso.
Lorica says:

April 1, 2007 at 10:33 am

Well said Randy & Bob. All you do when you write denying a leftward media bias only prove how extremist left you both are. You are so far left you cannot see a leftward media bias. When folk such as yourselves say there is no leftward media bias, it shows that the further left you are the more blind you are to things that have no part of your agenda. So Congratulations for your logical assessment of the Liberal Mainstream Media, who by the way, the majority of media overwhelmingly support leftwing ideologies in their private lives. Too funny – Lorica
Sister Toldjah says:

April 1, 2007 at 11:48 am

Randy, quite frankly I’m sick of the left’s whining -period. But I know it won’t stop. So I guess we’re even.
tom says:

April 1, 2007 at 2:23 pm

This matter should be investigated by the Senate Ethics committee. And Feinstein might also consider stepping down as chairperson of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee which recently approved a landmark ethics reform bill, ironically, as a result of her own efforts.

For years, she’s been repeating the mantra of endless terrorism and war without end in lock-step with the Heritage Foundation – the neoconservative den of warmongers who call for ever increasing military spending at the detriment of investment in domestic programs.

Also, although ST to often blames the “MSM” for all the trouble the Repubs have brought upon themselves, I think she’s correct on this in pointing out that this has not received much coverage.
Great White Rat says:

April 1, 2007 at 6:06 pm

OK, pop quiz time for Randy, Bob, and anyone else on the extreme left who doubts the liberal bias in the MSM. Who, during the 2004 election campaign, said this:

“There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

a. Sister Toldjah
b. Dick Cheney
c. Karl Rove
d. Rupert Murdoch
e. None of the above (if this is your choice, tell us who did say it)
Answer will be posted by 10pm tonight, if none of you can come up with it. So go put on the tinfoil hats and search Kos for guidance.
Great White Rat says:

April 1, 2007 at 10:49 pm

No answer from the left side, I see…not surprising. Trolls usually hit and run.

The answer is E. It’s Evan Thomas, Associate Managing Editor of Newsweek and no conservative by any stretch of the imagination, discussing exactly how the MSM was working for Kerry. At least he was honest enough to admit it, unlike our troll friends.

LINK
Bob says:

April 2, 2007 at 11:20 am

please don’t resort to name calling. I’m not a troll, just a reader. And enjoying some family time on a sunday evening is not “running away.” sheesh!

You people are a bit hasty to paint people into a corner. I dislike DiFI a lot and will be very happy when she’s gone. That hardly makes me an extremist, leftist troll. I merely pointed out that the story that was said to be ignored by the msm was actually all over the msm. Maybe not written exactly as you might write, but believe me the rightists have plenty of space in the media, mainstream and alt. I mean, for christ’s sake, you’ve got freaking Glen Beck, a certifiable moon howler on one of the network morning shows and on CNN. that’s pretty dang mainstream if you ask me.

Back on subject:
You’re right. I’ll say it again for emphasis, “you’re right.” DiFi is a corrupt politician who needs to be removed. Has for a long time, imo. But remember what your kindergarten teachers and parents tried to teach you. 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Using “the dems are just as bad” is NOT a valid argument in defense of your own leader’s indiscretions. go ahead and attack DiFi or anyone from the left for financial chicanery, I’ll be right there with you. It’s my money too, you know! But don’t use the dems do it too as a defense for your own guys. Invalid argument that wouldn’t pass 1st year law classes, let alone 1st grade.
Great White Rat says:

April 2, 2007 at 3:06 pm

OK, Bob, fair enough. Troll appellation is respectfully withdrawn.

There seem to be two issues here. On the DiFi point, I have no disagreement with you. Corrupt politicians should go, regardless of party or political alignment.
However, I don’t recall using any equivalence argument, and I’m curious about exactly what you’re referring to with “your own leader’s indiscretions”. If you’ve got some proof that Bush is involved in some kind of corruption (and by the way, he’s the country’s leader, not “ours”), by all means let’s hear it. But I’d be very surprised if you do, as if it were the MSM would be all over it day and night.

Which leads directly to the second issue – your unwillingness to see the MSM as hopelessly slanted to the left. So you say you saw the story all over the MSM. Before, or after, the blogosphere lit up with it? Was it on page 1 on the NYT or page B12? How many days will this be headlining? Did they identify her party or not? Did the papers follow up with editorials calling for her to resign? If it’s a Republican, especially a conservative, you can bet the answers will be before, page1, at least two weeks, yes, and yes. The mere presence of a report somewhere in the MSM doesn’t negate the overriding bias.

I notice you didn’t care to contradict Evan Thomas. Here’s a penultimate MSM insider confirming their bias. I’m curious why you think one hour of Glenn Beck, for example, balances out the cacophony from the left that goes on the rest of the day.

And by happy coincidence, the Associated Press just provided another sterling example. Last week Newt Gingrich delivered a speech on bilinguial education and certifying English as the official language. AP chose to close the story with this line:

Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.

Leaving aside the fact that the last part of the statement is untrue, exactly why is it in this story? It has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the speech.

When al-Gore goes off on one of his global warming rants, do you think AP will close the story with a gratuitous comment about his shady Buddhist monk fund-raising activities and “no controlling legal authority”?

When Hillary talks about Iraq, do you think AP will add a few reminders about cattle futures and Rose Law billing records?

The next time Ted Kennedy goes on the Senate floor to advocate raising taxes, how do you think AP will manage to work Chappaquiddick into their report?

You know they won’t, nor should they. The addition to the story on Newt’s speech was there for one reason – it’s a hit piece and prima facie evidence of bias.

The evidence of MSM bias is all around you, Bob, if you give up the ostrich act. Looking forward to hearing your responses, especially to the second issue.
bob says:

April 2, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Thank for withdrawing the troll appellation. It is sometimes thrown out too quickly, out of reflex and has the effect of shutting down discussion.

I think that the msm has bias solely towards selling ads and making money. Painting it as liberal bias or conservative bias is simplistic and ignoring the complexities of how the news arrives to you. The main stream press’ publishers are solidly in the conservative camp. Though old style republican and not neocon with the exception Murdoch. I will agree that many line reporters are liberal but it is editors and the publishers who decide on how a story is played out and which ones make the cut.

I know you won’t like to do this, but spend a half an hour on http://mediamatters.org/ and see reports of how the mainstream press edits the truth by omission and obsfucation. these are facts, hard and true. If you do take the moments to look it over you will undoubtedly say, Why aren’t they showing any instances of msm media commentators biasing a story to aid the leftwing pov? Well because it’s not as common as the conventional wisdom and talking points says.

And yes I did read abougt DiFi in the nyt. It’s an important story but not as immediate a page turner as the ongoing Iraq war, walter reed, the AG fighting for his political life and anna nicole’s autopsy. heh.

We could sit here all month and compare writer/pundit against writer pundit and both be right.

NTY — Fox news

Washington post — wall street journal

savage/hannity/O’Reilly/beck/limbaugh/coulter/malkin/ — ed shultz/stephanie Miller/mike Maloy?? you guys win that one. Radio is a different can of worms. And one could convincingly argue that it is more important than print media these days.

A generation ago we had more left bias in the press — witness the Watergate investigation, wholly pushed by the Wash post. Something that required months of research and a paper dedicated to investing the time and resources. Not gonna happen in this era of a one to two week news cycle. now ti’s too often a shout-fest and attempts by both sides to blur the vision mesaging in their favor.

I have to go, commute time (yeah, a liberal with a job!!). I know you won’t agree with most of this, but I don’t believe I’m an ostrich simply because I have come to different conclusions than you have. I can tell you’ve though through your points and are using logic and critical thinking. We just will probably always end up differing.
bob says:

April 3, 2007 at 12:16 am

To save you from having ot go to media matters, here’s a synopsis:

Drudge, Ware

UPDATE: CNN’s Ware flatly denies report that he “heckled” McCain, but right-wing media flog it anyway
On April 1, Matt Drudge posted an “exclusive” alert, claiming that CNN’s Michael Ware, during a press conference in Baghdad, “heckled” Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Drudge’s only source for this “exclusive” was an anonymous “official at the press conference” who claimed that Ware was “laughing and mocking their comments.” Drudge and others have promoted the anonymous claim despite Ware’s flat denial: “I did not heckle the senator. Indeed, I didn’t say a word, I didn’t even ask a question.”

Drudge takes down the link and story with no comment after video of the press conference show Ware sitting quietly and not even asking a question.

liberal bias, ayup….

CNN’s Malveaux parroted White House criticism of Pelosi’s Syria visit, but ignored GOP-led trip
During an interview with former Ambassador John Bolton on CNN’s The Situation Room, Suzanne Malveaux noted the White House’s denunciations of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her scheduled trip to Syria, but did not note that a GOP-led delegation met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on April 1. Nor did Malveaux point out the White House’s inconsistency in criticizing Pelosi for her trip while remaining silent on the GOP-led visit

That liberal biased Washingto post again….

Wash. Post’s Kurtz: “Nothing the New York senator says or does will ever be as fascinating to journalists as her marital situation”

Discussing coverage of the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) in his April 2 Media Notes column, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted, “Nothing the New York senator says or does will ever be as fascinating to journalists as her marital situation.” Kurtz gave no indication whether he thinks the public is well served by the media’s fixation on Clinton’s marriage to former President Bill Clinton.

Savage “agree[d] 100 percent” with caller who said that gay rabbis would likely “rap[e] teenage boys”

On the March 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage stated that he “agree[d] 100 percent” with a caller who said: “I’m very concerned that the Jews are now accepting gays as rabbis. And as a Catholic, I can tell you it almost destroyed our church when we accepted gays as priests.” The caller added, “[T]hey were raping teenage boys, and if you allow them to come into your churches, I’m sorry, your synagogues, I have no reason to believe they’re not going to do the same thing.” Savage responded: “The idea of a gay rabbi is an oxymoron. Think about it: ‘Rabbi’ means teacher. You cannot have a homosexual teacher teaching boys how to be a Jew,” adding, “I’m not going to mince words for fear of offending homosexuals. They’re everywhere, anyway, trying to tell me what to say and what not to say and what to think. I know what’s right and what’s wrong. And that’s all there is to it.”

Just a few examples of the liberal bias spread across the msm.
Great White Rat says:

April 3, 2007 at 1:23 am

Bob, I think you’re off base in characterizing the publishers as a lot as conservatives. Sulzberger? Any you can name? Come on….you have got to be smarter than that.

Don’t give me Media Matters as a source, either. MM is a well-known leftists outfit. For every example you can give me from MM, I can more than match with examples from, for example, Media Research Center.

NYT vs. Fox isn’t a valid comparison either. You want to say CNN vs. Fox, that’s better….although I’ve yet to see CNN put a conservative on in prime time.

So there’s really nothing you can cite from the right as a counterbalance to NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Minneapolis Strib, Seattle PI, Philly Inquirer…and the list goes on and on.

You want to cite conservative talk radio as a counterweight? Actually, it’s a reaction to the liberal bias on all other media – conservatives gravitate there because everything else skews so far left – but if you persist, I’ll point you to Oprah, the View, Today, and the rest of the left-wing pabulum that runs through daytime TV. And that’s not even taking into account the Schieffer/Russert/Stephanopoulos liberal monopoly on the Sunday morning gabfests.

But enough of the scorecard. Let’s get down to actual specific cases. I notice that twice you’ve danced around the Evan Thomas quote. I take it you have no response to a candid admission by an MSM insider that the bias exists?

If you think there’s no leftist bias, explain why the Washington and NY press corps voted 90% for Clinton – about twice what the nation did.

If you think there’s no leftist bias, show me the example of a Rathergate from the right – a dishonest attempt by an MSM star to influence an election using falsified documents.

If you think there’s no leftist bias, show me the Photoshopped pictures produced to make Hezbollah look savage, as happened to Israel last year.

If there’s no leftist bias, stop avoiding questions like the one I posted above about the AP hit piece on Gingrich.

If you can demonstrate anything similar, I’ll agree you have a point. If you can’t – well, then, the ostrich analogy remains relevant.
Bob says:

April 3, 2007 at 10:43 am

facts are leftist or rightist. Only the spin. media matters deals in facts. If your reaction is to not address the facts but to dismiss them with a wave of your hand as a “well known leftist publication” then I guess there is no room for discussion. Especially with such clunkers as “although I’ve yet to see CNN put a conservative on in prime time.” wow. talk about having one’s head in the sand. Glenn Beck, jc watts, william Bennett, nancy grace, mary matlin, robert novak before he blew up come to mind. But maybe you don’t see some of these as conservative.
Severian says:

April 3, 2007 at 11:08 am

media matters deals in facts.

Nice try. BTW, learn to use a caps key. Only e.e.cummings can get away with that without looking like a self obsessed twit.
Great White Rat says:

April 3, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Bob, except for Beck (the rare exception), none of the people you mentioned get their own show, with no counterweighting voice. And if I recall correctly, Beck isn’t on the main CNN feed anyway – he’s on the auxiliary Headline News feed.

In other words, Bob, putting, let’s say, JC Watts on for three minutes followed by 15 minutes of non-stop liberal tirades is NOT balance, and it certainly isn’t proof of a conservative bias, no matter what MediaMatters says.

And at this point, I’m no longer going to try to get a response from you about the MSM denizens such as Thomas who acknowledge the liberal slant. You’ve swung and missed at that one three times, so I’ll just take it that you concede he’s correct.
Great White Rat says:

April 3, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Just for chuckles, let’s go along with your ‘examples’ that you cut and pasted from Media Matters:

Item 1: Drudge, Ware. Drudge isn’t MSM. This isn’t even pertinent to the topic.

Item 2: Malveaux. What’s your point? That the question wasn’t hostile enough? Did you happen to go through the transcript? I thought not…

Item 3: Kurtz. Try learning something about the people you’re writing about. Kurtz is the media reporter for the WaPo. His job is to report on what the MEDIA are doing. In this case, he’s simply stating that the Clintons have made such a circus of their marriage, or lack of same, that it’s difficult for the mediots to see much else.

Item 4: Savage. Also not MSM, and therefore also not germane to the topic.

I repeat my challenge from before, although clearly you’ve no stomach for accepting any sort of challenge. Show me the article from any MSM outlet reporting on a Hillary speech on any topic – Iraq, for example – that goes off-topic to insert a slur on her based on her joke of a marriage. When you do, you might be able to make a case that the MSM is at least as hard on her as they are on Gingrich.
Great White Rat says:

April 3, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Oh, and by the way, Bob, your original statement that the SF Chronicle has carried the DiFi – MILCON scandal turns out to be completely false. I’ve searched the sfgate web site, and there’s been no mention of it, at least in the online version, in the last 30 days. So they’re still pretending the story never happened. I guess you’ll find a way to twist that into conservative bias too, huh?
G-Monster says:

April 3, 2007 at 4:26 pm

But really, what is up with the clinton’s marriage situation? I think it’s quite obvious he cheats at will. The only reason I can see for them staying together, is Bill wants back in the whitehouse and so does hillary.

Besides coming from Arkansas, and having the last name Clinton, what qualifications did Hillary have for the Arkansas Senate seat?

Wait, she didn’t run for the Arkansas seat, she ran for the New York Senate seat.

Besides having the last name Clinton?
Severian says:

April 3, 2007 at 4:49 pm

If you want proof of Media Matters liberal bias and see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil against liberal issues, look no further than their remarkably biased and dishonest coverage of the CBS Memogate affair. Their articles basically were supportive of the “fact” that Bush abused his Natl. Guard committments. That’s the whole thing they focused on, they had little to no comment at all about the use of obviously forged memos to attempt to unsettle an election but instead went on like the patent and heinous use of forgeries was not important but Bush’s alleged (though they liked to use the word proven) transgressions. It’s the same “Fake but Accurate” BS.

They are partisan hacks, and have no credibility with respect to truth or facts, and exist only to provide cover and a sense of legitimacy to the lies and distortions of the liberal press. Their attitude was basically, so what if the memo’s can’t be proven to be true, so what if they should never have been aired, that doesn’t alter the “fact” that Bush did yada yada yada. But seeing as how liberals like Bob continually run to them to learn what to think and believe, it appears that Soros’ cash is being well spent, it’s a Goebbels-like propaganda machine of the first order. They were just spinning the same lies and BS that Rather was only in a different format, they had no interest in truth or the dishonest and disgusting attempt to use forgeries to discredit a sitting President and throw an election to his opponent. Apparently that’s fine with Goebbels-Lite Media Matters if it supports the cause, end justifies the means and all that.

Comments are closed.