« Match Game '07 | Main | A sorry excuse for an education »

Reid Denounced Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Statute He Voted For

Jonathan Adler makes a good point about Harry Reid's comments on the recent Supreme Court ruling on partial birth abortion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was among those who denounced yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholding the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Act. Commenting on the decision, Reid said "A lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there," indicating his desire that there has been a fifth vote to invalidate the statute, as Justice O'Connor had provided the fifth vote to invalidate Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in Stenberg v. Carhart.


What is curious about Reid's statement, as NPR and some news outlets have noted, is not Reid's criticism of Alito -- Reid opposed Alito's confirmation -- but the fact that Reid supported, and voted for, the federal statute upheld in yesterday's decision. Reid was one of 17 Senate Democrats voting in favor of the bill in 2003. Reid also voted in favor of a ban on partial-birth abortion in 1999 (see here) and , as indicated in this "Meet the Press" interview, Reid was one of only two Democratic Senators to vote against a resolution reaffirming Senate support for the holding of Roe v. Wade.

So, despite his repeated support of legislative restrictions on abortion, Reid's latest comment suggests that he believes the Supreme Court's decision was regrettable and wrongly decided, and that a law that he supported is unconstitutional. To me, the latter is of greater concern. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that if a member of the Senate believes a law is unconstitutional, he or she should vote against it. While I believe it is permissible to vote in favor of a bill that one believes the Supreme Court will invalidate (a Senator need not agree with the rulings of the Supreme Court), I do not believe that a Senator should vote in favor of a bill the he or she believes should be struck down by the Supreme Court, and it is more than a minor inconsistency when a Senator laments a Supreme Court decision upholding a law which that Senator supported.


Of course it is nothing new for Senators to speak as if no one will notice their words don't match their votes. Look at all the Democrat Senators who voted against adoption of the Kyoto Treaty who beat George Bush about the head with his decision not to sign on to it. In fact, some even blamed Bush's opposition to Kyoto for hurricanes and other acts of God, but you didn't hear anyone blaming the Senators who voted against it. And look at all the leading Dems who went on record saying Saddam was a threat with WMD. They are now calling Bush a liar for saying the same thing. It appears this is SOP for some.

What is new, and is pleasantly surprising, is that NPR and other news outlets picked up on and reported Reid's discrepancy.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reid Denounced Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Statute He Voted For:

» Axis of Right linked with Harry Reid Criticizes Himself

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Reid offers bleak assessment of Iraq war

Comments (56)

What is new, and is plea... (Below threshold)
mantis:

What is new, and is pleasantly surprising, is that NPR and other news outlets picked up on and reported Reid's discrepancy.

That's not new, at least as far as NPR is concerned. What's new is that the fact they noticed made it on your radar. I'll bet you don't listen to NPR in the first place (too busy watching Rosie), and are in a poor position to comment on what stories and angles they cover.

Seems to me if he disliked ... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

Seems to me if he disliked the law he voted for as much as he seemed to in his public statement, he should atone for the error of voting for it.

Resign, Harry Reid. It's for the children.

I see John Kerry's hand at ... (Below threshold)

I see John Kerry's hand at work here.

Reid was for the ban before he was against it.

J.

I have found Reid to change... (Below threshold)
Mike:

I have found Reid to change a lot of his views to keep his power as leader of the Senate. It's all about the power and staying there. I wonder if Reid is as liberal as he has to protray himself to be.

mantis, You sure see... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

mantis,
You sure seem to know a lot about my listening habits. I better be sure to check my back seat before I get into the car. I rarely listen to NPR anymore, but used to listen when I had a long commute to work, and after that listened occasionally on the way to and from my daughter's preschool. If they have changed then I apologize, but back when I did listen more often they did not frequently point out the hypocrisy of Democrats saying one thing and doing another. If they have changed, then that is very good news indeed.

More proof the "democrat" a... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

More proof the "democrat" and "hypocrite" are synonymous.

I am shocked that NPR actually reported this though. The far leftists must be disappointed with Harry's leadership.

Mantis, I though you said ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Mantis, I though you said you only read the news in the paper?

mantis, I also listen to NP... (Below threshold)

mantis, I also listen to NPR. Mainly on the weekends.

So, what's the longest Daniel Schorr has gone in his weekly commentaries without mentioning his place on Nixon's enemies list? 5 weeks?

J.

You sure seem to know a ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You sure seem to know a lot about my listening habits.

It was a guess, but an educated one.

I rarely listen to NPR anymore

Hey, vindication!

when I did listen more often they did not frequently point out the hypocrisy of Democrats saying one thing and doing another.

My guess (just a guess. got that? I'm guessing.) is that you heard a lack of pointing out what was your perceived hypocrisy, while I've noticed they have no problem pointing out an actual hypocrisy (more often than most, at least).

Mantis, I though you said you only read the news in the paper?

Well, I said that I don't watch TV news (cable or network). I don't believe I mentioned radio, but I do listen to NPR (and occasionally right wing talk radio - for entertainment purposes only). In any case, one cannot read radio broadcasts.

So, what's the longest Daniel Schorr has gone in his weekly commentaries without mentioning his place on Nixon's enemies list? 5 weeks?

I think he mentioned that this week. ;)

O.k., I get it Mantis. It'... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

O.k., I get it Mantis. It's bad for people to watch news shows on television, but it's o.k. to listen to news shows on the radio.

More proof that "democrat" and "hypocrite" are synonymous.

mantis give me a break, I l... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

mantis give me a break, I listen to NPR, a lot. Their bias is clear. in fact, my wife, who is a liberal, and I used to argue about whether NPR was biased, she listens to NPR for news and really just that. A few months after our debating it, she conceeded that she now realized they were indeed skewed to the left, having made a concious decision to listen for that skew, not as skewed as most liberal media, but skewed nonetheless.

O.k., I get it Mantis. I... (Below threshold)
mantis:

O.k., I get it Mantis. It's bad for people to watch news shows on television, but it's o.k. to listen to news shows on the radio.

I never said that, you twerp. It's ok for people to do whatever the hell they want. I listen to NPR, watch the McLaughlin Group and Frontline, and read the newspaper and the web. If I wonder why people bother to watch the dreck that is TV news, that doesn't mean I think it's "bad." NPR, whether you like it or not, has long interviews that don't devolve into screaming matches, gets input from a lot of sources, and has about 98% less Anna Nicole Smith and American Idol stories than TV news. I'm not saying it's some perfect news outlet, but it's a hell of a lot better than cable news channels or the networks.

More proof that "democrat" and "hypocrite" are synonymous.

More proof that Babe the Blue Ox here is full of nothing but shit and strawmen.

D-Hoggs, point to where I s... (Below threshold)
mantis:

D-Hoggs, point to where I said there was no bias on NPR.

not as skewed as most liberal media, but skewed nonetheless.

I'll concede that, though I imagine we would disagree as to how skewed. In any case, if someone can point me to a comprehensive news outlet with absolutely no bias, I'm all ears.

Mantis: "...gets input from... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Mantis: "...gets input from a lot of sources, ..."

Recent examples and links please.

Recent examples and link... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Recent examples and links please.

Turn on your radio, Drago.

Mantis: "Turn on your radio... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Mantis: "Turn on your radio, Drago."

So I can presume you cannot backup your publicly uttered assertion?

'nuff said.

BTW, I listen to NPR at lea... (Below threshold)
Drago:

BTW, I listen to NPR at least once a week, and for about 8 years listened every morning and evening (in both Texas and Georgia).

But then again, Mantis, being a good liberal, just "knows" how "uninformed" the righties are, which is why he and his ilk seek to "enlighten" us by dictating all facets of our lives.

Mantis, the perfect caricature of a lefty.

What about Fox News, mantis... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

What about Fox News, mantis?

I think I'll go turn on the... (Below threshold)
Drago:

I think I'll go turn on the radio and see if I can catch the latest segment of NPR's "All Liberal Things Considered".....

Mantis, I've found that som... (Below threshold)

Mantis, I've found that sometimes you can be quite nice. Your arguments, while I sometimes disagree, can be well reasoned and civil. And I've noticed (this time being a perfect example) that even though Kim wrote back to you without being snide, you were, and continued to be.

That bothered me. Just thought I'd tell you. While sometimes we're all guilty of snidery, it takes a bigger person to realize it and admit it's childish.

I'm still wondering if you have any opinion about the actual content of the post, meaning Reid's hypocrisy, and not your automatic suppositions about the author. She cleary stated that it was a pleasant surprise for her. And quite frankly, it is for me too.

As far as Reid goes, I'm not a bit surprised nor do I find anything pleasant about it.

So I can presume you can... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So I can presume you cannot backup your publicly uttered assertion?

You can presume whatever you like; doesn't make it true. I'm not willing to spend the time to go surfing the NPR site to get links for the likes of you. Someone a bit more reasonable, who provided some actual reason, maybe. Not you.

I think he gets all that "i... (Below threshold)

I think he gets all that "input" in suppository form, judging by where he seems to pull out his opinions.

~~~~~~~~~~

Harry Reid used to be a moderate-conservative Democrat: pro-life, pro-defense, fiscally responsible for a Democrat. Moving into the leadership and entertaining thoughts of running for the White House forced him to move hard to his left to keep the Democratic base behind him. See for reference also Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, etc.

But then again, Mantis, ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

But then again, Mantis, being a good liberal, just "knows" how "uninformed" the righties are, which is why he and his ilk seek to "enlighten" us by dictating all facets of our lives.

Please point me to where I said that "righties" are uninformed. I tend to stay away from blanket statements about "the right," conservatives, or Republicans, because it is a very mixed bag with a lot of ideologies (or lack thereof), varying levels of intelligence, and grasp of the issues (or reality). Same thing for "the left." I also don't presume to enlighten anyone, by dictating facets of their lives or otherwise (btw, how exactly do I dictate anything in your life, genius?)

Mantis, the perfect caricature of a lefty.

If you think so, you don't know many lefties.

Mantis: "You can presume wh... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Mantis: "You can presume whatever you like; doesn't make it true."

I'm not claiming anything. You are. See the difference??........I guess not.

Mantis: "I'm not willing to spend the time to go surfing the NPR site to get links for the likes of you."

Or maybe you've already looked and are unable to back up an obvious lie, so you must now deflect to the "likes of you" strategy.

Mantis: "Someone a bit more reasonable, who provided some actual reason, maybe."

This is incoherent.

Mantis: "Not you."

Again, you made an assertion.
You could not back it up.
Thus, you deflect.

Why is this not shocking?


BTW Mantis, have you yet ad... (Below threshold)
Drago:

BTW Mantis, have you yet addressed the obvious hypocrisy of Harry Reid?

And I've noticed (this t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And I've noticed (this time being a perfect example) that even though Kim wrote back to you without being snide, you were, and continued to be.

I didn't think I was being very snide in my response. If you think so, well, welcome to the internets. Anyway, I assume you're talking about Lorie and not Kim. They are different people, you know (now that was snide).

I'm still wondering if you have any opinion about the actual content of the post, meaning Reid's hypocrisy, and not your automatic suppositions about the author.

Reid is a hypocrite and a dipshit (big surprise, he's a politician). I figure such things are usually rather well covered around here. I tend to focus on the neglected, distorted, or just plain wrong. And my assumptions about Lorie are not automatic; it was a fair assumption, based on her past writings, that she does not listen to NPR.

Dingy Harry strikes again!<... (Below threshold)

Dingy Harry strikes again!

"Reid Denounced Supreme Cou... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Reid Denounced Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Statute He Voted For"

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Or maybe you've already ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Or maybe you've already looked and are unable to back up an obvious lie, so you must now deflect to the "likes of you" strategy.

No. I've just read your other comments around here and reached the conclusion that you're not worth it. Now what is it you're not worth? Going through the NPR site, looking for specific stories I vaguely remember or just picking them at random, listening for hours so I have compiled a list of sources and links to provide to you, and then coming back here and providing them. After doing all that, I'll leave my limit of 5 links with details on the sources, and you'll probably come back with something like, "so you can find a few stories. That means nothing," if you bother to respond at all.

Why don't you go and spend the time to find a bunch of NPR pieces you feel refute what I said? I know you'll say you don't have to because you haven't asserted anything, but ask yourself if it's worth the time to do so just because I requested it.

This is incoherent.

It's a little sloppy, yes. I meant that you are an unreasonable person, and you've not given me a reason why I should go compile this for you.

"D-Hoggs, point to where I ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"D-Hoggs, point to where I said there was no bias on NPR."

Come on mantis, you know damned well the point of your first two comments was to insinuate that NPR is balanced, otherwise you wouldn't have even written them.

" I'll bet you don't listen to NPR in the first place (too busy watching Rosie), and are in a poor position to comment on what stories and angles they cover."

"My guess (just a guess. got that? I'm guessing.) is that you heard a lack of pointing out what was your perceived hypocrisy, while I've noticed they have no problem pointing out an actual hypocrisy (more often than most, at least)."

The tone of these posts is meant to say NPR is not biased and you know it.

Well son-of-a-bitch! It WA... (Below threshold)

Well son-of-a-bitch! It WAS Lorie. And by using your reasoning, I guess that means my assumptions are fair too then.

Come on mantis, you know... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Come on mantis, you know damned well the point of your first two comments was to insinuate that NPR is balanced, otherwise you wouldn't have even written them.

If I wanted to say that, I would have. My point is that they are a lot more balanced than Lorie (and many others) give them credit for. I can't count how many times NPR has pointed out that this or that Democrat voted for the force authorization when they now talk about the war as if it were something they had nothing to do with.

The tone of these posts is meant to say NPR is not biased and you know it.

Ah, tone not content, right? Read whatever you like into it (you'll do so anyway), but what I wrote is what I wrote. Your inferences are your own.

I know that even when I agr... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I know that even when I agree with them they tick me off.

As for "biased". I try to watch "Democracy Now" (of NPR fame) on LinkTv once in a while, but that smug, humorless, horrible lefty bothers me.

One time she was talking about Iran getting nukes and I was actually leaning forward, waiting for her to have a sensible opinion. Alas, Iran only wants nukes because they feel threatened by Bush.

Are you praying mantis? Or... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Are you praying mantis? Or are you a preying mantis? You don't respond if you do not respect the responder. F--k off.

Clever man, that mantis cha... (Below threshold)

Clever man, that mantis character. He managed to turn a post that is focused on Harry Reid's hypocrisy and turned it into a debate on who listens to NPR.

I listen to NPR on occasion myself -- they have some very interesting news you don't hear anywhere else, but I do have to turn up the bullshit meter when they're doing stories about politics.

Keep spinning mantis, we al... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Keep spinning mantis, we all know what you've been trying to get at. Even in trying to say you weren't arguing they are balanced, you argue they are balanced. If you agree that NPR IS indeed skewed to the left, as you said earlier as well, then Lorie's post is completely appropriate and there was zero need for your comments.

mantis: "I never said t... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

mantis: "I never said that, you twerp."

Unfortunately this site doesn't allow for searches of the comments section (at least not that I can tell...), but not too long ago you make derogatory comments about television news shows. You probably didn't exactly say the word "bad" but I didn't put it in quotes, either.

After making the derogatory coments about television news shows you went on to say that you read your news in the paper. Maybe you never meant to imply that you thought this was better, but it sure seemed that way to me based on the entirety of that comment post.

I wish I could find that comment post from you because if you read it and then read what you posted above it would clearly show your hypocracy here and also show how wrong you were to claim my comment was a "straw man". And then you throw in some juvenile ad hominem attacks just to ice the cake.

Your comments just ain't what they used to be. Is being confronted with the overwhelming falacy of your leftist veiws beinging to effect you and make you more Barney-Lee-Hugh-like?


He managed to turn a pos... (Below threshold)
mantis:

He managed to turn a post that is focused on Harry Reid's hypocrisy and turned it into a debate on who listens to NPR.

Well, that wasn't exactly my intent. You all could have safely ignored me and my comment would have stood alone. In any case, what more is there to say about Reid? Condemning the SCOTUS for upholding a law that he voted for? Utter bullshit. Is there more depth to this we're missing because of the NPR discussion? If so, by all means, present it.

This is hard to figure with... (Below threshold)

This is hard to figure with Reid. He's a Mormon from Nevada with some prolife leanings, yet makes this comment on the Supreme Court decision.Simply Incomprehensible.

Keep spinning mantis, we... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Keep spinning mantis, we all know what you've been trying to get at.

Ah, you all know what I'm trying to get at, not because I'm saying it, but, well, just because you know. Color me unimpressed.

Even in trying to say you weren't arguing they are balanced, you argue they are balanced.

Are you impaired in some way? I say that they're more balanced than some people give them credit for, and you interpret that as meaning I'm arguing they aren't balanced and they are balanced? All I've really said is they are better than most in terms of balance, and way better than TV in terms of comprehensiveness and breadth of coverage. I'm sure you'll read that to mean something other than what is clearly stated though, but please, save it.

If you agree that NPR IS indeed skewed to the left, as you said earlier as well, as you said earlier as well, then Lorie's post is completely appropriate and there was zero need for your comments.

I think they can be skewed slightly to the left, depending on the show and sometimes the reporter/interviewer. However, they still cover a lot of stories and have a lot of guests that others do not, they are fair to their guests by and large, and they stay away from the sensationalism that is other news sources' bread and butter, for the most part. And the point of contention with Lorie's post was not their overall bias or lack thereof, but rather whether they point out self-conflicting statements/votes/positions of Democratic politicians in their stories. They do.

And once again, point me to a news outlet that has no bias, is completely balanced at all times, and I'll tune in.

P Bunyon, I think this is <... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

P Bunyon, I think this is the link you wanted.

You go to google, click on "advanced search" and put in your search terms and then put in the blog's url in the 'domain' box a little way down. They have it helpfully marked with a "e.g. google.com" below the box.

I did "mantis tv news" and it was the first hit.

Yes, Veeshir! Thanks!... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Yes, Veeshir! Thanks!

Unfortunately this site ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Unfortunately this site doesn't allow for searches of the comments section (at least not that I can tell...),

I'll help you out. (Google is your friend)

but not too long ago you make derogatory comments about television news shows. You probably didn't exactly say the word "bad" but I didn't put it in quotes, either.

You're right, I didn't use the word bad. Here's what I said:

Who actually enjoys a) the subject matter, b) the presentation, and c) the personalities of cable or network news shows? It's a bunch of flashy, annoying, sensationalist bullshit with pompous actors reading off teleprompters when they aren't pontificating on topics they don't know shit about, interspersed with graphics and tickers which seem designed to be as irritating as possible.

In any case it's beside the point. I was saying TV news is terrible and unwatchable. I didn't say "It's bad for people to watch news shows on television." Just because I don't do something doesn't mean I consider it "bad" for someone else to do it. I don't eat meat, but I don't consider it bad that others do. Oh, and by the way, it was an oversight in that comment of mine to not mention NPR. I only listen to it in the car (and a couple of podcasts), but I didn't mention it in that comment. I'm sure this means every opinion I've ever had is wrong and I'm a liar and such.

After making the derogatory comments about television news shows you went on to say that you read your news in the paper. Maybe you never meant to imply that you thought this was better, but it sure seemed that way to me based on the entirety of that comment post.

Sure I think it's better, but it was not a judgement call about other people's media habits, it's just my opinion of what sources I find valuable. Is that really hard to understand?

And then you throw in some juvenile ad hominem attacks just to ice the cake.

It's only ad hominem if it replaces a substantive argument. My argument was not that you're a twerp and thus your argument was wrong. My argument is that you are wrong; that you happen to be a twerp is merely an aside.

Your comments just ain't what they used to be. Is being confronted with the overwhelming falacy of your leftist veiws beinging to effect you and make you more Barney-Lee-Hugh-like?

You figured it out! I just can't stand being shot down with all of your strong arguments Bunyan. You, and scrapiron, and jhow, and Rob La CA. It's like the fucking Lincoln-Douglas debates with you guys.

You see P Bunyon, what you ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

You see P Bunyon, what you have to understand with people like mantis is that they aren't really trying to find out who's right, they're just sophists who are trying to score cheap, off-topic points.

You can tell by the way this was about Harry Reid and yet mantis jumped on the NPR angle. The best way to handle people like that is to pay extra attention to what they say and be very careful about what you say in return. They say things that appear to mean something, but they really aren't taking a stand. They just put out comments and ask questions without ever really saying what they believe. If you respond thinking that they've said something about what they believe, you will get bitten every time.

They're only fun to deal with after you realize that and have a lot of time to parse every sentence.

Sophists need to feel superior, there's no reason to feed them. Just point and laugh occasionally and they'll leave you alone. But make sure when you point and laugh that you're right.

I have to give mantis points on this one, it didn't really say anything so responding to it was a waste of time and just what it wanted.

Hey Mantis, truce already. ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Hey Mantis, truce already.

Reid is a hypocritical idiot.

Agreed.

It was your comment about NPR using inputs from all kinds of sources that caught my attention. NPR uses far, far more left sources (and even far left sources (Radio Pacifica et al)) than any conservative or right wing foundation/think tank/other entity. I would bet the ratio is so far out of whack (quantitatively as well as qualitatively) as to render the argument that NPR is only "a little left of center" inoperative.

We can certainly discuss that in a more general context, but having Reid questioned on his obvious hypocrisy on NPR was such an outler, that it struck alot of us as shocking.

You came on and made a general accusation against Kim that this happens all the time and she is just too ill-informed to know about it.

Well, if you could point to some other situations where liberal politicians are critiqued from the right (as opposed to not being sufficiently marxist), I'd love to know about it, because it's sure not happening when I listen to NPR (and hasn't for the last 25 years while I've been listening.)

Cute Mantis,Well m... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Cute Mantis,

Well my point was that your "a,b,c," points about cable news apply just as accurately to NPR and the fact that you could make that comment and then admit that you listen to NPR is hypocritical.

They just put out commen... (Below threshold)
mantis:

They just put out comments and ask questions without ever really saying what they believe. If you respond thinking that they've said something about what they believe, you will get bitten every time.

You obviously don't pay attention to my comments here. I say what I believe quite often. I've already said that Reid is a hypocritical dipshit, but that means nothing to you because you can't attack me on it. It's funny that you condemn me for paying attention to the words people actually use and for using my own words carefully, as the amount of time I've spent explaining myself on this site from others parsing my words is quite significant.

I have to give mantis points on this one, it didn't really say anything so responding to it was a waste of time and just what it wanted.

Actually, I did. It's pretty simple too: You guys give NPR a bad rap when it doesn't deserve it, at least not compared to most other news broadcasters (TV and radio). It's not my fault there are twelve of you who want to argue with me about it.

I stand corrected, you did ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I stand corrected, you did actually say something about NPR.


Ahhh crap. Post instead of ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Ahhh crap. Post instead of preview.

I'm actually hopeful. I'm going to have to watch and see if we can go at it mantis. Lee isn't any fun as it's too willfully ignorant and insulting for me and will never, ever, ever admit when it's wrong.
That bothers me.

Hey Mantis, truce alread... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hey Mantis, truce already.

Yeah, ok.

I would bet the ratio is so far out of whack (quantitatively as well as qualitatively) as to render the argument that NPR is only "a little left of center" inoperative.

Well, I should insist that you back that up with links and such, but who has the time? We can both find studies to support our position. Groseclose at UCLA found NPR to be liberally biased (though I question his methods; he also found Drudge to lean left), while FAIR's analysis of their partisan guests found that they have more conservatives/republicans than liberals/democrats. Personally I couldn't care less if they have 57 conservative and 42 percent liberal or vice versa; I like NPR more because they have way more unaffiliated academics as opposed to think tank wonks than the cable and network news channels do, as well as community members and such.

We can certainly discuss that in a more general context, but having Reid questioned on his obvious hypocrisy on NPR was such an outler, that it struck alot of us as shocking.

I listen to NPR for 2+ hours per day, five days a week during my awesome drive to and from work in the Chicago traffic, and it didn't surprise me in the least. Oh well.

You came on and made a general accusation against Kim that this happens all the time and she is just too ill-informed to know about it.

Well, again, it's Lorie's post, but yes, I did guess that. I could have been wrong.

Well, if you could point to some other situations where liberal politicians are critiqued from the right (as opposed to not being sufficiently marxist), I'd love to know about it, because it's sure not happening when I listen to NPR (and hasn't for the last 25 years while I've been listening.)

Well, I never said they were being critiqued, but rather that their contradictory positions were pointed out (like I said, I've heard many times that Clinton or Kerry voted for the force authorization during stories where they were talking about the war). I've never heard any reporter on NPR pushing a "marxist" line.

Nice try guys but you can n... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Nice try guys but you can never nail someone like mantis down. He will not answer questions directly related to the topic. In common parlance he is a troll. Someone nailed him when they pointed out he never stays on topic. He can't. His position is untenable therefore he must change the subject. Fact is, Reid is a hypocrite. His land deals, his statement in November 2006 relating to funding of the effor in Iraq and now this. An honorable man would step down. Not reid (small men do not get capitalized).

Mantis,For whateve... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Mantis,

For whatever it's worth, I do realize that the last paragraph of my 3:17 post was juvenile and uncalled for; which was like quadruple-hypocritical for me as I'm always jumping on the hypocrisy of others, even you and Reid in this very thread.

I need to work on that. Sadly, that is the nature of the beast. I mean, if you want to debate a Lincoln, you have to be a Douglas.

And for whatever it's worth... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

And for whatever it's worth, I disagree with some of the common troll comments made about you above. A lot of things you've posted in the past, even though I may not have agreed with them, were good points. And I've agreed with many things you've said in the past.

But not highfalutin "I don't watch cable news, I listen to NPR" comments... :)

Is Harry Reid actually a "t... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Is Harry Reid actually a "troll?" Is there a more lifeless, boring, washed-out looking man anywhere? When he speaks, I automatically lose interest...

No Nikkolai,That's... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

No Nikkolai,

That's just the look of someone who's sold their soul.

A lil late coming to this..... (Below threshold)

A lil late coming to this...try C-span? Granted they aren't exactly "news" as they are broadcasters. But they do cover events with little to no running commentary (a welcome change).




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy