Another outrageous story of MSM hypocrisy -- God this is bad.

[beachmom]

I'm just speechless, this is so bad. Literally, there was a conspiracy by the media to keep the truth about the "weirdos" in the House leadership from the general public for 12 years:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/15/opinion/meyer/main2182755.shtml

This is a story I should have written 12 years ago when the "Contract with America" Republicans captured the House in 1994. I apologize.

Really, it's just a simple thesis: The men who ran the Republican Party in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years were a group of weirdos. Together, they comprised one of the oddest legislative power cliques in our history. And for 12 years, the media didn't call a duck a duck, because that's not something we're supposed to do.

Oh, I see, but calling somebody "elitist" and "unable to communicate or connect with people" and "maybe he insulted the troops" because of a bloody hell botched joke gets play for DAYS one week before an election, but the institutional CORRUPTION and HYPOCRISY of the House leadership is something "you're not supposed" to talk about?

It wasn't just him:

I'm confident that if historians ever spend the time on it, they'll confirm my thesis. Same with forensic psychiatrists. I have discussed this with scores of politicians, staffers, consultants and reporters since 1994 and have found few dissenters.

You can go to the link to learn how disgusting the House leaders were, but I want to know what we're supposed to do about a MAJOR media problem. Am I crazy here? I just have read so many stories about how Kerry is a good and decent public servant who is easy to talk to and cares about helping the people. Yet the media keep painting a different picture of him. Why are they doing that while sweeping the uncomfortable truths about the Republicans under the rug until after they're out of power?

[wisteria]

1. Money and power. n/t

[Democrafty]

2. Does this person want a medal?

"Thanks for the confession, guy. Consider those kids un-harrassed?"

NO FREAKING WAY.

I absolutely agree that this is hypocritical. If you don't want to report on the personal "weirdness" of a legislator, fine, but don't go across the aisle and harp on somebody's bank account, read into his comic stylings (or, you know, lack thereof ;)), and pick apart his marriage like it'a any of your freaking business.

If you've got to be a certain way in the interest of good manners or politeness or whatever, FINE. Just apply that principle equally.

[wisteria]

3. There seems to be a different set of rules for Republicans and Democrats.

I have been watching CNN recently and it is apparent they love reporting on the failings of the Democrats no matter how small the error or misjudgment, yet, the Republicans receive no intense scrutiny what so ever. Apparently, it has not ended with the election.

[karynnj]

4. Just a guess -because that weird group of Republicans

were the ugliest, nastiest bunch of people to ever get into office and they had power. Because of their personalities, the reporters did not have to guess if they would be punished for telling the truth. So, there was a cost to telling the truth - and very littel if they covered up. The same goes for Bush, Cheney and Rove.

Kerry, on the other hand, had tyhe chance especially by late October to possibly be the most important man in the country. Now he is a powerful man because of his committees. So, why when he potentially can get power, is he still treated poorly - my guess is the reporters can see he is not the least bit vindictive. (Now, they might be more motivated by fear of what the Clintons might do - the Wallace interview showed me the side, written about but not seen before, that is way less appealing of Bill Clinton. If I were Wallace, I would have been scared.)