Previous 21 - 30 Next
Believe it or not, the Times’s Andrew Rosenthal is defending the word choice. The paper’s public editor, Margaret Sullivan, wrote a post yesterday afternoon responding to the criticism the Times has received on the editorial. She asked Rosenthal for an explanation. Here is his response: “We have a high threshold for whether someone lied,” he told me. The phrase that The Times used “means that he said something that wasn’t true.” Saying the president lied would have meant something different, Mr. Rosenthal said — that he knew it was false and intended to express the falsehood. “We don’t know that,” he said.
IMAGINE THAT... "No harm, no foul, Mr. President. Now, what was that you were saying about the Tea Party?"...
Barack Obama’s election neatly coincided with the liberal left’s rediscovery of the value of civility in the public square. The time for derangement was over. Liberals remembered that they have had only modest success in outlawing political speech, and that when tempers flared they could be on the receiving end of overheated criticism now that they were back in power. Among the results of the left’s newfound distaste for dissent was a suddenly self-censoring media. And, as evidenced by the New York Times’s rather amazing Sunday editorial on ObamaCare, giving the president the benefit of the doubt is back in vogue. The Times explained that when President Obama said that if you liked your health-care plan you could keep your health-care plan, period, he simply “misspoke.”
The democrats are spinning and contorting this story and their narrative with whirling-dervish energy. Will they succeed in the "razzle-dazzle" perpetrated on Americans? Not if I can help it...
Henry----I hope you are correct. The dust has yet to settle on this one. It still has many moving parts, to be played out for many more weeks. And then there is that 129 million number; including people like me who maintain company-provided insurance plans. Those which Obama gave a year "stay". Next fall, those letters go out, severing plans of these policy holders. Right during election season. How will THAT be received by Americans?
The media and other "valuable sources" for low information voters; Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, etc., etc., is so often underestimated. I know, I know, people make reference to the liberal skewed MSM. However, the impact is even larger than people know. In concert with Hollywierd, and, Liberal-Skewed academia is a very large contributor to the arrogance that this administration (and Liberals/Progressives) maintains.
Henry, I understand your position. I understand that this "issue" affects Americans in their wallets/pocketbooks------i.e. very personal. My position remains the same about the media and the integral role they play in bolstering/buttressing support for this pathological LIAR...
hyperbole----it's all you ever have...
FOLLOWING the media's feigned surprise that the Associated Press and some reporters were being spied on (last spring) by this administration, they fell back into their comfortable positions in defending them. FACT.
Big Whoop. I know it's Katie and Guy Benson's job (they get paid to follow and report polls) to write these columns. What they fail to mention at anytime is that the press repeatedly returns to supporting these democrats, and the potus, subsequent to any brief departure.
McAuliffe is a phony. Unfortunately, the scandal surrounding his involvement with Global Crossing was never pursued.
Previous 21 - 30 Next