Bomb Throwing Pacifist
If you took that happy, smiling guy from the box of Quaker Oats, handed him a bottle of gin and a rifle, and pissed him off to a point where he decided he wasn't going to take it anymore, you'd get a little something like this.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
This post brought to you by Sadly No!
Just time for a quick update. I don't usually do these sorts of things, but in this case, I make an exception. The post is from Brad R. at Sadly, No! and is well worth the read.
Indeed. As one of my friends once said, "Dude, blaming the goddamn liberal press for Bush's poor performance is so 2003. Come up with something better."
Stop It, Wankers. Just Stop It.
If I hear one more wingnut blame THE MEDIA!!!!! for Bush's low poll numbers, or for falling public support for the Iraq war, I am going to scream.
Look, wingnuts: the dreaded liberal press was around in the '80s, no? And going by your "MSM OUT TO GET ALL REPUBLICANS!!!1!" theory, they should have been out to get Ronald Reagan, no? But did their biased leftist loser-defeatist coverage stop Reagan from being a broadly popular president across the country? Nuh-uh. In fact, when Reagan was president, he didn't have the alternative wingnut media like FOX News, Powerline or talk radio to pimp for him- he had to deal with Helen Thomas and Dan Rather all by his fucking lonesome. And unlike the current crybaby-in-chief, "he had a pair" (to use one of Peggy Noonan's most glorious phrases).
OK, so if the press isn't responsible for Bush's low approval ratings, could it be that maybe- just fucking maybe- most people think Bush is doing a shitty job? Or that the Iraq war hasn't been worth all the blood and treasure we've put into it? Just wondering.
Indeed. As one of my friends once said, "Dude, blaming the goddamn liberal press for Bush's poor performance is so 2003. Come up with something better."
Marc with a C, 12:33 PM
