Again, just imagine if this were Bush and Exxon

[sirs]

Funny how I never claimed that as an actual occurence.  Then again, you knew that, and still are trying to pawn it off as if I did.

tsk tsk tsk

[BT]

Funny how I never claimed that as an actual occurence.  Then again, you knew that, and still are trying to pawn it off as if I did.

tsk tsk tsk

And yet you, of your own free will, choose to use as your title an example of bias an occurrence you refuse to claim actually happened. And then you went so far as to claim it was an apples to apples comparison of the treatment of presidential administrations. or did you forget you said that.

[sirs]

oh contraire, its happened adnauseum for supposed transgressions FAR less egregious.  Sorry if your memory of the prior administration, and how the MSM painted it with perseverating accusatory questioning, is so short

[BT]

oh contraire, its happened adnauseum for supposed transgressions FAR less egregious.  Sorry if your memory of the prior administration, and how the MSM painted it with perseverating accusatory questioning, is so short

Perhaps you can provide some actual examples so we can test your hypothesis.

[sirs]

Already provided one, the Dan Rather Debacle.  Don't even need to go into Helen Thomas's daily accusatory tirade aimed at either Bush or his press secretary, or the plethora stockpiled at MRC.  You actually want more examples??
 
How much more do you need, considering you are on record as acknowledging the bias, in a prior thread last year, IIRC.??

[BT]

The Dan Rather Debacle was a setup. Debunked almost immediately.
Are you saying that the Obama Solyndra Scandal is a setup also?

That would be apples to apples no?

[sirs]

Dan Rather was the host of CBS Nightly News.  He was the lead fella on a primary MSM network.  Even after it was debunked, he still kept pushing it, as it if was true.  Bush/Cheney were pilloried by the MSM on practically a daily basis for their supposed connections to "big oil".  Again, I don't need to go into Helen Thomas' daily accusatory rants, each and every WH press conference, that was then echoed in the NYTimes and WashPost 

Democrat majorities in congress, after they took over, kept launching investigation after investigation with the implied accusations of price gouging and of course the implied connection to Bush/Cheney.  all the while the MSM kept parroting the supposed connection, minus any evidence of either connection or even price gouging

The apples to apples is the MSM actions, not the scandals.  Then again, you know that as well, yet are pushing this false premice

tsk tsk tsk

[BT]

Dan Rather lost his job over Guardgate.

Where is the equivalent with Solyndra? Is there false reporting going on? Is thre under reporting going on or is the media being cautious? I mean, i have a pretty good idea of the timeline as reported by the MSM.

The problem seems to be that you want to indict an industry and then give as examples the actions of individuals? You bring up Helen Thomas like she was a reporter. She wasn't and hadn't been for years. She shared her opinions much like Limbaugh and Elder. Would they be examples of bias?

[sirs]

I can only assume that you are purposely missing the point.  It's NOT the scandal, ergo, it's not something similar to Rathergate.  LAST TIME, It's the actions of the MSM. 

The real problem is this apparent need to indict my POV, despite the mountains of support that backs it up

[BT]

The real problem is this apparent need to indict my POV, despite the mountains of support that backs it up

The real problem seems to be that you can not defend your point of view.

It's the actions of the MSM. 

WTF does that mean? Is that the equivalent of the actions of chinese people, or christian people or rich people.

You broadbrush is too wide. You fail to make your point.

Your claim MSM bias.

We have two stories that are in the news right now that are very similar in scope.

Solyndra and Obama and Merck and Perry.

Show me how the MSM is being harder on Perry than Obama which would tend to prove your assertion that the MSM displays bias for the dems/libs.

[sirs]

The real problem is I have, and you just can't except my POV as being accurate, despite your own acknowledgement of the bias

And the WTF is precisely what it means.....actions.  The actions the MSM takes when its a Republican or Conservative administration, vs a Democrat or Liberal. with the predominant validation via what the MSM doesn't report on the latter, to anything close to a level it has with the former

Then again, you knew that as well, yet still trying to pawn off a non starter as trying to compare scandals

tsk, tsk, tsk

[BT]

It's NOT the scandal, ergo, it's not something similar to Rathergate.  LAST TIME, It's the actions of the MSM. 

The actions of the MSM in the person of Dan Rather is what caused the scandal and goes to prove your bias. Yet Dan Rather is not the MSM. He is a member of the MSM, he worked for the MSM but he is not the MSM.

My example of Perry's treatment vs Obama's treatment would be a perfect way for you to prove this bias, because the scandals are similar in transgressions. Yet you refuse to prove your point.

And that refusal speaks volumes. And thus endeth the discussion.

[sirs]

I hope you're getting some sense of self entertainment, as you keep pushing a premise I never made.  Turn a person's POV into a false premise/position, than debunk that, as if that was the point being made.  Brilliant, if it weren't also wholly disingenuous.  I'm confidence others saw thru it, as well

tsk tsk tsk

[BT]

What others are seeing is you whining about MSM bias but when given an opportunity to show how the MSM treats one group more favorably than another when the transgressions are similar, you demur. But that's just the way you roll, and i guess they see that too.

[sirs]

The big headline from President "Underdog" Obama's interview on Good Morning America yesterday was his frank admission that Americans are not better off today than they were before he took office.  Indeed, sir.  Another noteworthy element of the exchange was George Stephanopoulos' line of questioning about Solyndra -- the first time the president has been asked about the swelling scandal.  His response?  Hey, no biggie

President Obama told ABC News Monday that he does not regret touting the solar company Solyndra as a model of his jobs program, or loaning $535 million in taxpayer money to the company before it declared bankruptcy.  "Hindsight is always 20/20," Obama told "Good Morning America" anchor George Stephanopoulos in an interview broadcast online Monday. "It went through the regular review process and people felt that it was a good bet." The interview was the first under a new alliance between ABC News and Yahoo News.

Hindsight is 20/20, sir, but invoking that excuse in the context of Solyndra is a complete head-fake.  The reason this story has legs beyond typical griping about government waste is the reality that multiple red flags were raised and ignored before the waste took place.  In light of Obama's spin, a cursory review of the timeline is in order. 
In 2009, prior to Obama taking office, Bush-era Energy officials unanimously rejected Solyndra's loan application. 
Weeks later, Obama OMB number-crunchers warned that the deal stunk to high heaven, and cautioned against going through with it. 
The loan was fast-tracked and approved after multiple White House visits by billionaire Solyndra investor and Obama donor George Kaiser. 
In 2010, White House officials and outside supporters sounded the alarm that a planned presidential visit to Solyndra's headquarters could blow up in Obama's face because of the company's deteriorating finances. 

These concerns were "brushed off," and the photo-op happened anyway.  In 2011, after Solydra defaulted on its loan, White House budget officials recommended letting the "green energy" company fail rather than re-structuring its loan because the former course of action would save taxpayers up to $168 million. 
The loan was re-structured, and was constructed to ensure that Solyndra's private investors -- like George Kaiser -- would recoup their losses before taxpayers in the (inevitable) event that the company went bust.

Objections were raised at every step of this process, yet poor, politically-motivated decisions ensued in each case.  This disastrous nature of these decisions are not merely evident "in hindsight."  The whole enterprise was a slow-motion, real-time debacle from day one.  People did not "feel it was a good bet," Mr. President.  Many people within your own administration felt it was a very bad bet, but your political team placed it anyway, and doubled-down at every opportunity.  With our money.  That's not bad luck.  That's not hindsight.  That's a scandal.

Parting thought - Which is the better White House approach to evading the stench of this self-created mess: Disingenuously deflecting, like Obama did on GMA, or just running away?

Such a sad Commentary on the state of the MSM