MSN Jerkoff Blatantly Hypocritcal on Limbaugh's Hypocrisy

Read the post.

Here's the vid:

Now, Limbaugh is being inconsistent here. He didn't really call for bipartisanship when Republicans were in majority, but calls for it now.

But he has a right to do that: After all, Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) also called for bipartisanship during Bush's administration, when Republicans owned both ends of The Mall. Ergo, Rush is using their own calls for bipartisanship against them, demanding they offer now what they once demanded as their right.

We endlessly heard about the need for Republicans to bend to the Democrats' will from 2001-2008. And not just from the Democrat Party itself, but from its house newsletter, the MSM, which repeated their demands with utmost sympathy.

So, Rush has flipped a bit, now using the Democrats arguments against them. And I suppose the Democrats can be excused a bit on this score, as they can claim (I suppose) they are just using the old Republican arguments against them.

But what about the MSM? Supposedly it has no dog in this fight. Why do they only point out Rush's flip-flop without noting the endless calls for bipartisanship from Schumer, Leahy, Pelosi, and Reid?

The MSM is of course utterly hypocritical about hypocrisy. Pointing out one side's inconsistencies while studiously avoiding the other side's -- or, more accurately, their own side -- is itself hypocritical.

And what of Rush's "disgusting" and "unpatriotic" wish that Obama would fail?

Did the MSM ever highlight oft-repeated wishes from the left that we lose in the War in Iraq just to help get a Democrat elected president?

Gary Kamiya, executive editor for Salon, writing immediately after the fall of Baghdad, while most of America rejoiced:

I have a confession to make. I have at times, as the war unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen.

I'm not alone -- more casualties would have been a preferred alternative to the larger moral negative of a victory.... Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world.

Johnathan Schell, writing in The Nation:

[Democratic Senator Joe] Biden says we must win the war. This is precisely wrong. The United States must learn to lose this war a harder task, in many ways, than winning, for it requires admitting mistakes and relinquishing attractive fantasies. This is the true moral mission of our time.

Did our fair and balanced MSM ever question these pundits' patriotism? Did they even mention that such horrific sentiments were downright commonplace on the Left?

But now Rush has said he hopes Obama would fail -- or, I think he meant to say, he hopes the public will not credit his awful stimulus for having provoked the inevitable economic recovery, and thus mistakenly learn that government spending and European socialism are the cure for what ails us.

And that is odious, it seems.

But American leftist pundits cheerleading for more US servicemen to die in Iraq? Not a mention -- and therefore, having studiously avoided mentioning it, no need to ask questions about the left's patriotism.

The media's commitment to support of the president and patriotic support of the nation is highly selective -- and the worst hypocrisy of all. After all, the political parties, and avowed political partisans like Rush make no pretense at all of being "fair" or "impartial" as the media does.

posted by Ace at 04:24 PM

| Access Comments