MSM Still Pushing the ‘Impeach Bush/Cheney’ Idea

Posted on January 24, 2008

A recent “news” report in the News & Observer from Raleigh, North Carolina is a perfect example of a pointless story with a predictable outcome all meant for the purpose of furthering a political end — in this case to promulgate the impeachment of President Bush and VP Cheney. Staff writer Cheryl Johnston gives us a report on a “debate” that occurred in Carrboro, NC in which impeachment was the topic. The story attempts to create an air that the issue was fairly and legitimately debated, yet no one at the so-called debate was actually against impeachment. Not only were all present basically for impeachment, but the event was also staged by an impeachment advocacy group and attended solely by impeachment fans. Some, debate. Then the article claims that “Few in the audience appeared persuaded” to turn against trying to impeach Bush and Cheney as if anyone was there to actually hear a real debate and weren’t there as impeachment activists already!

Johnston’s story begins by informing us that “Michael Tomasky had a tough gig Tuesday night in Carrboro.” She is referring to long time Washington “journalist” Michael Tomasky who didn’t argue against impeachment as much as that impeachment is merely impractical. He did not argue that impeachment was wrong, just that it isn’t going to happen so why bother to worry about it all? So much for the contrary position.

Tomasky is a long time leftie writer who penned the books Left for Dead: The Life, Death, and Possible Resurrection of Progressive Politics in America as well as Hillary’s Turn: Inside Her Improbable, Victorious Senate Campaign.

For the pro impeachment position, Tomasky faced Bruce Fein who is an impeachment advocate and lawyer. Fein is also a counsel for the Ron Paul campaign and a writer for Slate Magazine.

This supposed “debate” was put on by the Coalition for the Constitution who’s main purpose is seemingly to promote the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

So, the scene was set for an event put on by impeachment advocates, with guests that favor impeachment and attended by fans of impeachment. Yet, our intrepid staff writer of the News & Observer treats it all as if it was a real debate that sadly didn’t seem to change anyone’s mind.

Well, DUH!

After discussing the speakers at this impeachment rally, Johnston seems shocked that no one changed their minds.

Few in the audience appeared persuaded by Tomasky’s stance on the reality of the political situation.

“Not at all,” said Marcie Ferris as the debate wrapped up. “I think Americans have been so beaten down by this administration. It’s all this fear-mongering.”

Well, of course not. They all had their minds set in favor of impeachment before they even went to this “debate.” No one went there to hear the issues, they only went to figure out how to better advertise for impeachment as can be seen with this bit from the article…

Audience members asked Fein and Tomasky for ideas on how to get the American public more engaged in the impeachment topic. With many more Americans now tuned into the primaries, neither debater could come up with the golden ticket.

Johnston also quotes one of the event organizers who ridiculously claims that the debate had a “twist.”

Hodding Carter III, a UNC-Chapel Hill professor of leadership and public policy, moderated the event. He pointed out that the debate had a twist, with a Republican arguing for impeachment and a Democrat arguing against.

Is this supposed to make it seem as if things were “fair and balanced”? Let’s recall that the “Republican” in the debate has been a vocal pro impeachment guy all along and the “Democrat” in the debate was NOT arguing against impeachment, but only saying it was impractical. And, who could be surprised that a University professor was a ring leader for impeachment here?

This News & Observer article does not waste any time fully informing the reader that the whole “debate” was put on to further impeachment and was in no way a serious discussion on the merits of both the pro and con positions. Worse, there wasn’t even a single soul in attendance that was truly against impeachment. This article is a perfect example of a media outlet trying to assist this impeachment group to promote their ideas.

» Filed Under Liberal Media/Bias, News

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “MSM Still Pushing the ‘Impeach Bush/Cheney’ Idea”

Try Again on January 25th, 2008 5:27 pm

I will join the fight against the tyrant, Shrubby Boy, and the feloneous puppeteer Cheney.

Ask yourself, who attacked us?
Ask yourself, where are those WMD’s?
Ask yourself, were we lied too?

Ask yourself, would I want my child to fight and die for a lie?

Hearings will bring out the truth. Ask yourself, Am I afraid of the truth?
Warner Todd Huston on January 25th, 2008 5:39 pm

Ask yourself, are the black helicopters following you again?
Jon Paul McClellan on January 28th, 2008 9:35 am

Warner Todd Huston clearly does not understand what impeachment is. Impeachment occurs when the House of Representatives votes in favor of Articles of Impeachment that send the subject of those articles to the Senate for a trial on the charges enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment. Mr. Tomasky does not favor the passage of Articles of Impeachment in the House of Representatives. Therefore, he is opposed to impeachment.

I must assume, since he does not address the details of the crimes alleged to have been committed by Bush/Cheney, that Mr. Huston favors a president lying to the congress and the people of the U.S., believes that the war crimes that Bush and Cheney have committed against the people of Iraq are no big deal, thinks that it is perfectly fine for criminals in the White House to violate the law by breaking into his house without a warrant, doesn’t mind if he is picked up off the street by government authorities and taken to places unknown to be tortured or murdered without redress to the courts or contact with his family.

That the sponsors of the debate are in favor of impeachment and that the audience had made up their minds before the debate has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the event. Most everyone has their mind made up about that issue, whether pro or con, including (apparently) Mr. Huston. So Mr. Huston’s criticism is equally applicable to those on either side of the issue. If we can not hold debates about things on which people have already formed an opinion we would have no debates about any topic.

Finally, Hodding Carter the III made it quite clear that he does not favor impeachment, and he was the moderator. Why did Mr. Huston not complain about that?