Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CNN, Kurtz derided as "ludicrous" the "Democratic" notion that Bush timed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:12 PM
Original message
CNN, Kurtz derided as "ludicrous" the "Democratic" notion that Bush timed
Supreme Court nomination to distract from Rove scandal (headline)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507200003

Reporting on President Bush's July 19 nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court, various CNN correspondents derided as "ludicrous" and "overwrought" the suggestion -- often attributed solely to "Democrats" or "liberals" -- that the White House may have accelerated the nomination to divert media attention from the scandal surrounding White House senior adviser Karl Rove. In fact, news reports suggest the White House did accelerate the nomination to distract the media, and both Republicans and Democrats have suggested that the nomination was moved up to shift focus away from Rove. Many Republicans were reportedly happy the White House was "changing the subject."

Rove was recently implicated in the outing of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

CNN's chief national correspondent John King twice belittled the idea that the White House moved up the nomination to divert attention from Rove. On the July 19 edition of CNN's Inside Politics, King said, "It is ludicrous to think that the president of the United States would rush a decision simply to change the subject." Later, on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, King said, "The idea that they said, 'Oh my God, we're in trouble because of Karl Rove; we need to rush this' -- I think that's a bit of a stretch." CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield similarly brushed off the notion on the July 19 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, saying: "I think we're being a little bit overwrought in thinking that this is a clever move to get Karl Rove off the front page."

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, who also hosts CNN's Reliable Sources, and CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux implied that Democrats and liberals were alone in suggesting that the White House had moved the nomination forward. In his July 20 "Media Notes" column (via Nexis*), Kurtz wrote: "The prime-time maneuver also neutralized the blogosphere, although liberals were convinced it was all a plot to knock Karl Rove and the CIA leak story off the front pages." On the July 19 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Malveaux said: "Well, what the Democrats are suggesting is that perhaps this information is coming out to take Rove and the CIA leak investigation off the front pages of the newspapers."

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. liberal media at work
it's funny the liberal media sounds more like Bush partisans than objective journalists, let alone "liberal media."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Combover prattles on
being the support hose for the WH once again. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. The day before, Bush was asked/told in a conference
that he was close to making his decision. Bush replied (paraphrasing here).. LOL, I am? That's news to me.

Well the next night, he suddenly decided? Either he decided overnight, which is scary enough, or he lied right there and knew who it was.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. However, the fact is its obvious that he moved it forward.
Whether they want to admit it is another story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. How many Republicans said Clinton bombed Afghani terror camps to divert
attention from Monica Lewinsky?

Did King, Kurtz and the rest of CNN charge them with being "ludicrous" back then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
writes2000 Donating Member (481 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. Many and I mean MANY Republican talking heads claimed that was the motive!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jrthin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. These statements
exemplify why msm has no credibility. These statements makes clear why journalists should have no special privilege, as they'll only use it to further the aim of the establishment and not further the aim of the common person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. Liberals are not only ludicrous and overwrought to think Repugs would time
any action for political purposes, but demented too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stirk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yes, it's ludicrous to think that the Bush Administration would
put media spin ahead of duty.

Right, Mr. Rove?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Fiona Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Hopefully, duunreal
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 08:51 PM by Fiona
your brief stay will allow you to answer some questions....

How and when did she "out" herself? Can you tell us exactly which dates bracket her time as an "operative"? You guys seem to KNOW with certainty what her official status was. Can you tell us how you know?

As for Rove, is a criminal conviction the bare minimum it takes to lose a job in the Bush administration? Is unethical or immoral behavior not enough to warrant losing a job? I already know the answer to this one, but I'd like to see a right-winger defend it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. See ya...
:+ :spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
writes2000 Donating Member (481 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Rove Discussed Classified Info w/a Reporter & Lied About It.
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 08:57 PM by writes2000
He shared secret information about the CIA in an incredibly irresponsible, potentially criminal way.

HE THEN LIED ABOUT IT. To the American people. To the press. And quite possibly to the President himself.

If the safety of our country (and those that fight for us) is supposed to be the number one priority for this Administration, how, how, how could they betray us so recklessly and ask us to stay silent about it now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. Has any nominee ever been "named" over the summer. You know -
when the government's business is not at hand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Dec 17th 2014, 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC