Washington Post chat after this...let's have some fun.

[mattclearing]

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/kaiser020205.htm

My question:

Great! Another opportunity for the Post to attempt to legitimize this increasingly criminal administration.

The Post is now cheerleading for this Social Security swindle (authored by Jerry Falwell for the purpose of doing SS in for good), as it did for the obviously disastrous Iraq War.

What is the relevant difference between this paper and the Washington Times?

And why should any self-respecting individual trust your analysis of President Bush's State of the Union?

------------------

I invite all to follow suit with questions that show our increasing displeasure with this once respectable publication.

[lala_rawraw]

1. I am already having a stroke...

Those purple fingers... OMG, I am livid. Next thing you know they will get that little girl from the 9/11 commercial.

[mattclearing]

2. They are amazingly idiotic. That finger thing is hilarious. n/t

[Ian David]

3. My question to The Washington Post

I beleave that George W. Bush was annoyed by God to work his will hear on earth. Please tell me what we can do to help the president deliver us threw these times of tribulations. I would also like to know if Mr. Bush has any words of compashin for those who will be left behind.

[mattclearing]

4. Nice.

:D

[mattclearing]

5. Wow...they actually responded to it.

Washington, DC: Great! Another opportunity for the Post to attempt to legitimize this increasingly criminal administration.

The Post is now cheerleading for this Social Security swindle (authored by Jerry Falwell for the purpose of doing SS in for good), as it did for the obviously disastrous Iraq War.

What is the relevant difference between this paper and the Washington Times?

And why should any self-respecting individual trust your analysis of President Bush's State of the Union?

Robert G. Kaiser: You, sir or madam, are not reading the same Washington Post that I am. What are you referring to?

I quickly found this link to a recent Post editorial on Social Security, which makes it clear that you aren't exactly paying attention to what is in the paper:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52771-2005Jan31.html

This is a recent editorial denying a crisis in Social Security. He missed the editorial they ran a month or so ago that endorsed private accounts completely.

But hey, I'm amazed they ran it.

[mattclearing]

6. I responded back with:

I was referring to the uncritical cheerleading Social Security privatization editorial you ran on Monday, December 6th.

It seems you met with enough resistance to temper your reporting of the issue in the time since.

That doesn't change the fact that you led off with a glowing endorsement of the vague articulation of administration policy.

And I have been paying attention to the Post for the past few years.

You legitimized Bush's tax cut plan against Al Gore, basically taking at face value Bush's accusations of fuzzy math when it was obvious to anyone evaluating the proposals that Bush was endorsing a formula for returns to deficit spending.

Your reporters continually parroted right wing talking points about Gore and Kerry as being "stiff" and "aloof" in the past two elections.

And you buried the conclusion of the media consortium recount's conclusion that a full statewide recount of Florida would have resulted in a likely Gore victory dead last in your report.

So my question remains: What is the difference between the Post and the Washington Times?