Posted on 01/02/2003 5:26:27 PM PST by kattracks
James Taranto of opinionjournal.com is one of the few members of the media besides NewsMax willing to challenge Sen. Patty "Osama Mama" Murray.
"The editorial boards at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Washington Post must really want a Republican to win Washington state's 2004 Senate race," he writes. "Both newspapers have editorials offering backhanded support to the clueless Sen. Patty Murray, who in an infamous recent speech described Osama bin Laden's popularity as having stemmed from his alleged good works in Arab countries, including the building of - we're not kidding - 'day care facilities.'"
Noting that "Murray's comments are helping feed enemy propaganda," Taranto notes how Taliban Online is promoting her bizarre blame-America-first claims.
"In Murray's home state, the Seattle Times published a disdainful Christmas Eve editorial titled 'Those Silly Attacks on Patty Murray.' But the Vancouver Columbian," Taranto writes, "the paper that broke the story, rightly blasts Murray. 'She ... had every obligation as a U.S. senator and high-level representative of this country and this state to present the United States in a far more accurate light. That she didn't is something voters can consider when she is up for re-election.'
'Baghdad Jim' McDermott Has Company
"This reflects a geographical divide in the state of Washington. Seattle is a haven for wacko anti-Americanism; it even sends pro-Saddam congressman Jim McDermott to Congress. The rest of the state, however, is populated by normal Americans," he observes.
"The Murray whitewash may prove to be an example of how liberal media bias helps Republicans. Murray probably feels vindicated, having won the support of her hometown paper and escaped criticism in most of the national press. Thus, she doesn't appear to have done anything to make amends. If she runs for re-election in 2004, this will be a big problem for her," Taranto points out.
He notes the silence of the New York Times and the rest of the pro-Democrat media establishment on Murray's remarks.
"Those who're skeptical of liberal media bias should ponder this hypothetical: Suppose that during President Clinton's Kosovo war, a Republican congressman had sung the praises of 'great humanitarian' Slobodan Milosevic. Is it even imaginable that the Times would omit such a comment in an article on GOP critics of the war - let alone that the paper would ignore it altogether?"
The New York Times, meanwhile, continues to show it has degenerated into little more than the house organ of the Democrat party. The media's outrageous hypocrisy on Murray compared to their relentless attacks on Trent Lott proves the phoniness of the fantasy of Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the rest of the Democrat attack machine of a right-wing media establishment. Yet the Times only yesterday continued to sound the Dems' fading claims of a conservative slant - even as it continued its cover-up for Murray.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
I know exactly what organ they are referring to.
has a certain ring to it.. ;^)
Osama Mama and the Baghdad Boys
do Seattle?
go to Washington?
meet Frankenstein?
diddle the DNC?
meet Ol' Crusty
One of the many reasons that my family and I beat feet out of there in 1999 and moved to the northern Idaho Panhandle. Seattle has a long rich history of virulent anti-Americanism. For example, in 1918, the Seattle Central Labor Council sent a delegate to the Comintern (the international organization founded by Soviet communists to foment communist ideals and revolution) - even the Leftist AFL found this so offensive and unpatriotic that they ordered the Seattle Central Labor Council to cease all pro-Soviet activity on pain of having its charter revoked. In another case, when Deng Xiaopeng (the Butcher of Beijing in Tienanmen Square - remember him?) made his 1978 processional through America, he was greeted in Seattle by a group of American Maoists who staged a "Little Red Book March" through the University District chanting 'death to Deng' and 'Long live Mao Tse Tung'. Sure, the group of Maoist supporterd numbered no greater than 30 or 40, but it was the utter lack of outrage over their appearance and the tacit approval of their message that spoke volumes.
So, what's happening here? Why exactly can she openly idolize a mass-murderer freely, and attempt to brainwash our children with her passionate empathy for bin Laden?
Because the delusional left thinks this really, really going to go away, any day now. They're telling the media: chill on this, it'll go away soon.
There is a high-water-mark that must be reached on this, a critical mass of disgust and outrage that must be registered on the media's radar before this will be played.
What needs to happen is this: one of the high-school students in one of her audiences (she took this act to many schools) must protest loud and far that treason is being pushed on our (impressionable) student's minds.
I am assuming from your antiwar comments you don't think we should go after Iraq. I would love to hear your reasons. Do you think we should wait until they have nuclear weapons like N. Korea and then do something? What is your solution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.