DEVIL OR ANGEL? When Gore is still trashed—while Thompson is praised—the system is blindingly obvious:
from The Daily Howler
THE WAGES OF SIN: The wages of sin are all around us this week as Campaign 08 is being shaped. The dainty lads at our liberal journals have played ostrich for the past eight years concerning the press corps’ War Against Gore; therefore, when Gore’s new book appeared this week, the crackpots of our “mainstream” “press corps” felt free to trash him again. (Too fat! Too phony!) And then, just gaze on this morning’s Washington Post. There are two new books about Hillary Clinton, former Monica-watcher Peter Baker excitedly says. (His loathsome wife, Susan Glasser, co-wrote a pair of front-page attacks on Gore in 1999. They were among the most blatantly dishonest reports of that entire campaign.)
There are two new books about Hillary Clinton! And sure enough, the wages of sin were on display as Baker vouched for the brilliant good faith of these new books’ authors:
BAKER (5/25/07): Unlike many harsh books about Clinton written by ideological enemies, the two new volumes come from long-established writers backed by major publishing houses and could be harder to dismiss. [Carl] Bernstein won national fame with partner Bob Woodward at The Post for breaking open the Watergate scandal, while Gerth and Van Natta have spent years as investigative reporters for the New York Times.
Bernstein, author of one of these books, deserves the presumption of semi-regularity. But Gerth and Van Natta are a whole different breed. Very few people know that, though—because of the wages of sin.
In the mid-1990s, you see, your liberal journals averted their gaze when Gene Lyons’ Fools for Scandal detailed the loathsome games Gerth played in his original Whitewater “reporting”—the bungled (or dishonest) work which gave the name to an entire era. Nor did they jump on Gerth’s strange conduct when he bungled his Wen Ho Lee reporting—reporting the Times felt forced to retract. The fiery liberals at your liberal journals gave this cosmic loser (and Clinton-hater) a pass. And so he lives to play us again. Indeed, he’s pimped in this morning’s Post. “Hard to dismiss!” Baker says.
Fools for Scandal bore a high pedigree when it appeared in 1996. It began as a Harper’s piece by Lyons; later, the book was published and widely promoted by that venerable institution. But just name the time you saw Lyons’ book—it’s still massively relevant—cited in our liberal journals! The dainty boys of your liberal journals know they must never revisit such matters. Result? Most people have never heard a word about Gerth’s early Whitewater work. And that’s why Gerth is so “hard to dismiss!” That’s why he’s with us again today, able to peddle more bull-roar.
(Continued here.)
THE WAGES OF SIN: The wages of sin are all around us this week as Campaign 08 is being shaped. The dainty lads at our liberal journals have played ostrich for the past eight years concerning the press corps’ War Against Gore; therefore, when Gore’s new book appeared this week, the crackpots of our “mainstream” “press corps” felt free to trash him again. (Too fat! Too phony!) And then, just gaze on this morning’s Washington Post. There are two new books about Hillary Clinton, former Monica-watcher Peter Baker excitedly says. (His loathsome wife, Susan Glasser, co-wrote a pair of front-page attacks on Gore in 1999. They were among the most blatantly dishonest reports of that entire campaign.)
There are two new books about Hillary Clinton! And sure enough, the wages of sin were on display as Baker vouched for the brilliant good faith of these new books’ authors:
BAKER (5/25/07): Unlike many harsh books about Clinton written by ideological enemies, the two new volumes come from long-established writers backed by major publishing houses and could be harder to dismiss. [Carl] Bernstein won national fame with partner Bob Woodward at The Post for breaking open the Watergate scandal, while Gerth and Van Natta have spent years as investigative reporters for the New York Times.
Bernstein, author of one of these books, deserves the presumption of semi-regularity. But Gerth and Van Natta are a whole different breed. Very few people know that, though—because of the wages of sin.
In the mid-1990s, you see, your liberal journals averted their gaze when Gene Lyons’ Fools for Scandal detailed the loathsome games Gerth played in his original Whitewater “reporting”—the bungled (or dishonest) work which gave the name to an entire era. Nor did they jump on Gerth’s strange conduct when he bungled his Wen Ho Lee reporting—reporting the Times felt forced to retract. The fiery liberals at your liberal journals gave this cosmic loser (and Clinton-hater) a pass. And so he lives to play us again. Indeed, he’s pimped in this morning’s Post. “Hard to dismiss!” Baker says.
Fools for Scandal bore a high pedigree when it appeared in 1996. It began as a Harper’s piece by Lyons; later, the book was published and widely promoted by that venerable institution. But just name the time you saw Lyons’ book—it’s still massively relevant—cited in our liberal journals! The dainty boys of your liberal journals know they must never revisit such matters. Result? Most people have never heard a word about Gerth’s early Whitewater work. And that’s why Gerth is so “hard to dismiss!” That’s why he’s with us again today, able to peddle more bull-roar.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home