Murdoch: Press too harsh on Bush.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/rupert_murdoch_.html

Uncle Rupert thinks the American media is too harsh on the president. In other news, bears found to defocate in tree-filled areas.

However, doesn't he have somewhat of a point? I'm not sure America can allow partisanship to rule for the next 18 months. While the administration has been less than forthright about a lot, doesn't the country need to move forward before 2009? There is so much bickering and finger pointing on both sides it appears that there is no-one prepared to say 'we need to work this out'.

Or if someone were to try and take a centrist point of view and try to bring the middle-left and middle-right together, would it hurt them in the future?

 

But other than that, the man deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

So there's nothing that can be done in this climate to fix it? From the way the left and right minded members of the board post here I understand many may not think it's possible. But so much of this seems to be pols grandstanding to play to their base, when playing to the country and getting things done would be far more beneficial in the long run.

Who knows, if people were less polarizing in their rhetoric more people might care about the process and show up to vote.

 

In here, all you'll get is that Bush ought to resign, kiss Nancy Pelosi's feet and crown her Queen of the Empire, or at least until Che is ready to move in.

 

Yawn, how can this country move forward when all everyone seems to do nowadays is grandstand and call people from different viewpoints names?

Surely there needs to be a dialogue here. Could a more central 'leader' bring the middle-left and middle-right together so anything can be accomplished before January 2009? Or is the process stuck right now because of the partisan politics of both sides?

 

Too harsh on Bush? Are you joking? We're still getting rationalizations for Iraq. Not long ago we were hearing that the Scooter Libby trial was a political show trial. The media isn't hard enough on this administration. Look at how Cheney and crew viewed Russert: As a useful idiot. Judith Miller, etc.

 

Ah, Yawn, as usual, bringing up the tenor of the discussion around here.

Seriously, though, I'm not so sure that the American press has been THAT hard on Bush, especially compared with the media outside the United States. Sure, you get a lot of complaints from Bush supporters, but you get almost as many from people who say the U.S. press has given Bush too much of a free ride, especially early in the Iraq war.

I think part of it, too, is a shift in the tenor of the debate on the Iraq war. This is clearly becoming an unpopular war among the American people, and I think the coverage reflects that. I don't think the coverage drove opinion about the war.

But the biggest problem the media have with Bush is that he's tried so damn hard to bypass them, rarely holding press conferences, rarely answering questions outside of ginned-up public appearances in front of friendly crowds, making it difficult for the media to get information and retaliating against those who come up with things that make the administration look bad. You give respect, you get it. I don't see much coming from the folks in the White House.

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/26/moyers-and-russert-and-cheney-oh-my/

 

Despite my not liking this president, I don't agree with any of that post.

 

Considering the press did nothing to question the leadup to this war, I think nobody has any right to complain about anyone being too hard on the president.

 

Not exactly that civil.

He should be tried as a war criminal.