What we keep seeing, is the Democrats unmasking some action of the President or Republican party, throwing extreme charges of criminality and totalitarianism at it, and the media picking it up and running with it for a month or so.
Once it comes out that it is actually an intelligent and prudent thing to do, the Dems move on to a different issue, the media lets the problem drift away, and it just becomes another one of those terrible things Bush/Republicans have done.
They don't seem willing to wait (or really want) for a thorough evaluation of the information to take place, to understand if the action is really necessary, and whether or not they should support the President/Republicans on any of these issues.
All they want to do is get a damaging point of view out 'there' and once the pot is boiling, they move on - you are quite right.
However do pass these along:
(Jimmy Carter)
(Bill Clinton)
The above are Executive Orders giving those presidents carte blanche - and because they are Democrats nary a word was raised - all concern was squelched.
Commanders speak of "the fog of war" - they must make life-and-death decisions on the basis of early reports. But that is actually just an accute case of what I call "the fog of breaking news."Look at the reporting of the recent WVa coal mine disaster. Despite the best efforts of the authorities to hold information back until it was confirmed, "word" leaked out and spread like wildfire, so that locally essentially everyone "knew." And the "breaking news" media could not but report it. The report of "one dead, ten surviving" was about the best possible news; it was made credible by the report of one dead - but if you're a family member your odds are no longer extremely long but now suddenly are ten-to-one in your favor.
In that case the miners' families were the only victims of the misinformation which seemed "official" coming from "objective" broadcast journalism. But then there is the case of election coverage, which is a classic quadrennial "breaking news" operation. I am not aware of any statistics for any other election but the classic journalistic runaway of 2000, but Florida's famous squeaker was not the only election for which the discipline of "objecivity" broke down under the imperative of breaking news. With one outlier (one state atypically called early for Bush) discounted, the breaking news of the 2000 presidential election was presented exactly as if broadcast journalism overestimated the strength of the Gore vote by several percentage points.
Liberalism is the idea that not only is the pen mightier than the sword, the pen is the only thing that really matters. Naturally, that idea is powerfully appealing to journalists - and optimism leads journalists to overestimate the electoral strength of Democratic politicans.
This is the game plan - keep at it until Joe Q Public is so inundated with "Bush=Evil" that when '06 elections roll around all he remembers is to vote out all Republicans. There is, and never will be, any follow-up to these lying stories the MSM is peddling for the RATs. I don't know how else to say this, but the RATs/MSM are out to get Bush and the Repub House at any cost even if that means printing and broadcasting 100% lies. There is no law that says the news media has to tell the truth!! That might come as a huge surprise to Joe 6 pack - I know it came as a huge surprise to me once I realized it.