[mrsmith]

"December 19, 2002 "

Rush, I was very disappointed that you didn't mention that this was the anniversary of Clinton's impeachment by the House. That put her remarks in the proper context.

Next year is the fifth anniversary BTW.

[NonValueAdded]

I caught part of Rush's broadcast on 12/19 at around 12:50 Eastern time and it was just as hard hitting and insightful as what you've posted here. It is worth the nominal fee for the EIB site to hear the replay. I wouldn't be surprised if that particular broadcast becomes past of the "best of ..." for years to come.

The next time the GOP comes looking to me for a donation, I'll say I'll give when someone, anyone, in the party speaks out like that and tells it like it is.

[Faith]

Once again Rush nails it. I'd love to see him as Senate majority leader---even just for a day.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You're dutifully playing the Clinton sound bites all day long, and saying, "See! This is what life is like in America when the GOP runs the show." You're trying to show the consequences of the voters upsetting the unquestionable order of things in Washington:

This is the outraged frustration of anyone who takes zebra suits seriously when they are worn by people with no credentials.

The First Amendment is all the credential anyone needs to become a journalist, say they're objective, and call fouls on Republicans for not being Democrats. Why do all commercially successful journalists do that?

a) because liberalism is sophistry and demogaugery, which exploits the prejudices of the people. That makes liberalism the cheap and easy way to draw a crowd.

b) because flame wars among journalists are (gasp!) bad PR. Going along and getting along are the order of the day.

c) because it's fun as well as profitable. Who wouldn't be tempted to slander his fellows if he knew they had no recourse?

The real question about "bias in the media" is not "why," but "why not?" The burden of proof of lack of bias logically falls on the person claiming it rather than the one questioning it.

'Course that's a negative which can never be proven, which simply points out why the First Amendment was crafted to keep government out of publishing. And the First Amendment worked pretty well, until the government came up with the FCC and the "right to listen" to licensees and a concommitant duty of the unlicensed to be quiet.