Lil' Timmy Russert and MTP Worshipping Saint Ronnie - No Comey

[Vinnie From Indy]

Can there be a shred of doubt anymore that Russert and MTP are merely perception management assets of the right wing? The show this morning has not mentioned Comey's dramatic testimony before Congress once. They are "disappearing" the story in favor of a fawning bit of Saint Ronnie Reagan mythmaking.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

1. I watched, too, and I thought any minute they were going to haul out

the shovels and start digging up St. Ronnie. Could there be any more pandering than that bunch of asswipes and Potato Head? The total whitewashing of the Raygun era continues.

MTP with Potato Head at the helm has jumped the shark. Time to find a new host or shoot the show and put it out of its misery.

[cybildisobedience]

2. it was so disgusting that I c ouldn't even keep it on in the background

Is there anything that Ronald Reagan did that this group is not willing to spin as a miracle or incomparable virtue?
Even skipping church points to St. Ronnie's authencity and deep faith because his ranch in Calif., was, in Timmy's words "almost his temple."
What a nauseating, disgusting waste of precious air time that should have been used to inform a deeply misguided and deluded public.

[blm]

3. Why is the delusion ABLE to continue all these years, growing WORSE every year?

Truth HAS to matter more than bi-partisanship, for a change. And I hope Democrats will become MATURE enough to recognize that fact.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

Hey, Democrats, the Truth Matters!
By Robert Parry
May 11, 2006

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.
>>>>>

Parry allows the full use of his article, but you should go to his site to read it in full.

[karynnj]

5. The spirit of bi-patisanship continues - at least per yesterday's NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/us/politics/19memo.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Hillary%20Rodham

We need to know that bipartisanship doesn't mean papering over the disasterous foreign policy of multiple administrations and that we start a new course. We don't want simply a nicer facade to the same thing.

[EST]

4. One question - of many - they refuse to ask of the panderers

who are pimping Raygun's sainthood is, "Just who was it who signed into law the much derided 'amnesty bill' of 1986?"

What bothers me a lot is the apparent lack of knowledge concerning the results of the election of 2006 and their continued deference toward the pukes, with a token democrat thrown in as almost an afterthought.