They can't beat you at the ballot box

That's one. 

so they try to beat you in a jury box

Two.

They have no ideas and no agenda,

Threeeee...

they try to destroy you and put you in jail

And four.

That's the new strategy of the Democrats.

Five. 

Karl Rove, being the strong individual that he is

Six.

[Karl Rove] stood for what's right and what's good for the country

Seven aaaand eight. 

Four sentences.  Eight lies.  I gotta admit, the man is skilled.

 Suzanne Malveaux did not challenge Tom DeLay's claim that "[t]he president held the line on spending,"

She is a lousy reporter and again on my e-mail list.

How she could allow that little weasel to lie. 

Federal spending has grown twice as fast under Junior as under Clinton

Federal spending has increased 33% since 2001 from 1,863 billion to 2,470 billion

In 2005 inflation-adjusted federal spending neared $22,000 per household, the highest level since WWII.

www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/83722_1.pdf

I don't understand how these people can even be called "reporters." 

As for Delay, I like Lincoln's saying about a crooked Congressman of his day "the only thing he wouldn't steal is a red-hot stove."

The most disappointing thing about "the Media" is that none of the reporters or commentators ask hard questions or challenge the ovbious lies being told on camera. Liars are so used to being given a pass that they feel they can say anything without being called on it. The segment of the country who does NOT watch Bill O'Reilly or the rest are not getting the confrontation necessary to get at the TRUTH. Malveaux could had said, "Oh, HOW has the economy been spurred, Mr. DeLay? Explain that to the people who have to work two and three jobs just to feed their kids?" "And, while we're at it, WHOSE taxes were cut?"

Great point Donald...

It's take some "confrontation" to highlight the lies and absolute garbage of a blockhead like Tom Delay.

Malveau is nothing but a weak, corporate hooker, and Bush enabler.

And no mention of the numerous hikes to the debt limit. That's a pretty good indicator of fiscal irresponsibility as well.

George W. Bush is about the as fisically conservative as MC Hammer, one of the primary reasons I didn't vote for him in '04 and dropped the "R" from my voter registration and replaced it with an "I".

Hey, not so fast. I'm sure we can find something that Bush even reduced spending on...like school lunches for poor kids, veterans' health benefits...something!

Don't forget, that in those numbers the spending for Iraq and Afghanistan aren't included in the budget, and the deficits, so the REAL cost is actually higher by leaps and bounds.

America, break Bush's credit card or we will be paying for his Bush IT til the end of our grandchildren's college days.

Bush 'held the line on spending" like he restored Dignity to the White House and got us out of the business of Nation-building and "jawboned" the oil cartels into dropping prices.  

DeLay's right- the President did do something without the help of a single opposition vote, and what he did spurred the economy.  But he means President CLINTON, and the thing he did was the tax increase of 1993.  Not a single Republican voted for it, and it was the number one reason for the great economy of the late-90s and the balanced budget, both of which were punted by our current Chimp in Chief.

 "But he means President CLINTON, and the thing he did was the tax increase of 1993.  Not a single Republican voted for it, and it was the number one reason for the great economy of the late-90s and the balanced budget"

You've got to be kidding me! That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while! So tax INCREASES help the economy? You obviously haven't taken any economics classes. Taking money OUT OF THE ECONOMY always slows down the economy. In Clinton's case he also cut taxes on capital gains which helped to spur the economy, and he benefited from the rapid growth in the internet sector and other areas.

The difference is that Clinton's tax policy helped the middle class.

Bush's tax policy has helped no one but the rich and connected.

The stats show that Bush's tax cuts actually made the tax code more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a larger percentage of the overall taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts. The lower and middle classes received a larger reduction in their MARGINAL TAX RATES than the rich did. The rich just ended up getting the most overall money back because they paid the most in taxes to begin with.

"Taking money OUT OF THE ECONOMY always slows down the economy."

You're either kidding or not thinking. When government spends money garnered from taxes, where do you think the money goes, into a washer and dryer located on the dark side of the moon? It goes back into the economy. Why do think wars are so good for the economy, it increases government spending, thereby boosting the economy.

It's government corruption around spending that hurts the economy (think lobbyists, oil swindlers, corporate welfare, sweet heart deals, bribery, earmarks, etc) otherwise it is way too simplistic a statement to state taxation which leads to government spending negatively impacts the economy.

Why is Delay given a forum on TV?

"They can't beat you at the ballot box, so they try to beat you in a jury box. They have no ideas and no agenda, so they try to destroy you and put you in jail"

When you break the law, you face the jury box.  When you're guilty, you go to jail.

The hypocrisy here is overwhelming when this is compared to what Delay and his party did to Clinton.

I agree with Mary/59 above.  How DO these people call themselves reporters?  And WHY should Tom DeLay be on any respectable program or national media network?

His presence has nothing to do with being "fair and balanced", rather more as "how much controversy can we conjure up to keep our network alive?"

If anyone wants to read a reasonable book BY A REPUBLICAN ECONOMIST, by the way, the should read Bruce Bartlett's book, "Imposter", about Bush's mishandling of the economy and the economic future of the country. 

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Somebody's Slow At Seeing Things

  I have been posting and blogging about the conservative bias for at least a year or more. From reading many of the comments for this story, others have been also letting the world know how bias CNN, MSNBC have become.

When I try to speak of CSPAN's Washington Journal's conservative bias, everyone and their mother jump to the program's defense. Nevertheless, there is a large right wing slant of cabal news that has given the conservatives a huge edge. Now the Republicans have the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the unofficial Media Branch of power institutions. It is a power advantage we have one chance to even out in the next election.

Our political system is in need of checks and balance. Currently, this one sided power disadvantage has created a crisis in our government. The conservatives , through bad politics, corruption and sex scandals have become very unpopular with the American people. Although they have released a very complex strategy to counter their decline in public confidence, they need to do something about the up and coming losses for the 2008 elections. Their power advantage can be wiped out should the Democrats grab a veto proof congress and senate as well as the presidency. The Republicans are running from Bush and pulling out all markers. They need to slow the momentum of the Democrats.

Here is an example of how the Washington Post tried to help the Bush administration frame the run up to the up and coming Iranian War after White House officials designated the Revolutionary Guard global terrorist:

"The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said."

 The Post is trying to note the Democratic congress is responsible for the aggressive stance. By default, we are in a war with Iran because we are in a war against terror. The point here is not only does the broadcast media have allegiances with the right, the paper media also tends to promote conservative ideologies.

I cannot stress how important the next election is for balance alone. If we don't stop the current drive for war, war and more war, we will be fighting for next 20 years, which is a reality I cannot live with.

Joseph