| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Liberall MSM likes to bury stories that don't support its views (here's one particularly egregious example). It's not surprising that MSM would like to accuse Conservatives of doing the same thing. Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz attempted last Friday to do just that:
But even though Abramoff steered some client cash to Democrats, this is, for the moment, a largely Republican scandal. So do folks on the right unload on Jack and his enablers, or stick to the defensive party talking points?
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that, according to Nexis at least, Fox's Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly uttered not a word about Abramoff this week. And if this was a convicted lobbyist who funneled big bucks to Hillary Clinton, they'd be just as bored by the story.
Kurtz was so wrong, that he had to update his column to admit it:
Update: I stand corrected, O'Reilly hit the topic Wednesday (transcript still not available) and Hannity talked about Abramoff last night. He said he wouldn't defend corrupt Republican politicians -- unlike the Dems who he said kept defending the indefensible Bill Clinton! I knew there was a Clinton angle in there somewhere.
There are, however, a number of conservative prognosticators who have stepped up to the plate, starting with the NYT's David Brooks [.....] National Review [.....] Peggy Noonan [.....] Power Line's John Hinderaker [.....] Red State [.....]
He didn't even mention Newt Gingrich.
As Kurtz has inadvertently highlighted, the Right has a good record of facing the facts. It is the Left that tries to hide the facts from the American people.
