… and here’s why:
That was a good article. I enjoy reading Ann Coulter.
…and to think, we’ll be just 2 heartbeats away from Madame President
Bite your tongue.
I think Ann Coulter should be president.
The world was once matriarchal, when the great Moon Goddess reigned supreme in the night sky. I for one would welcome more women in the highest seats of power, with the possible exception of Hilary Clinton and whatever Kerry’s wife is called. Got im Himmel, perish the thought.
I have been a “fan” of Ann Coulter for many years, and have read her books. They are thought provoking.
Precisely why the first female Speaker of the House is a more noteworthy item than the Condy’s cabinet appointment.
Not really. Speaker-elect Pelosi operates in the insular world of party politics. Secretary Rice operates on the world stage … and … she’s only two additional heartbeats away from being the first black President.
4 heartbeats is a stretch. 2 is not - especially when one is Cheyney!
Pelosi sets the domestic legislative agenda for the House, with siginificant ability to impact or direct legislation. Rice carries water abroad for the Bush administration, and has little actual power to imact or alter much.
Two is a stretch when one is Bush’s, the most physically fit POTUS in my lifetime and, perhaps, ever.
Possibly, but I am sure that there were many who would have thought that Lincoln and Kennedy were pretty sounds bets not to need to invoke the chain if sucession.
The bigger point is that Pelosi’s position is worthy of media attention. As an elected official, and somone fairly high in the line of succession, it is a noteworthy item.
Rice, while also noteworthy, is slightly less so. I would argue that the reason for the lack of stories may be more related to the fact that she 1) does not have a campaign staff who crafts and gets stories run, 2) is in a less sexy media position (speaker always gets more coverage than Secretaries unless they are running a war, or there is a scandal) and 3) probably does not have a well paid and long tenured PR person on staff to pitch such stories.
I know - the Fox news crowd will use it as evidence of a “liberal media bias”. So, tell me…with Rush and Hannity and Fox news, etc - why didn’t they run the stories about Rice and re-run them periodically or have features on her for this reason? Would that not have balanced the scales?
I heard this week that Polosi and her family run a vinyard in CA that routinely hires illegals to work… while accepting campaign funds from nation labor unions and having their full support… huh? dont get it…
Actually, Kennedy was quite infirm even though he looked like the picture of health.
True, though it probably should not be. Women are running some of the nation’s biggest businesses and acquitting themselves quite well in doing so.
What is noteworthy about Rice is who appointed her. President Bush, who also appointed the first black Secretary of State, the first black National Security Advisor and the first Hispanic Attorney General, three landmark appointments that the liberal media would have trumpeted had, say, Bill Clinton, done so but largely ignored since President Bush did so.
I don’t know about that. How much coverage has Dennis Hastert gotten?
I don’t know how much more evidence is needed on that point. It seems to me that that has been conclusively established.
Hastert didn’t much press because he is intetnionally not a press hound. He’s old school, backroom politics.
Newt, on the other hand, shows you the modern example of what a Speaker can get in terms of press clippings when his/her staff is so oriented.
As for the media bias…yawn. Conservatives have created their own media and cultural exchanges, too. With the advent of blogs, and the 24 hour news cycle, people get their news from the source of their choice.
And are we really griping that Nancy got press and Condy didn’t?
Bush deserves credit for the appointments. The reason Clinton would have recieved the credit publicly is that his staff would have had that story out there non-stop for at least a month. Bush’s communications staff had to have made the choice not to try to push that story.
Well, he’s no Comb Back Kid - Donald Trump - that’s for sure. But doesn’t that undermine your original point that the Speakership is inherently newsworthy.
He was also quite newsworthy in his own right and, I think, a pretty objective political observer. Also, a lot of his press has been negative.
Are you denying this well-settled fact or yawning because it is so well-established that it is no longer topical?
Out of necessity.
And to judge from the falling numbers of CNN, CNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and the rising numbers of FNN, they are voting with their eyes.
I’m not. I actually like Nancy, personally. We have a lot in common, ethnic Catholics, from large urban families helmed by larger-than-life fathers, she the mother of five, I the brother of six, which is why I know that she can not possibly believe any of the Democratic agenda. Same with James Carville. He’s goofing on everybody.
That, I think, is quite a stretch.
So you find it more plausible that the media elected NOt to cover the Bush appointments? No, I think it more likely that they didn’t want to rile the base of predominently white coservative men who got him elected.
Newt’s negative press was much his own doing (I was the staffer who worked on ehtics issues for a Member of Congress who sat on Newt’s ethics panel). His personality and the Lee Atwater scorched earth campaigning style he used begets resentment and negativity.
That said, he was newsworthy. Denny intentionally avoided media, I believe, and is the exception to the rule.
There is also the element that Pelosi is the top ranking Dem with a Republican White House, so the drama and intrigue adds to the press angle (Much as Tip got press for opposing Reagan).
You and I share the same backgound (I only have 4 siblings), and I find it as hard to believe that you are a Republican as you do that Pelosi and Carville are Democrats. Maybe we should debate further downtown over a few pints…
No. I wasn’t saying that. That’s the problem with a written medium. I was referring to your apparent belief that the Bush star-maker machinery was inferior to Clinton’s. My bad.
I don’t disagree. I was merely pointing out the obvious. Serving your wife with divorce papers while she is hooked up to an IV is not the stuff of hagiography.
Lee did not invent the genre. He merely perfected it. I’ll always be grateful to him for sparing the nation President Michael Dukakis.
He’s definitely an anomaly.
Tip and Gip were tremendous copy, an ink-stained wretch’s perfect storm. That would have been true even if they were from the same party. Which they once were.
Point taken. But I’m no Republican. I was a life-long D but when my driver’s license renewed in 2000 I took advantage of motor-voter to change my affiliation to I. I have not regretted it.
I think that the Ds have lost their way. John Kerry absolutely turns my stomach. Ditto Ted Kennedy. And I revered both of his brothers.
Indeed. As long as it’s not light beer.