Dick Morris Predicts Impeachment Hearings

Well here's what we get to look forward to if the GOP takes back the House and Senate as Dick Morris predicts here, impeachment hearings. As much of a
up

Well here's what we get to look forward to if the GOP takes back the House and Senate as Dick Morris predicts here, impeachment hearings. As much of a hack as toe-sucker Dick Morris is, I don't disagree with him that the Republicans would actually hold impeachment hearings over this if they get the House back since Darrell Issa isn't showing any signs of slowing down with feeding this nonsense.

Jamison Foser at Media Matters has a really great post up about the media continuing to carry water for the GOP and criminalizing politics. Go read the whole thing but here are some of his main points.

Media have excuses for Sestak obsession, not reasons:

Long after many reporters insisted that if only the White House revealed whether Joe Sestak was offered a job the story would go away, reporters are getting ever-more-creative in their attempts to justify covering what is quite clearly not a scandalous act. Two excuses dominate: The Obama camp’s promise to be more ethical than predecessors, and its promises of transparency. [...]

First of all, every incoming administration promises to be more ethical than its predecessors. Remember George W. Bush’s pledge to “restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office”? Despite that pledge, reporters could barely pretend to care when Bush’s administration outer a covert CIA operative, or when they tried to turn U.S. attorneys into opposition researchers with the power to issue indictments. Despite that pledge, reporters had to be dragged kicking and screaming to (briefly) cover evidence that the Bush administration had lied its way into war. And despite that pledge, reporters certainly didn’t care when Karl Rove reportedly offered someone a job to get him to drop out of a campaign.

But things are different now: The Obama administration may have offered someone a job to get him to drop out of a campaign! Oh. Wait…

Second: It’s one thing to say the White House promised a higher level of ethical excellence and should be held to that promise, and another to invent, after the fact, ethical transgressions that have never before in the history of the republic been considered ethical transgressions. Yes, the Obama team said they’d be ethically excellent (as does every incoming administration) and yes, they should be held to that promise (as should every administration.)

But that has nothing to do with offering Joe Sestak a job, because offering Joe Sestak a job is not ethically suspect. (It may be politically suspect, but that’s a different kettle of fish.) Nobody considered it ethically suspect when previous presidents did it, and nobody has explained why it should be considered ethically suspect now. It’s like criticizing Obama for failing to live up to his promises of ethical behavior because he wears a blue shirt. It doesn’t make any sense, because you haven’t established that there’s anything wrong with wearing a blue shirt. Read on...

They've also compiled a list of their work now that the "scandal" includes Andrew Romanoff as well.

Myths and falsehoods about the Sestak and Romanoff controversies

About Heather

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.