Is this what Cillizza means by "mouthpiece"?
August 03, 2009 9:46 am ET by Jamison Foser
Would this entry by the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza look any different if it had been written by John McCain's press secretary?
In just a few paragraphs, Cilizza:
1) Touts McCain's influence within the Republican Party
2) Suggests you can't have bipartisan legislation unless McCain is on board
3) Passes on McCain's claims that the Democrats are not truly interested in bipartisanship
4) Passes on McCain's attacks on the inclusion of a public option in health care reform
5) Frames the gulf between McCain and the White House in McCain-friendly terms: McCain, according to Cilizza, is "growing increasingly upset with the growth in government spending and the lack of consultation between the White House and Senate Republicans."
And there isn't so much as a word of scrutiny of McCain's claims. Not a word even hinted at the possibility that McCain's take on anything might not be the whole story.
First write them a nice letter asking what insurance industy people or companies contribute to their coffers. Second, ask them if they are SO insistent on NOT having a public plan, they wouldn't mind having the convictions of their position, and dropping their publicly funded health plan that they current have as a benefit of being either a Congressman/woman, or a Senator. I mean, we, the taxpayers of the country, already fund their health plan, so if they truly believe a public option is NO good, then they won't mind giving up their public option, and going into their vaunted free market to purchase their own insurance. Right?
I'm betting we get no takers on that one.
hat a crock that the righties claim Obama victory was based on media affection for Obama.
McCain has been their darlings for DECADES ...