Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Bias? What Bias?
Check out this post from RedState. At least someone is keeping tabs on the MSM:
Tricks of the trade [Updated]
By Caiwyn
Posted in Liberals
Check it out: Every single story by CNN about Republican Congressman Rick Renzi's indictment lists his party affiliation in the very first sentence.
But the article on Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer's involvement with a prostitution ring doesn't mention his party affiliation until the second-to-last sentence.
Update: CNN has updated their story. Now the second-to-last sentence has been replaced by the following:
The Republican Governors Association called on Spitzer, a Democrat, to resign to "allow the people of New York to pursue honest leadership."
This is the only sentence in the article that links Spitzer with the Democratic party, and it is not only placed at the end of the article, but couched in an implied accusation of partisanship against the Republicans. Amazing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(731)
-
▼
March
(45)
- Rove on "being a bad human being"
- You owe us an apology
- The Dem Race in a Nutshell
- McCain speech, "Service to America"
- More evidence Dems for McCain
- Paterson
- McCain VP
- Dems for McCain?
- McCain on Iran/al-qaeda
- Good news
- Will Joe Bruno be the 3rd governor this month?
- Our 4th drummer was Ola Brunkert.
- 2nd Amendment
- Wright down the drain
- Hold on tight
- Obama Watch
- Wright on America
- Veep Stakes! Mad Money Part 2
- Fredo
- If it was Ginger, I would have believed it...
- Bias? What Bias?
- Ya had it all, kid
- Journalists who create the agenda, instead of repo...
- If I didn't already know
- New McCain web ad
- I'm so old
- Happy Birthday, Hextall
- And then there was one...
- Democrats
- Some Dark Horse Veep Possibles
- All it's missing is the bow
- Not sure what this pic has to do with anything,
- Where we stand on March 6
- Call it, friend-o: Crist will be in McCain's cabinet
- Now that this blog is hidden,
- Perfect
- Iraq war: McCain v. Obama
- Someone has to say it
- Huckabee Concedes
- Some important news on Global Warmings
- My thoughts on the NAFTA flap
- Joe Kennedy
- Hillary
- The Academy sure can pick 'em, huh?
- McCain endorsement
-
▼
March
(45)
5 comments:
Now if we can just get rid of Schumer and Hillary this state may be in decent shape.
By the way, at what point would Hillary have to give up her senate seat? Is it only contingent on her winning the Presidency?
Well, traditionally some candidates resign their office to devote themselves full time to running for President (Dole in '96 comes to mind), and other times they hold onto their seats so they have a fall back if they lose (Teddy Kennedy in 1980, Kerry in 2004, Obama/Clinton/McCain now). Which is the better route has been debated endlessly.
An interesting question is whether there is an explicit Constitutional or statutory ban against keeping your old office after becoming President. I'm not aware of anyone even trying it, but, for instance, could McCain be both Senator from AZ and President?
It would be impractical and he could never do both jobs well, but I'm curious as to whether it is explicitly illegal.
Article II of the Constitution lays out the only explicit rules for who can be President:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
I guess it might be legal for someone to retain both offices, but I don't know that it's ever been done.
From the Wall Street Journal, 2/12/08:
There is a long history of senators and their White House ambitions. Lyndon Johnson benefited from a law change that allowed him to run simultaneously for his Senate seat and the vice presidency in 1960. He won both. Lloyd Bentsen took advantage of that law in 1988 and to good effect since he and Michael Dukakis lost. Joe Lieberman made the same move in 2000, when he kept his Connecticut seat while losing the vice presidency.
OK, so now I'm getting somewhere:
Under state law, Lieberman would resign his Senate seat if he wins the vice presidency, and Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, a Republican, would appoint a successor who would serve until the next general election in 2002.
So Connecticut state law would have prevented Lieberman from holding both offices. And we can probably assume that similar statutes exist in most (or all) states.