I know, I know, this is probably about as surprising as the existence of gambling in Las Vegas, but the completely blatant nature of it still surprised me.
First, let's start with the title: "Bush plays it smart on Social Security". Wow, that sure sounds fair and balanced, doesn't it?
More in extended.
Let's move on to the first question.
MSNBC: Tim, it's starting to sound like Mr. Bush is going to have to spend a lot more of his political capital to get anyone to budge on Social Security. He's got a lot of Republicans to win over, as well as a lot of Democrats.
Russert: He sure does. The Democrats are really divided. Forty-four of them sent a letter to the president saying there's no way that they're going to go for private accounts. You only need 40 to filibuster an idea like that. But there are at least six or seven Republicans that have expressed concern.
So we're "divided" on this issue? Sure sounds like the exact opposite to me!
OK, maybe the second question will be better.
MSNBC: It seems as if, politically, he's purposely avoiding providing specifics for a fix, so opponents can't demagogue any one particular plan.
My, this interview doesn't seem to be going very well for us "demogogues". Obviously, we have a nasty, sinister, ulterior motive when we dare to ask for specifics on a life-changing plan that will affect so many aspects of our country and society.
The rest of the interview focuses on Iran, and aside from some Condi ass-kissing, isn't quite as egregious. But the stuff on social security...could the MSM's bias be any more obvious?
I'm wondering when MSNBC will bring on Jeff Gannon as a full-time correspondent?
Full article available here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5961048/
To voice your displeasure to MSNBC, e-mail:
letters@msnbc.com
To contact Meet the Press, e-mail:
mtp@nbc.com
DTH