Coining a New Term: First There Was the MSM Now There Is the MSBS - Part 2
Coining a New Term: First There Was the MSM Now There Is the MSBS - Part 2
I had recently posted my disgust with the slowness of some of the “heavies” in the blogosphere even to MENTION the Port Gate (Michael Savage’s term) controversy.
In particularly, I singled out uber-blogger Hugh Hewitt by name, saying that – even if he did support the deal – he should say and explain his reasons for doing to his vast readership.
Well, since that time – and to his credit – Mr. Hewitt has addressed the Port Gate issue in several posts, including this one. As I expected, he did not come out AGAINST it with “guns blazing.”
However, Mr. Hewitt DID come out (conditionally) against the proposed ports deal with this qualification: Until the Administration can adequately answer security concerns surrounding the deal.
Mr. Hewitt has also had at least one (Mr. Kaplan) pro-Port Gate guest on his radio show.
I will not be surprised if Mr. Hewitt will, in the end, be persuaded to support the deal.
Admittedly, Mr. Hewitt has discovered some interesting (and impressive) people who support the deal, to include the already-mentioned Robert Kaplan, Austin Bay, Mark Steyn, and Jack Kelly.
Additionally, since I published my critique of the MSBS for their silence on the Port Gate issue, the Real Clear Politics site has given the story a good deal more exposure.
The point remains, however, that it fell to a significant few to get this story out of the shadows. Significantly, that small group includes international security expert, Frank Gaffney; Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY); radio talk show host, Michael Savage; and Pajamas Media-member bloggers Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson of littlegreenfootballs – to all of whom my hat is off for doing the dirty work of Semper Paratus for the rest of us!
If these few had not done their job, the deal might have gone through – both unnoticed and undiscussed.
Now, at least, we still have a prayer of a chance of stopping this tragic deal.
I had recently posted my disgust with the slowness of some of the “heavies” in the blogosphere even to MENTION the Port Gate (Michael Savage’s term) controversy.
In particularly, I singled out uber-blogger Hugh Hewitt by name, saying that – even if he did support the deal – he should say and explain his reasons for doing to his vast readership.
Well, since that time – and to his credit – Mr. Hewitt has addressed the Port Gate issue in several posts, including this one. As I expected, he did not come out AGAINST it with “guns blazing.”
However, Mr. Hewitt DID come out (conditionally) against the proposed ports deal with this qualification: Until the Administration can adequately answer security concerns surrounding the deal.
Mr. Hewitt has also had at least one (Mr. Kaplan) pro-Port Gate guest on his radio show.
I will not be surprised if Mr. Hewitt will, in the end, be persuaded to support the deal.
Admittedly, Mr. Hewitt has discovered some interesting (and impressive) people who support the deal, to include the already-mentioned Robert Kaplan, Austin Bay, Mark Steyn, and Jack Kelly.
Additionally, since I published my critique of the MSBS for their silence on the Port Gate issue, the Real Clear Politics site has given the story a good deal more exposure.
The point remains, however, that it fell to a significant few to get this story out of the shadows. Significantly, that small group includes international security expert, Frank Gaffney; Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY); radio talk show host, Michael Savage; and Pajamas Media-member bloggers Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson of littlegreenfootballs – to all of whom my hat is off for doing the dirty work of Semper Paratus for the rest of us!
If these few had not done their job, the deal might have gone through – both unnoticed and undiscussed.
Now, at least, we still have a prayer of a chance of stopping this tragic deal.
posted by GunJam at 10:03 AM
2 Comments:
"Now, at least, we still have a prayer of a chance of stopping this tragic deal."
From my *Forum*:
American Conservative Forums - "Adviser Says White House Set on Ports Deal"
And MY response:
"And Bush seems to think that the Congress and Senate, and the American people, don't NEED to look at this, just TRUST him, and that is BULL SHIT... It may turn out to be a good deal but don't SHOVE it on us... Present it, sell it, make it feasible, but don't serve shit sandwiches and try to make people believe it's peanut butter..."
hi, texas fred! Great comment! I second the motion (as well as the Emotion!). Eloquently put that: "shit sandwiches!"
Post a Comment
<< Home