Gay Patriot Header Image

Dana Milbank’s Beltway Bubble

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:18 pm - August 24, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Congressional Elections,2012 Presidential Election,Arrogance of the Liberal Elites,Media Bias,Misrepresenting the Right,Post 9-11 America

Earlier today, when I clicked on the Charles Krauthammer link atop Jennifer Rubin’s Washington Post blog, instead of getting that sage conservative pundit’s original insight into the events of the day, I got Dana Milbank’s stale repetition of conventional wisdom. (Maybe the Post editors set it up that way because otherwise no conservatives would read Milbank.)

Contending that when “Todd Akin sneezes, Paul Ryan catches a cold“, Milbank offers

The Republicans’ soon-to-be nominee for vice president is supposed to be delivering a message about jobs and the economy, but he’s finding he cannot escape his longtime House colleague, now a national pariah for his exotic views on rape.

Well, perhaps for Beltway denizens like yourself, Dana — and for Democratic partisans, but most Americans will evaluate Mr. Ryan not by words he has deemed “outrageous”, but by the way he carries himself next week at the Republican convention and in the coming months on the campaign trail.

The only reason anyone is connecting Ryan to Akin is because left-leaning pundits and Democratic partisans are dwelling on the issue.  I mean, come on, Dana, who’s asking these questions?  Who’s making this a story?

It ain’t undecided voters in Ohio, Florida and Virginia; it’s self-satisfied pundits in Washington, D.C.

Oh, and by the notion, about the notion circulating among such pundits about Ryan trying to “restrict the definition of rape,” well, that’s based on false New York Times report.  The Times reporters failed “to to provide very basic context about the bill Ryan cosponsored”:

Writing that Ryan cosponsored a bill that “aimed to restrict the definition of rape” leaves readers with the impression that Ryan cosponsored a bill primarily aimed at changing the definition of rape. Did the bill try to reduce the punishment for rapists? Did it exclude “date-rape” from the definition of rape? The Times leaves readers wondering.

In fact, the bill had nothing to do with altering the criminal code. It dealt only with the issue of prohibiting the use of federal tax dollars to pay for abortions. From 1981 to 1993, the Hyde amendment only allowed federal funding of abortions for Medicaid recipients when the mother’s life was endangered.

Read the whole thing.

Share

4 Comments

  1. Yeah, well, Dana Milbank doesn’t really care about rape, or abortion, or honesty, or anything except helping The One stay in power.

    Comment by V the K — August 24, 2012 @ 8:31 pm - August 24, 2012

  2. Ditching fuctards like Akin is one of the reasons we’re better than the Democrats.

    Akin believes in rape faeries, he’s out. Bill Clinton committed rape and he’s their keynote speaker… because we’re better than they are.

    We ditched Mark Foley for sending creeper txts. The Democrats re-elected boy-rapist Gerry Studds 9 times.

    We’re better.

    We sent Duke Cunningham to the cold stony. Charlie Rangel remains in power.

    We’re better.

    Ted Kennedy iced a woman and was re-elected six times.

    We’re better than that. Let’s keep it that way.

    Comment by V the K — August 24, 2012 @ 8:47 pm - August 24, 2012

  3. Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds’s case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. The relationship was consensual, but violated age of consent laws and presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates …

    As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody’s business but their own …

    Studds was re-elected five more terms after the censure. He fought for many issues, including environmental and maritime issues, gay marriage, AIDS funding, and civil rights, particularly for homosexuals …

    Crane was defeated for re-election in 1984 and returned to dentistry …

    Studds died on October 14, 2006 in Boston, at age 69, several days after suffering a pulmonary embolism. Due to the federal ban on same-sex marriage, [his partner] was not eligible, upon Studds’ death, to receive the pension provided to surviving spouses of former members of Congress.

    Had Cunningham declined to resign, his role in Congress would have been very limited, as House rules do not allow members convicted of felonies to vote or participate in committee work pending an investigation by the Ethics Committee. It is very likely that he would have been expelled from the House, as happened with Democrat James Traficant three years earlier.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 24, 2012 @ 10:09 pm - August 24, 2012

  4. In 1997, [Juanita] Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones’ lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: “During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies… These allegations are untrue ….”In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC” …

    The affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 24, 2012 @ 10:14 pm - August 24, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.