Awww – Poor Star Tribne! Did you ever wonder why the Strib is bankruptcy court? Could it be: “Pandering to the Right Wing means lower sales?” Now here’s a newspaper that has diminished itself into obscurity while doing it willingly – with eyes wide open.
In today’s Editorial Page, the Star Tribune’s “Letter of the Day” was written by Senator Norm Coleman’s former Press Secretary, Andy Brehm. Now it’s the content of that letter that I want to look at, but it’s ironic that the Star Tribune seems to be in the habit of publishing Mr. Brehm’s letters whenever he pleases! For example; in Jan 11, 2008 – the Star Tribune highlighted Andy Brehm’s work titled Republicans Must Retrun to their Reagan Roots.
Q: “Why would any “liberal” newspaper bother publishing anything from a Republican in the first place?!”
A: “Because the Star Tribune is nothing but a tool-job for the Republican propaganda machine!”
On April 13, 2008 – Andy gets highlighted again on a piece titled; “Actually, We’d do just fine without Earmarks“. OH!! And let’s not forget January 2006 when the Star Tribune published Andy Brehm’s piece “Replace the Dome or Lose Twins“. And then there was that time on Februrary 2007 when the Star Tribune printed Andy Brehm’s letter – Wait…Lemme get it – Oh! Here it is! Filed by those Communist Sinners over at Lberal Elite blog titled: “Hack Alert: Andy Brehm“. Even Michael Brodkorb, Minnesota’s favorite GOP hack, crows about the Star Tribune’s love of publishing Right Wing Nutjobs’ letters in their Editorial Pages.
When the Star Tribune says Andy Brehm is a student at the U of MN Law Center, can we safely assume that the Strib is actively involved in helping Brehm with his homework too? (Please don’t tell the Strib Editorial staff that Mr. Brehm is no longer a “student” – with his current employer being an associate over at Dorsey & Whitney LLP.) Is it any wonder that Andy Brehm’s Facebook page lists the Minneapolis Star Tribune has one of his favorite “Products”? The Star Tribune’s over-exposure would garnish him a far better pay-grade than he’s worth?!
Today is nothing new in this “news” paper. Andy Brehm gets published as the Star Tribune’s “Darling of the Day” with this piece of garbage:
In his Tuesday night news conference, President Obama responded to questions about the colossal impact his budget will have on the federal debt the same way he always does: remind Americans that he inherited the current budget shortfall and that some Republicans critical of his deficit spending advocated in favor of President Bush’s. We’ve heard this again and again, and we get it, Mr. Obama. The previous administration was not particularly conservative when it came to fiscal matters, and recovering big spenders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are not ideal spokesmen for the GOP on this one. I think most Republicans would agree. I certainly do.
But this is 2009, not 2008. Obama is no longer a candidate, he is the president. His insistence on arrogantly brushing aside serious and legitimate questions about his ballooned budget with political potshots is irresponsible at best, and cowardly at worst. The truth of the matter is that under the president’s proposed budget plan the national debt would more than double over the next decade, adding $9.3 trillion in red ink to Washington’s balance sheets by 2019. In fact, Obama’s budget would create more federal debt than that produced by all of his 43 presidential predecessors, combined. No commander in chief in American history has proposed doing this much damage to the national bottom line.
It’s clear that Obama, who seems to embrace liberal European-style economic initiatives, wishes to take this country in a drastically different direction. I’m not a sore loser; he won the election in November and has every right to pursue an agenda of his choosing. But he also owes those of us deeply concerned with his feckless fiscal policies a better explanation than simply pointing to the past. Younger citizens like me who will have to pay for the White House’s proposed short-term spending spree throughout our lifetimes deserve more details and less demagoguery.
Can you smell the hypocracy from across town?
He’s got all of the sexy buzzwords embedded into the piece too: “liberal”, “European-style economic initiatives”, “ballooned budget”, and “deficit spending”. Why, it seems that the Star Tribune would once again – give Law Student Andy Brehm an A-Plus and three gold stars!
On October 6, 2006, Senator John McCain, who was the GOP’s Presidential hopeful at the time, blamed President Clinton for North Korea’s sub-mountain nuclear explosion. McCain said:
I would remind Senator Clinton and other Democrats critical of Bush administration policies that the framework agreement her husband’s administration negotiated [with North Korea] was a failure. Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something—not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor—they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.
To Diane Sawyer of ABC News, McCain threw the Clintons under the bus with:
“Having said that, during the Clinton administration years, here we concluded an unenforceable and untransparent agreement, which allowed [North Korea] to keep plutonium rods in a reactor … in order to make them nuclear material,” McCain said. “[His negotiations] would put them on the path to develop nuclear weapons. … And we did nothing but more talk.”
Fox Trash quoted McCain by saying:
“I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration’s policies that the framework agreement her husband’s administration negotiated was a failure,”
Fox Trash follows up with this little gem:
The agreement to which McCain referred was the 1994 U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework which called for the construction of two light water reactors in North Korea and the delivery of large quantities of heavy oil to help meet energy demand. In exchange, the North agreed to allow in U.N. inspectors
But the agreement collapsed in 2002 when North Korea decided to revive activity at a nuclear plant which had been frozen as part of the 1994 agreement. U.N. inspectors who had monitored the freeze were then expelled.
Oops… The agreement that was built between the Clinton Administration and North Korea collapsed under Bush’s watch – But Clinton deserves to get blamed anyway.
Let’s re-group for all of the GOP readers out there who are a little slow: The Clinton Administration has been gone for six years and the Republicans are still blaming him for the world’s problems, but Andy Brehm is bawling about the Obama Administration blaming Bush only two months after the Bush Administration is gone? And this my friends – wins the Star Tribune’s “Letter of the Day”!
Compare and Contrast: “Six Years” versus “Two Months”. Compare and Contrast…