Who's Dumber: Washington Beltway Media Commentators or Matt Drudge?

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read a report from www.mediamatters.org outlining the "reputable" media commentators who repeated Matt Drudge's line about how Bush firing eight U.S. Attorneys was similar to Janet Reno firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys when Bill Clinton took office. To make this comparison you have to ignore the following facts:

1. Clinton's actions were at the start of his first term, Bush's actions were in the middle of his second term;

2. Clinton got rid of U.S. Attorneys appointed by a Republican President, Bush got rid of U.S. Attorneys appointed by himself; and

3. It is customary for an incoming administration to get rid of a prior administration's U.S. Attorneys, even when the incoming administration is of the same political party as George H.W. Bush did in 1989 when he took over from Reagan, it is unprecedented to can your own appointees.

Now such lack of analytical ability is not surprising coming from Matt Drudge. Drudge is a political hack, a partisan Republican hatchet-man who doesn't pretend to be a reputable journalist. The media commentators quoted in the article by Media Matters, however, are a whole another story, especially Mara Liasson from N.P.R. Are we supposed to be contributing to NPR stations like WKSU and WCPN so N.P.R. can hire idiots like Liasson? Oh, and by the way, the answer to the question in this entry's title is Washington Beltway Media Commentators. They actually think they are "objective."