Partisan

[g5000]

Washington Post headline, November 17, 2004:
Rice Is Named Secretary of State

Rice, who will be fourth in line of succession to the presidency, will be the first African American woman in the job.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Partisan?

On November 16, 2004, Bush nominated Rice to be Secretary of State. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85-13.

On November 8, 2014, President Barack Obama nominated Lynch for the position of U.S. Attorney General, On April 23, 2015, appointment was confirmed the a 56 to 43 vote

Condoleezza Rice s tenure as Secretary of State - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loretta Lynch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was that supposed to have relevance? The fact is that when Bush appointed the first black female SecState the headline didnt mention it at all. When Obama appointed the first black female AG the Post trumpeted the fact.
Bias anyone?

One of those had large bipartisan support. The other didn't.

One of those nominations was held up due to a strictly partisan matter.

The Washington Post can print what they want.

You're still failing to make a case of any kind. Both got confirmed. Bush's choice was confirmed overwhelmingly, because she was a good pick. Obama's choice had a slightly more lopsided vote. Because she is a poor choice. The fact that the vote was delayed on a procedural matter having nothing to do with her is irrelevant.

So I guess you think you've proven how bad a choice Clarence Thomas was.

You guess wrong.
Next.

So now you're retracting your claim that a close confirmation vote is proof of a bad nominee?

lol, that was easier than I thought it would be.

You are such a weak little man.

 

[The Rabbi]

Washington Post headline, November 17, 2004:
Rice Is Named Secretary of State

Rice, who will be fourth in line of succession to the presidency, will be the first African American woman in the job.

Fail. Total fail as well as a lie.
Here is the exact headline to first paragraph:
Rice Is Named Secretary of State
Powell Successor Must Be Confirmed by Senate

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01


President Bush named his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to succeed Colin L. Powell as secretary of state yesterday, turning to a confidante at a time when the White House is vowing to mend ties with Europe and put more energy into brokering Middle East peace.


You'd have to go way down in the story to find this factoid. Thanks for pointing out the bias in the Post.

 

[The Rabbi]

Was that supposed to have relevance? The fact is that when Bush appointed the first black female SecState the headline didnt mention it at all. When Obama appointed the first black female AG the Post trumpeted the fact.
Bias anyone?

One of those had large bipartisan support. The other didn't.

One of those nominations was held up due to a strictly partisan matter.

The Washington Post can print what they want.

You're still failing to make a case of any kind. Both got confirmed. Bush's choice was confirmed overwhelmingly, because she was a good pick. Obama's choice had a slightly more lopsided vote. Because she is a poor choice. The fact that the vote was delayed on a procedural matter having nothing to do with her is irrelevant.

So I guess you think you've proven how bad a choice Clarence Thomas was.

You guess wrong.
Next.

So now you're retracting your claim that a close confirmation vote is proof of a bad nominee?

lol, that was easier than I thought it would be.

You are such a weak little man.

I never made such a claim. You did. You are a fail fool arent you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Washington Post headline, November 17, 2004:
Rice Is Named Secretary of State

Rice, who will be fourth in line of succession to the presidency, will be the first African American woman in the job.

Funny, and you were just lecturing me on manufacturing bullshit. Whoops.

 

[g5000]

Washington Post Hails Confirmation of Loretta Lynch as "First Black Woman" to be AG;
Headlined Confirmation of First Black Woman to Be Secretary of State: "Condoleeza Rice Confirmed Amid Criticism"

The dipshit misspelled Condoleezza.

Here's the Washington Post headline from a month after the first headline I posted a moment ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37929-2005Jan26.htmlRice Is Confirmed Amid Criticism

I will bet you a milllllllion dollars I can find a WaPo headline about the criticism surrounding Lynch's confirmation.

Deal?

 

[g5000]

Washington Post headline, November 17, 2004:
Rice Is Named Secretary of State

Rice, who will be fourth in line of succession to the presidency, will be the first African American woman in the job.

Funny, and you were just lecturing me on manufacturing bullshit. Whoops.

Where have I manufactured bullshit? It's real, dumbass.

 

[Edgetho]

Well, that's just disappointing.

To think that a dimocrap would actually lie...... tsk-tsk

 

[NYcarbineer]

Partisan?

On November 16, 2004, Bush nominated Rice to be Secretary of State. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85-13.

On November 8, 2014, President Barack Obama nominated Lynch for the position of U.S. Attorney General, On April 23, 2015, appointment was confirmed the a 56 to 43 vote

Condoleezza Rice s tenure as Secretary of State - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loretta Lynch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was that supposed to have relevance? The fact is that when Bush appointed the first black female SecState the headline didnt mention it at all. When Obama appointed the first black female AG the Post trumpeted the fact.
Bias anyone?

One of those had large bipartisan support. The other didn't.

One of those nominations was held up due to a strictly partisan matter.

The Washington Post can print what they want.

You're still failing to make a case of any kind. Both got confirmed. Bush's choice was confirmed overwhelmingly, because she was a good pick. Obama's choice had a slightly more lopsided vote. Because she is a poor choice. The fact that the vote was delayed on a procedural matter having nothing to do with her is irrelevant.

A poor choice that was confirmed unanimously twice before by the Senate. It was delayed by historic proportions strictly due to partisan bickering.

Attorney General of the US is a different position. SHe is a woman with zero Washington experience. And we see how that generally works out. Holder had been Assistant AG so he had experience. He knew what he was doing. He is a criminal, but an effective one. This woman is from out in left field. She will be of the same caliber as John Eff Kerry, Jack Lew, adn the other nothing yes-men pub dupes Obama has appointed.

She was a US attorney, confirmed twice for chrissakes. Quit being such a retard.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, that's just disappointing.

To think that a dimocrap would actually lie...... tsk-tsk

It's what they do. All of them. They are lying scumbags. Dims are lying crap scumbags. All of them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Washington Post headline, November 17, 2004:
Rice Is Named Secretary of State

Rice, who will be fourth in line of succession to the presidency, will be the first African American woman in the job.

Funny, and you were just lecturing me on manufacturing bullshit. Whoops.

Where have I manufactured bullshit? It's real, dumbass.

Yes, real bullshit, dumbass.

 

[Edgetho]

The dipshit misspelled Condoleezza.

Here's the Washington Post headline from a month after the first headline I posted a moment ago: Rice Is Confirmed Amid Criticism

I will bet you a milllllllion dollars I can find a WaPo headline about the criticism surrounding Lynch's confirmation.

Deal?

Hey dipshit.

That is the exact headline I quoted in my OP.

You don't see the difference? Of course not.... What was I thinking

 

[g5000]

So what we have is a selective choice of headlines on the part of the OP to create a bogus impression that the WaPo did not mention Rice was the first black female SecState but "celebrated" Lynch being the first black female AG.

We were given the additional impression that the WaPo painted Rice's appointment as one that was criticized while Lynch's was not.

Politics explain delay in Loretta Lynch s confirmation - The Washington Post

 

[NYcarbineer]

Partisan?

On November 16, 2004, Bush nominated Rice to be Secretary of State. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85-13.

On November 8, 2014, President Barack Obama nominated Lynch for the position of U.S. Attorney General, On April 23, 2015, appointment was confirmed the a 56 to 43 vote

Condoleezza Rice s tenure as Secretary of State - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loretta Lynch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was that supposed to have relevance? The fact is that when Bush appointed the first black female SecState the headline didnt mention it at all. When Obama appointed the first black female AG the Post trumpeted the fact.
Bias anyone?

One of those had large bipartisan support. The other didn't.

One of those nominations was held up due to a strictly partisan matter.

The Washington Post can print what they want.

You're still failing to make a case of any kind. Both got confirmed. Bush's choice was confirmed overwhelmingly, because she was a good pick. Obama's choice had a slightly more lopsided vote. Because she is a poor choice. The fact that the vote was delayed on a procedural matter having nothing to do with her is irrelevant.

A poor choice that was confirmed unanimously twice before by the Senate. It was delayed by historic proportions strictly due to partisan bickering.

Attorney General of the US is a different position. SHe is a woman with zero Washington experience. And we see how that generally works out. Holder had been Assistant AG so he had experience. He knew what he was doing. He is a criminal, but an effective one. This woman is from out in left field. She will be of the same caliber as John Eff Kerry, Jack Lew, adn the other nothing yes-men pub dupes Obama has appointed.

You must have been livid over Bush's appointment of Alberto Gonzales then.

 

[Edgetho]

Well, that's just disappointing.

To think that a dimocrap would actually lie...... tsk-tsk

It's what they do. All of them. They are lying scumbags. Dims are lying crap scumbags. All of them.

I agree with you (I even checked the little box)

Just one thing...... NEVER capitalize ANYTHING to do with those scum.

NEVER use a capital D when referring to a dimocrap. They're not even worth that tiny, little bit of consideration.

even on their tombstones

Just put, 'dirtbag' and be done with it.

They really are that low

 

[The Rabbi]

Was that supposed to have relevance? The fact is that when Bush appointed the first black female SecState the headline didnt mention it at all. When Obama appointed the first black female AG the Post trumpeted the fact.
Bias anyone?

One of those had large bipartisan support. The other didn't.

One of those nominations was held up due to a strictly partisan matter.

The Washington Post can print what they want.

You're still failing to make a case of any kind. Both got confirmed. Bush's choice was confirmed overwhelmingly, because she was a good pick. Obama's choice had a slightly more lopsided vote. Because she is a poor choice. The fact that the vote was delayed on a procedural matter having nothing to do with her is irrelevant.

A poor choice that was confirmed unanimously twice before by the Senate. It was delayed by historic proportions strictly due to partisan bickering.

Attorney General of the US is a different position. SHe is a woman with zero Washington experience. And we see how that generally works out. Holder had been Assistant AG so he had experience. He knew what he was doing. He is a criminal, but an effective one. This woman is from out in left field. She will be of the same caliber as John Eff Kerry, Jack Lew, adn the other nothing yes-men pub dupes Obama has appointed.

She was a US attorney, confirmed twice for chrissakes. Quit being such a retard.

And? SHe has no Washington experience. She doesnt have strong ties to Obama either. She looks like somene put in a job with the expectation that she owes her career to Obama and will do anuthing for him.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what we have is a selective choice of headlines on the part of the OP to create a bogus impression that the WaPo did not mention Rice was the first black female SecState but "celebrated" Lynch being the first black female AG.

We were given the additional impression that the WaPo painted Rice's appointment as one that was criticized while Lynch's was not.

Politics explain delay in Loretta Lynch s confirmation - The Washington Post

All of that is true. The headline for Lynch heralded her race, the one for Rice did not. How hard is that to udnerstand?

 

[The Rabbi]

Was that supposed to have relevance? The fact is that when Bush appointed the first black female SecState the headline didnt mention it at all. When Obama appointed the first black female AG the Post trumpeted the fact.
Bias anyone?

One of those had large bipartisan support. The other didn't.

One of those nominations was held up due to a strictly partisan matter.

The Washington Post can print what they want.

You're still failing to make a case of any kind. Both got confirmed. Bush's choice was confirmed overwhelmingly, because she was a good pick. Obama's choice had a slightly more lopsided vote. Because she is a poor choice. The fact that the vote was delayed on a procedural matter having nothing to do with her is irrelevant.

A poor choice that was confirmed unanimously twice before by the Senate. It was delayed by historic proportions strictly due to partisan bickering.

Attorney General of the US is a different position. SHe is a woman with zero Washington experience. And we see how that generally works out. Holder had been Assistant AG so he had experience. He knew what he was doing. He is a criminal, but an effective one. This woman is from out in left field. She will be of the same caliber as John Eff Kerry, Jack Lew, adn the other nothing yes-men pub dupes Obama has appointed.

You must have been livid over Bush's appointment of Alberto Gonzales then.

Gonzales had been a judge, do-do. But keep digging.

 

[g5000]

The dipshit misspelled Condoleezza.

Here's the Washington Post headline from a month after the first headline I posted a moment ago: Rice Is Confirmed Amid Criticism

I will bet you a milllllllion dollars I can find a WaPo headline about the criticism surrounding Lynch's confirmation.

Deal?

Hey dipshit.

That is the exact headline I quoted in my OP.

Nope. The headline you quoted was ""Condoleeza Rice Confirmed Amid Criticism"

The dead giveaway was the misspelling of her first name. I provided the exact headline.

You don't see the difference? Of course not.... What was I thinking

The whole point is that when Rice was first appointed, the WaPo headline was a simple "Rice Is Named Secretary of State".

The implication of your OP was that WaPo never mentioned that Lynch's appointment faced criticism but that Rice's was, which is total bullshit. WaPo had plenty of stories about the criticisms of Lynch's appointment.

So, ironically, in a topic about partisanship, you used very selective headlines to paint a false picture.

Politics explain delay in Loretta Lynch s confirmation - The Washington Post

Is WaPo biased? Certainly. Biased to the left. Common knowledge.

 

[g5000]

So what we have is a selective choice of headlines on the part of the OP to create a bogus impression that the WaPo did not mention Rice was the first black female SecState but "celebrated" Lynch being the first black female AG.

We were given the additional impression that the WaPo painted Rice's appointment as one that was criticized while Lynch's was not.

Politics explain delay in Loretta Lynch s confirmation - The Washington Post

All of that is true. The headline for Lynch heralded her race, the one for Rice did not. How hard is that to udnerstand?

May I see that headline, please?