Michelle Bachmann on the $20 billion fund:

"They shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest — they've got to be legitimate claims. 'The other thing we have to remember is that Obama loves to make evil whatever company it is that he wants to get more power from. He makes them evil, and what we've got to ask ourselves is: Do we really want to be paying $9 for a gallon of gas? Because that could be the final result of this.' "

She even went on to say that it was a "redistribution of wealth fund".

So this thing, which is the free market run hideously awry, with cost-cutting - the cornerstone of Republican economics - causing man-made ecological destruction heretofore unseen in America, which is nothing like a hurricane destroying a major American city, which lead to the government, after doing nothing, finally sending in troops to round up locals and torture them. Yeah, same thing. (by the by - read Zeitoun. Good lord that book will swallow your soul...)

But somehow, despite being all for the free market, somehow, despite the arguement being that free market is always better than government (what, was everyone not paying attention during the Health Care Yellings?) somehow now, Obama is supposed to use his messiah superpowers and fly under water and use science (another thing Republicans fear and hate, but what's more hypocracy at this point?) to magically fix it and make the oil go back into their SUVs where it belongs.

Like... I get that America is a half-step away from Idiocracy, and that people are taking this bullshit soap opera seriously, but for the few of us left in America who have any brain function left, this is one of those tragically funny moments where we don't know if we should laugh or cry. Laugh at the foolishness of our dumbshit citizenry, or cry for our futures.

A pretty fair and balanced, if I'm allowed to use that phrase in the correct way rather than how Faux News has co-opted it, look at the critical reaction of the media to the oil spill and Obama's speech this week.  From today's LA Times:

On the media: Cable and network news contribute to spew criticism about gulf oil spill

It's a good article, Matt.  Thank you for posting.  I do, however, think that Mr. Rainey should have focused entirely on cable news, and not even touched on the print media.  Because as the article stands, his very brief mentioning of the print media gives the impression that he may be trying to minimize the devistating reception the speech has suffered on the printed page.

I do, on the other hand, realize in the context of the article, the mention of print media was meant only to provide a foil for cable news, but the flaw in that approach is that the most withering response has come in the form of body blows from the print media.  It may not be as spectacular as the head shots the President is getting from cable news, but those body blows are relentless and protracted, and they're comming from every direction.  I've never seen anything like it. 

Depends on what print media you're reading.  The LA Times proper, as opposed to it's op-ed section, appears to be treating the issue fairly.  As the article states, and an opinion I agree with:

"Anyone seeking safe and sane analysis of what's happened in the gulf, and the president's response, would be better off reading print news coverage. The print media haven't been easy on the president, but they have been detailed and precise."

The key words there are "detailed" and "precise", two words that I don't believe can be applied to either side of the debate where Faux News and MSNBC are concerned but can be applied to the best of the print media, to which I think Rainey is addressing.

Now if you're talking about Op-Ed, then that's a totally different thing altogether.  The two, news reporting and Op-Ed, should be separate and distinct, but that line has become blurred in many a print publication such that they're emulating the cable format in order to gain more readers.