Great stuff!! This is why we have to explain things to the leftist with blunt objects sometimes. Their heads are so thick!

I don't know of one single person whom has saved one red cent with this new program and I know many seniors. They have all had to pay more. My mother whom is on a very limited income, now has to pay $7.50 more a month. My friends mother's went up over $75.00 more. Congratulations to all you drug companies!

Wait a second. I'm getting my "MSM" outlets confused now. Is TIME Magazine still part of that?

You guys linked to the NYT a few weeks back. How about them?

Or has the media-bias schtick begun to lose its luster for you guys?

I dunno, Matt; I heard the CBC on C-Span, doing thier normal piss-and-moan routine over the Medicare prescription program. You know how the country embraces everything that Chuckie Rangel, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones say.

This is yet another reason for the base to turn out in November...

"This is yet another reason for the base to turn out in November..."

Keefer you base has dipped below freezing temperatures - maybe all 31% of you guys will show up.

Oh, November is gonna be so sweet ...

mf,

Even a dimwit such as yourself knows that even the drive-by media gets it right sometimes. TIME finally gave up trying to hide the facts about the Medicare prescription, and published an honest story for once.

The DBM is still biased--as biased as you are blind...

Oh, November is gonna be so sweet ...

I couldn't agree more...

After the Medicaid drug package was passed, but before it started to be enacted, does anyone remember what the big controversy about it was? Has that changed -- or has the problems with its unveiling simply clouded them over? This is one bill that I just do not understand how any true conservative can support. This is pork barrel politics at its finest -- it would be so even if it was implemented perfectly from the start. I guess the take-home message here is... if you're gonna screw up, screw up royally at the start -- so if you eventually manage to pull it off you'll end up smelling like roses.

Okay, let me get more specific...

Question 1: What barriers are in place to prevent the various plans from adjusting the price of drugs after they get people enrolled?

Question 2: If a given plan in which you have enrolled changes the price of the drug(s) you rely on, what recourse do you have?

Question 3: The government is paying for a significant portion of the cost of said drugs. What recourse does the government have in pressuring the plans to provide the drugs at a given price?

The bottom line is, if the Demublicans had come up with this plan the Republicrats would be screaming bloody murder.

For those Republicrats out there, if you were really serious about maintaining a majority in Congress in 2006, you should have invested in pharmaceutical industry stock as soon as the bill hit the floor.

Keefer you base has dipped below freezing temperatures - maybe all 31% of you guys will show up

maf, Congressional Democrats, from several pols I've read in the last 30 days, are in the mid 20's -- makes 31% look pretty good by comparison. Only 180 days left to see who's right. All Republicans have to do to bring their numbers back up is act like we expected them to act all along. Donks, OTOH, are going to have to lie about who they are and what they stand for to have a prayer of getting anyone but the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan wing of the party to vote for them.

Right you are, Spook. Also, the borders are very important...

"drive-by media"

Could someone explain to me what this means? Is it like MSM, only you've worn that one's sad rump out?
What gives?

Ash,

I'm not too savvy about some of the lingo that goes around nowadays, but I believe that when people call it the "drive-by media," they are referring to the media's tendency to discuss a harmony-threatening topic and make it appear as negative as possible until the actual facts come out and they have to go to the next big "scandal" story. The perception that the media frequently changes what "problem" to focus on in general on a regular basis entitles them to the honor of being named the "drive-by media."

Most people use the term to display the belief that the media is more often likely to focus on myths about Republican corruption while completely lacking any coverage of similar problems on the other side of the isle. The belief that most of these reports are, within a matter of time, proven to be false lends to the theory.

"drive-by media"

Ash, to the best of my knowledge the term originated on the Rush Limbaugh Show. I think Rush was comparing the lack of in depth and truthful reporting by the MSM to a "drive-by" shooting, and the term sort of stuck.

Anyone have a different take?

Omega, our posts overlapped. I think your explanation is probably a lot more accurate than mine, although I think it did originate on Rush's show.

Spook,

Well, I'm not completely sure that my reasoning is correct, but that's what I think when I read it.

As for those of you who are saying that any accurate news presented by an alleged MSM/drive-by media source immediately disproves the media corruption theory, I'm afraid things aren't that simple. As keefer said, even the news manages to get things right sometimes, or they've given up on the "medicare is bad" front after reviewing their losses (the polls). Plus, if all their doing is throwing out an issue that is unpopular, it's a double bonus. First, they don't have to keep up their efforts of disruption on one of the fronts. Second, they can release the good news and attempt to discredit any implications of partisanship in the magazine. But that doesn't mean they're actually not partisan.

It's like a game of chess. The issues are the board, journalistic reportage are the pieces, and the victor wins the trust of the population. In order for the media to win, it must sometimes sacrifice a pawn (the Medicare issue) to lure the opponent into thinking he has won. When he has taken the bate, the media can then head straight to the opponent's weak points, capture the king, and win the trust of people once more. With the trust, the media can mold the population's thoughts to fit their agenda.

In Rush Limbaugh's April, 2006 edition of the Limbaugh Letter, Rush clarifies why he came up with the term "drive-by media." And his explanation is so telling and on the money:

"...Their relentless negativism and paranoia and bad-new-only is why I call them 'the drive-by media'. Their has been an effort to destroy President Bush personally as well as his policies. They, in the drive-by media, will say anthing, allege anything, sound-bite anything to accomplish their ends.

They are exactly like drive-by shooters. They pull up to a congested area, and spray a hail of bullets into the crowd. It causes mass hysteria, confusion, and misinterpretation, and sometimes careers are actually killed and lives destroyed. Then the drive-by media smirks and rides away, unnoticed in the mayhem.

They're never blamed, they're never held accountable. In fact, they are lauded, they're held up as heroes - mostly by themselves. The rest of us have to mop up the mess. Meanwhile, they're flying down the highway, with the top down, laughing and looking for their next group of victims."

-Rush Limbaugh

It's left up to those of us here on this blogsite, among other places, to come forth with the real facts behind their reporting, and clear the air - even as the drive-by media is shooting again a block or so away...

Could I ask a question? Actually let me ask two:

1. How many investigative reporters can you name that are affiliated with what you consider the lefty MSM?

2. How many investigative reporters can you name that are affiliated with what you consider the righty MSM -- or any righty news affiliate, for that matter?

I'm not talking pundits who sit in a studio somewhere. I'm talking investigative reporters -- people that actually go out and seek out stories all around the world.

I'm guessing there's going to be a huge discrepancy in favor of question 1. Why is that?

For at least 25 years now, at least since the middle of the Reagan administration, we've heard how the MSM is hopelessly biased to the left. Okay, so let's assume that's true. Over that same 25+ year span we've seen a significant consolidation in ownership of major MSM outlets, from something like 130 relatively small, independent companies to something like 10 very big companies. And yet the accusation remains the same. Not only that, but we hear -- 25+ years hence -- that the MSM remains so incredibly powerful that they can shape political opinion so thoroughly as to still make the Bush administration jump through hoops.

What's wrong with that picture? Can anyone answer that in some kind of logical fashion? If the left wing bias charge is true, then it has to follow that the rightie power brokers are incredibly dumb. After identifying the supposed problem, how could they continue to let this happen for 25+ years? That makes no sense. I mean heck, in half that time -- since 1994 -- the righties have managed to completely transform Washington. Okay, in my opinion they went from transforming it from something I thought was a very good, very needed thing into something I am increasingly ashamed of. But that's just me. The fact is, they transformed it. Completely. Washington, the epicenter of power. So... what's the deal with the MSM? Were they not paying attention or something? How can such smart people be so dumb? Give me a freakin' break.

Over the lifetime of this blog, Matt and Mark have identified something like, what, 20 examples of leftie bias in the MSM. I'm sure if they put their mind to it they could come up with many more. But at the same time, in any given week Mediamatters.org comes up with many more examples of how the MSM is biased to the right. Do I believe either one? No. IMHO, the problem with the MSM is it's increasingly superficial. It just amazes me how much time FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, and all the others, spend on fluff. Okay, apparently people want to know what happens to Michael Jackson, or Laci Peterson, or Kobe Bryant, or Natalee Holloway, but come on. Doesn't that tell you something?

Let me address one of your thoughts Ricorun: the problem with the MSM is that they are superficial. As someone who was employed in what has been called mainstream media I may have a unique perspective to answer this.

The MSM has become first and foremost a moneymaking corporation. There have been mergers and consolidations. Newspapers are no longer owned by families (mine was Pulitzer) or others with a real interest in the news. They are operated now to maximize shareholders accounts. You may be suprised to learn that newspapers actually make a lot of money.

At any rate the transfer of news gathering organizations to corporate interests has resulted in "drive by" or shallow news reporting. What do you think the first thing new owners want to do when they take over a new paper? You are right if you said cut the editorial staff. I won't cry on your shoulder about my 20 years as a respected photojournalist who was layed off by a new owner because I had earned a salary level fairly based on my long time performance.

So fewer editorial reporters. More stories to cover by those left. Less time spent on stories. And then you wonder why there are mistakes made? Why the news is often superficial?

So, little blame can be lain on the front line "grunts" in the newsroom. (For every Dan Rather, there are thousands of us doing the real news gathering and grunt work} Blame it on poor business descisions. Blame it on reductions that see only the bottom line first and then news content. And most of all blame it on interpretations and changes in the law that has allowed the consolidation of the profession.

Matt,

How come you like "socialist" ideas when it's administered poorly and pads the pockets of insurance and pharmacutical executives?

I'm confused, I thought you hate that stuff?

"How come you like "socialist" ideas when it's administered poorly and pads the pockets of insurance and pharmacutical executives?"

Because it's a 'Bush' idea so it must be supported regardless of whether it's a good idea or not.