Joe Gandelman is so biased against any views from the right that he excuses excesses on the left, which occur daily in the blogosphere and very often in the printed press, though he's probably right that no US publication called for violence against Bush's person.

No.
What the absence of a previous comment by this reader actually indicates is that some comment threads pollute the waters to te point that others hesitate to get into the sludge with them.

Assasination is never a joke. Neither is someone's illness or funeral.
Some people are repelled by ghoulish tendencies, even when the target is their worst political enemy.

Any newspaper editorial writer who got that into their newspaper at the last minute would be a)investigated by the Secret Service (and rightfully so) b)fired (and rightly fully so) and c)never work again on a major newspaper (and rigfhtfully so).

Any publisher of a newspaper chain that allowed that in the newspaper would be fired by their corporate office and wind up selling hot dogs at a football stadium.

YEs, this IS typical of the tit for tat game that goes on with partisans. It is reprehensible PERIOD whether a shock jock is suggesting he'd like to see Teddy Kennedy live long enough to be killed, or a veteran newswoman and journalism teacher who should know better makes a jokoe about Obama being killed. Anyone who called for removal of Bush by violence needs to face serious consquences.

So NO. Newspaper editorials have NOT written the same kind of thing about Bush. This is not a matter of partisanship. It's a matter of common sense and humanity. The tit for tat game is rationalization.

If I'm wrong, kindly leave a comment with links so we can see what major newspapers have suggested the same kind of thing about Bush's term. I don't mean the Podunk Daily Journal.

But send us the links so we can see all the major newspapers that have called form something just like with Bush. Not editorials that say they don't agree with him or want him out of office.

TMV has several people with long journalism careers who write on it. They'll attest: anyhone who did that would be fired and a newspaper publisher of a chain who allowed it would be booted out of their own newspaper by the head office the same day.

NOT FACTUAL.

Now THAT line was funny!”

Well, I didn't say anything, but when there was some gushing a few days ago which was accompanied by the rhetorical question, where would Kennedy have taken us (Americans, the USA) if he had been elected in 1980 I was going to say,

“A swerve to the left off a bridge?”

Now THAT line was funny!

No I couldnt care less for tit-for-tat. I was commenting on the fact that it was done in major newspapers, as compared to by shock jocks as a contrast also. I'm commenting because many people here talk as if this is a whole phenomena created by people like Rupert Murdoch to get profit.

Besides the point that there are hundreds of bloggers on the Internet, not paid by any corporation, that say ridiculous things, when conservatives complain about institutional bias in newspapers—not having to do with any corporate influence—they're not wrong either.

Major newspaper editorialists might have a more erudite, informed style, but that doesn't mean they don't do the same things that you sometimes see in shock jocks.

I don't visit themoderatevoice enough, so I don't know if these Bush assassination editorials were well covered here.

Redfish, I hope your comment (however unsubstantiated) isn't intended to pass for some kind of tit-for-tat logic. Irresponsible behavior doesn't gain legitimacy based on frequency of use.

And not newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch?