Bias? What Bias?

Here's coverage from two stories about a bill that recently passed Congress that Obama is planning to veto - check that - he's going to chickenshit veto ... er... pocket veto.

First, from the Washington Post:

President Obama stepped into a growing political furor over the nation's troubled foreclosure system Thursday by vetoing a little-known bill that critics say would have made it easier to evict homeowners who missed their payments.

Critics first. Always critics first. But what does the bill actually purport to to? What does the author of the bill say its intent was?

The decision to block the measure, which Congress passed without debate, came as members of the president's own party have urged the administration and federal regulators to more actively address the crisis over flawed foreclosures.

But Democrats were trying to figure out Thursday how they allowed a bill to pass that critics say would introduce more fraud into the system, a Pelosi staff member said. It was sponsored by Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.), the first measure he sponsored that passed.

Even he was surprised that it passed, his spokesman said.

"There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between [the bill] and the recent foreclosure documentation problems," Aderholt said in a statement.

The vetoed bill, which is two pages, would have required local courts to accept notarizations, including those made electronically, from across state lines. Its sponsors said it was intended to promote interstate commerce. Lawmakers saw no problems when the House approved it in April by a voice vote, which leaves no record of votes. The Senate passed the bill unanimously last week.

That's it? That's all the author of the bill had to say? Meanwhile, there's another citation from "critics," this time from a Nancy Pelosi staffer? Jesus, help me. My head...

Let's look in the New York Post:

President Barack Obama will veto a bill that could have helped banks continue to kick mortgage holders from their homes even if notaries public were thousands of miles away from the executives signing off on foreclosure documents -- and clearly unable to see if those legal documents were fake.

The bill had proceeded stealthily through Congress, being passed by the House in April and by the Senate, without debate, on Sept. 27.

Nice language; "kick mortgage holders from their homes" and "the bill stealthily proceeded through Congress."

I'm not sure which is worse - that Congress is making a habit of passing bills - and apparently bills even just two pages long - without reading them and then act surprised when they pass unanimously or that the coverage of even such a mundane issue as this is full of bias?

So who's the biggest ass-clowns: Congress or newspaper writers? The Answer is yes.

But then there's this, from the Chicago Sun-Times, of all places:

The White House announced Thursday that President Obama is sending a newly passed bill back to Congress for revisions because of concerns that it would make ongoing foreclosure-document problems worse. The bill would have loosened requirements for providing a notary's seal on foreclosure documents.

Mounting evidence has surfaced that mortgage lenders have been evicting homeowners using flawed court papers. State and federal officials have been ramping up pressure on the mortgage industry over concerns about potential legal violations.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama wants Congress to fix the bill because the current version has "unintended consequences on consumer protections." The bill would loosen the process for providing a notary's seal to documents and allow them to be done electronically.

Obama will not sign a bill that would allow foreclosure and other documents to be accepted among multiple states. Consumer advocates and state officials had argued the legislation would make it difficult for homeowners to challenge foreclosure documents prepared in other states.

Ah, like a breath of fresh air a perfectly concise, well written and bullshit-free story parts through the crowd. This is journalism. It's informative. It's concise and it actually informs you what the bill actually does, and in the first paragraph, no less. So congratulations to Sandra Guy at the Sun-Times. You pass where all the rest of your seething propagandist colleagues FAIL.