"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
| This Week: |
Media quick to tout "good news" for Bush; ignore bad news
Last fall, we explained that President Bush's steadily falling approval rating elicited a strange response among many journalists: frequent -- and always wrong -- predictions that Bush had turned things around, or was just about to. As we noted at the time:
Should Bush's poll numbers eventually "rebound," we fully expect that Kristol, Blitzer, The Washington Times, et al, will say that they saw it coming all along -- and will pretend that their cheerleading had nothing to do with it.
Bush never did rebound. In fact, his approval ratings sank ever lower, all the way down to the low 30s. And it hasn't been a brief downturn; the highest approval rating Bush has registered in a Zogby poll since the beginning of 2004 -- two and a half years ago -- is 51 percent. Only twice during that time has as much as 50 percent of the public approved of Bush's handling of his job. In the past 12 months, he's hit 45 percent only twice. It's been a full three years since he's seen an approval rating above 53 percent. Other polls tell the same basic story: Bush is very unpopular, and has been unpopular for a long time. It's been 11 months since a Pew poll found more than 40 percent approval for Bush, a year and a half since he was over 50 percent. Fox News hasn't had him above 50 percent since the beginning of 2005 or above 53 since the beginning of 2004.
And while journalists are quick to point out that other presidents have experienced low approval ratings, Bush's are quite different. Bill Clinton, for example, was below 40 percent in a Gallup poll only three times -- once at 37 and three times at 39. The longest period when Clinton's approval was below 40? About a month. And Bush? Bush has been below 40 in every Gallup poll since the beginning of February. More than four months. He spent two straight months below 37 -- two months lower than the lowest approval Gallup ever recorded for Clinton.
Bush, in other words, is stunningly, historically, breathtakingly -- and enduringly -- unpopular.
But in recent weeks, the media have taken another stab at the "Bush rebound" storyline they tried so unsuccessfully to craft last fall. As Media Matters for America has detailed, news organizations seized on a few pieces of modestly good news for Bush to declare him "on a roll" and enjoying a "surge of momentum," speculating that he is "setting the stage for a political recovery." It speaks volumes about just how bad things are for Bush and the GOP -- and how eager some journalists are to report a turnaround -- that among the "good news" invoked to justify "rebound" talk was the lack of an indictment of White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
Given how quickly the media were to tout Bush's "good week" last week, you'd think they would have, for the sake of fairness, noted that things haven't gone quite so smoothly this week:
- The former chief federal procurement officer for the Bush White House was convicted on four charges relating to his dealings with former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
- Violence and instability continue in Iraq; a memo from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad -- which Bush read on his way to Iraq last week -- painted a dire portrait of the situation there, in stark contrast to Bush's own claims of progress. Bush's visit to Iraq garnered extensive media attention and was commonly invoked as another example of his purported turnaround. The revelation that, on his way to Iraq, he read a memo that directly contradicted the optimistic claims he subsequently made has been largely ignored.
- The Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan is gaining strength, raising still more questions about Bush's mishandling of the so-called "global war on terror."
- A new book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind paints a devastating portrait of Bush's handling of Osama bin Laden both before and after the September 11, 2001, attacks. According to Suskind, a CIA briefer personally briefed Bush at his Texas ranch in August 2001, attempting to draw Bush's attention to an August 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." Bush's dismissive reaction: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
- Suskind also reports that, contrary to longtime White House claims, Bush was warned by the CIA in late 2001 that the Pakistani army and local militias, which had cornered bin Laden in Afghanistan, were "definitely not" prepared to capture bin Laden and that "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful." As The Washington Post's Barton Gellman noted in a review of Suskind's book: "White House accounts have long insisted that Bush had every reason to believe that Pakistan's army and pro-U.S. Afghan militias had bin Laden cornered and that there was no reason to commit large numbers of U.S. troops to get him."
And yet the media, so quick to declare last week a political winner for Bush and a turnaround imminent -- based on little more than the lack of an indictment of a top aide and an apparently dishonest photo op in Iraq -- has refused to characterize Bush's latest string of setbacks as a political slump. Indeed, some of those setbacks have gone unmentioned: Suskind's revelation about the August 2001 briefing Bush received -- and apparently dismissed -- about bin Laden has been reported in only six news reports available on Lexis-Nexis: one story in The Washington Post, two in Slate, and three in Salon.
It was true last fall, and it remains true: If Bush does mount a political comeback, it will be due in no small part to the media's relentless insistence on acting as cheerleaders for such a turnaround, playing up every piece of good news while downplaying threats to his political fortune.
(Journalist Greg Sargent has a feature on his weblog, The Horse's Mouth, dedicated to highlighting "the most absurd examples of the media straining for whatever scrap of evidence it can find that Bush is rebounding in the polls." Examples here, here, and here. Sargent declares the storyline over, for now. We're less optimistic.)
Despite Republican support for indefinitely continuing unpopular Iraq occupation, media portray issue as liability for Democrats
For most of this week, the leading political story has been the Senate debate of two proposals offered by Democrats, both of which called for a beginning to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. While there is disagreement among Senate Democrats over how, and how quickly, to leave Iraq, the overwhelming majority of the caucus is united on the basic point that it is time for the United States to begin to do so. That position is shared by the majority of the American people. Republicans, on the other hand, are united in their support for Bush's plan, or lack thereof, which seems to consist largely of staying in Iraq indefinitely, prolonging an occupation that is wildly unpopular both here and in Iraq by at least three more years.
Given that scenario -- Democrats in agreement with the American people on beginning to withdraw from an unpopular occupation that has cost thousands of Americans their lives; Republicans supporting three more years of Bush's unpopular leadership of an unpopular war -- it seems obvious which side should enjoy better political prospects as a result of the debate. And it was obvious to the media: the Republicans.
As political strategist and CNN contributor Paul Begala explained in a post on TPM Café:
The media are hyperventilating about "Democrats in disarray" over the war in Iraq. ABC's "The Note" captures the stupidity, vapidity and gullibility of the mainstream media perfectly: "Democrats can deny it all they want (and not all do ...), but they are on the precipice of self-immolating over the issue that has most crippled the Bush presidency and of making facts on the ground virtually meaningless. In other words, they are on the precipice of making Iraq a 2006 political winner for the Republican Party."
I'm sure I've read a dopier statement of conventional wisdom, a more perfect transcription of Karl Rove's ignorant talking points, but I really can't remember when.
(This adaptation from Eric Boehlert's Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, nicely illustrates two important points: The Note is a consistent conduit of Rovian talking points, and Boehlert's book is a must-read.)
Begala's description of The Note's portrayal of the debate is spot-on: Not only did news organizations offer pitch-perfect renditions of Rove's favorite tune -- that Iraq is a liability for out-of-touch Democrats -- they did so with striking unanimity. As Media Matters explained:
CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash's report from the Senate on the June 21 edition of CNN Live Today provided a case study in how the media are reinforcing the baseless narrative that the Republicans are winning the rhetorical battle over Iraq. In characterizing the debate, Bash emphasized that despite Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's recent efforts "to find consensus," the two Democratic camps have arrived at "very different views" about how to move forward in Iraq. She further reported that they have decided to debate "the one thing that actually does divide Democrats, which is whether or not U.S. troops should come home." But the disagreement between the two proposals being debated by Senate Democrats is not whether U.S. forces should be redeployed out of Iraq, as Bash reported, but rather how soon. [...] By mischaracterizing the focus of the Democratic debate in this manner, Bash exaggerated the degree to which the party is actually divided and lent support to the Republicans' repeated claim that the Democrats are in disarray over the issue.
Not only did Bash mischaracterize the Democrats' debate, she also falsely suggested that it is the Democrats -- and not the party voting to continue indefinitely a costly, unpopular war -- that stand to lose politically. In fact, the position articulated by the backers of the two proposals in favor of troop redeployment is in line with public opinion -- a fact ignored by numerous other news outlets. A poll by CNN -- Bash's network -- conducted June 14-15 showed that 53 percent of respondents favored a timetable for withdrawal, while 41 percent opposed such a measure. Similarly, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted June 9-12 found that 57 percent of respondents supported reducing troop levels now, compared with 35 percent who favored maintaining the current deployment.
[...]
Bash went on to uncritically report that Republicans "are having nothing short of a field day with what they see going on with the Democratic Party and ... they believe that this fundamentally plays into their plans for this election year." Bash noted that some Democrats "are a little bit worried that Democrats are playing into Republicans' hands." Further, she reported that the Republicans intend to emphasize that "the Democrats want nothing more than to cut and run from Iraq" -- a phrase repeatedly highlighted at the bottom the screen throughout her report.
Just as Bash ignored the fact that a majority of Americans agree with the Democrats' position on Iraq, she failed to note that the war faithfully backed by so many congressional Republicans is deeply unpopular with the public. The CNN poll noted above showed that only 38 percent of respondents supported the war, while 54 percent opposed it. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll similarly found that only 40 percent of those surveyed believed the war was "worth the number of U.S. military casualties and the financial cost."
This bizarre portrayal of the political ramifications of the parties' Iraq positions is nothing new.
In January, we noted that polls showed 60 percent of Americans favored the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Bush administration's apparently illegal domestic spying operation; that 64 percent were concerned about losing civil liberties as a result of Bush's policies; that more people were concerned the government will "enact new anti-terrorism laws which excessively restrict the average person's civil liberties" than that it will "fail to enact strong anti-terrorism laws"; that a majority of Americans thought Congress should consider impeachment "[i]f President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge"; and that, "basically, people don't like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Republicans in Congress, the jobs they are doing, or the policies they support." And yet, at the time, The Washington Post declared the NSA spying issue a clear winner for Republicans, and Los Angeles Times columnist Ron Brownstein wrote a column headlined "Democrats May Argue Liberties to Their Peril."
The nation's leading news organizations seem to automatically assume, even in the face of mounting public polling to the contrary, that any debate over Iraq, or terrorism, or security, automatically redounds to the Republicans' benefit.
Almost exactly a year ago, on June 22, 2005, Rove gave a speech in which he declared: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
As we noted at the time, "no news report that we have seen has challenged the most basic premise of Rove's statements -- that conservatives, led by the Bush administration, have aggressively and successfully responded to the threat of terrorism." While Rove's comments got widespread media coverage, that coverage didn't explore whether Rove's comments opened the administration and Republicans up to criticism that they had mismanaged the response to 9-11 by, among other things, diverting attention away from the people who did attack us in order to focus on Iraq, which did not.
When Democrats criticize the administration's domestic spying operation, the media portray it as a risky maneuver that will highlight their purported weakness on security. But when Rove criticizes liberals, there is no similar speculation that his comments may backfire given the administration's unpopularity and the public's dissatisfaction with their handling of Iraq. That's not only a double-standard, it's a double-standard that seems to be directly contradicted by public polling.
Greg Sargent made a similar point this week: that media figures frequently and unjustifiably "portray the GOP as being on offense and the Democrats as being on the defensive":
Here's something we should keep an eye out for as the political battle over Iraq unfolds: How often do reporters and commentators portray the GOP as being on offense and the Democrats as being on the defensive? Compare these two takes on yesterday's Congressional skirmishing over the war:
The New York Times: Democrats have found themselves trying to fend off accusations from the White House and other Republicans that they are "cutting and running," and many lawmakers demonstrated flashes of exasperation and anger about the level of partisanship.
Los Angeles Times: Democrats and Republicans dueled over the Iraq war in the Senate on Wednesday, exchanging rhetorical jabs as each side sought political advantage on a debate many strategists believed could be a decisive factor in determining which party would control Congress after the November elections.
What happened yesterday was this: Both parties attacked each other. The L.A. Times piece made this very clear. The N.Y. Times piece, though it did quote a couple Dems criticizing the GOP, essentially downplayed it. It's important to understand that these were editorial choices. The L.A. Times' choice was closer to the whole truth.
Look, this is admittedly a very small example. But it's indicative of a larger media failing: The frequent depiction of Republicans on offense, and of the Dems on defense; that is, of Republicans winning and Dems on their heels. Yes, it's true that the GOP is showing newfound unity on Iraq, while the Dems are offering different approaches. But look: the Republicans are only unified in the sense that none of them is offering any plan. They're unified in their lack of any ideas about what to do. What's more, if you read The Times's other piece today dissecting GOP strategy, you can see that Republicans all but admit they're pursuing the current "embrace Iraq" game plan not because they necessarily know it's a winner, but because they really have no other choice.
The reality is this: Republicans have a massive albatross around their neck that's getting heavier every day. It's not an option to throw off the albatross -- that is, initiate a big pullout -- because doing so would be an admission of failure. So their only option is to put some phony swagger in their step, act as if they're confident that they have a winner on their hands, and hope for two things. First, that Dems blink. And second, that reporters and commentators will be taken for suckers, that members of the media will portray the GOP's political hand as the stronger one and allow the Republicans' feigned brashness to distract them from the reality that the GOP simply can't come up with a way out of the mess it's created.
The Dems haven't blinked -- yet. As for whether members of the media are willing to be snookered by the GOP's ruse, the early returns are trickling in, and they're anything but encouraging.
The media's strange insistence that Iraq and related issues are political winners for Republicans, despite all evidence to the contrary, has serious consequences. It not only has the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophesy, influencing elections, but also skews the terms of the debate over Iraq. An incomplete and highly inaccurate public understanding of the threat posed by Iraq -- for which the media bear a great deal of responsibility -- is why we are in this mess in the first place. Now we risk continuing an unpopular and deadly occupation for several more years, in no small part because of the media's failure to present an accurate and complete picture of the situation in Iraq, and of the public's attitudes toward it.
in ron suskind's new book, the one % doctrine, he tells this story. an unnamed cia briefer went to crawford to personally call bush's attention to the aug. 6 pdb "bin ladin determined to strike in the u.s." bush's reply was reported to be "all right, you've covered your ass now." it has long been known that two analysts [among others] at the cia felt that bush was ignoring all the warnings in the summer of 2001 when "the system was blinking red", and that they wrote the aug 6 pdb as a result. bush has claimed he requested the assessment. it was two person's word against bush's and rather than call bush a liar, the 9-11 commission accepted his version. but here is what they did say on page 262: "we have found no indication of any further discussion before september 11 among the president and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al qaeda attack in the united states". unlike clinton, who held daily meetings on terrorism during the previous period of high warnings, the millenium.
If you don't believe me listen to Fox News. Exhibit A is Bill O'Reilly, their king of right-wing spin. Over the last couple of days I've been documenting some prime examples.
Watch Bill spin a poll claiming Bush's bump in poll numbers is tied to Zarqawi's death despite the fact the same poll gave him no bump and low numbers regarding the war on terrorism. He uses this spew to trash the "crazy left" and the "Bush haters".
[link to www.youtube.com]
Then Bill spin's Rick Santorum's spurious claim that he found documents proving that Saddam had WMD justifying Bush's invasion of Iraq. Bill demands an apology from Al Sharpton for claiming Bush lied but, when this story is quickly proved to be complete baloney, Bill never apologizes to his audience to repeating rubbish without bothering to check his facts first. In fact, Bill's dropped the story so fast he's never mentioned it since!
[link to www.youtube.com]
Then Bill last night blamed the "anti-Bush" media for damaging the Bush administration and the war on terrorism. The meat of his show was spinning the New York Times' exposure of the Bush administration snooping into our financial records as anti-Americanism.
[link to www.youtube.com]
The so-called "liberal media" covers the news but since it doesn't spin it hard right into an RNC infomercial as Fox News does, they are viciously attacked as un-American by Bill O'Reilly, a major spokesman of the conservative movement. Dissent is dangerous, according to Bill. Just trust what the Bushies do in secret and everything will be fine.
And, hey, even if it isn't. What's to worry? We'll never hear about any of the abuses following O'Reilly's prescription so we'll all live in a very happy, if deluded, place.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear."
General Douglas MacArthur
A Republican General of WW2 fame uttered those words at the beginning of what would become a four decade stand-off between the former Soviet Union and the United States. A declaration still holds sway today as America, standing alone as the sole surviving superpower seeks a world where our unequaled military strength is positioned to act, deploy and ultimately spill its sons and daughter's blood in concert with the aims of Corporate domination not only here at home but as the Neoconmen would remind US, "Full Spectrum Dominance!"
In order to realize the full meaning of General McCarthur's admonition as stated above, one must understand the role of the MEDIA in ensuring that the 'Fear Factor" remains alive and vibrant. We are consistently fed a diet of unlimited and untractable phobia when in fact, as Roosevelt once reminded US that the" Only thing we have to FEAR is fear itself."
A nation so accustomed to the rants and raves of pundits, charlatans and outright scoundrels who by choice and malicious design purloin the public airwaves in an overwhelming and consummately successful program of instilling FEAR in all of US....... cannot result in a clear and astute thinking consituency when it comes to the issues of the day.
It is all by design to fatten the coffers of the Military Industrial Complex. Simply put, America has become addicted to WAR. We need enemies. Yesterday, it was the Communist hordes. Today, its Arab terrorists. It could well be anyone, even Pygmies with blowdarts providing they happened to be dwelling upon oil reservoirs. I well remember the Cold War and served as a young man WHEN I knew what real fear was; the mere realization that Soviet ICBM's could have reduced US to ashes with US visiting an equivalent reciprocal devastation upon them. During that time , I can honestly state that I never saw the war drums beating from inside the Beltway or from those responsible and professional news anchors of the public airwaves as the MEDIA disseminates today with a continuous and unabated drilling of 'FEAR' into the American consciousness.
Phantom boogeymen characterized by herculean savagery, holding an Army hostage to its machinations takes on the air of Lex Luther, The Penguin... while WE in Gotham City proclaim that the wicked witch is dead. If the WW2 Generals in the likes of Eisenhower, Marshall, Bradley, McCarthur and yes Patton could observe what this charade has accomplished to the detriment of our national character, our integrity, and the honorable principles of the US Military, THEY would be astonished.
The MEDIA of today is a broken and fragmented shell of what it once was. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in alienating Americans from one another, in dumbing down a substantial portion of Americans with an odious harangue of fear-inducing platitudes and THUS by default have compromised their standing as the legitimate 4TH estate that our FOUNDING FATHERS envisioned them to be as the final bulwark against our " Road to Fascism".
They deserve our unmitigated contempt!!!!!!!!!!!
While the media deserves your dead-on criticisms, I think it's worth noting that outposts of journalistic integrity do exist. Sadly, like the sweet smell of wildflowers growing in a meadow full of fresh cow pies, they are overpowered and often ignored because of the stench that surrounds them.
I have no doubt that Eisenhower and others would truly despair at seeing how their warnings have been ignored. On the dark side, William Randolph Hearst would be drooling at the sight of the sea of yellow journalism in which we find ourselves awash.
Hopefully, the new kid on the block (the medium carrying this discussion) will act as the serum to help heal the sickness racking the body of the fourth estate.
Thank you kindly and likewise to you. You do present an argument that the 'Blogosphere' and some independent internet sites are the repositories of fact and truth-telling today.
My, what a tangled web they (MSM) spin. Sometimes I have a very hard time getting my mind around it all. How could WE come to this? Evidently, they have been scheming for some 3 decades to essentially dumb-down a significant portion of our citizenry. When Rwingers post here with simple sounding and vacuous tripe and just rehash the latest nonsense spewing forth from the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh et al, I wonder if they are able to think independently at all. For any self-respecting Republican to believe that this brand of Republicanism (Neocon) is in any way congruous with true GOP ideals is startling to say the least.
Keep up the good fight. The Country and our Constitution demand it of all of US!!!
The blogosphere is indeed the inheritor of the mantle of the "watchdog press".
Journalists CAN be "investigative reporters", but they can only go so far. They can ALERT the public that there is a problem, a corruption, or a scandal with implications into the lives of Americans.
They cannot subpeona, they cannot compel people to give information under oath, they cannot offer whistleblowers any protection OTHER than keeping their name secret, and this fragile protection is under a full court press from this administration. Reporters are jailed for protecting sources (by the government), and whistleblowers have ever fewer protections from retribution from their government bosses.
Never in our history has the govenment expended so much effort and expense to protect itself from its BOSSES, we the people. Every effort is mounted to keep from WE THE PEOPLE vital information about the activities of our government servants, and to innundate WE THE PEOPLE with FALSE stories of propaganda to create a fictional "reality" -- one which seeks to hide government corruption while promoting governmental "good news".
A real STORY of skullduggery by our public officials ordinarily would prompt an official investigation, and great scrutiny. With a GOP Congress, a GOP Executive branch, and ever more GOPers in the Judiciary (now a majority able to overrule the American voter and install a president), any PROBABLE CAUSE evidence dug up by the few remaining true investigative reporters is met with NO interest from the government, and resounding ridicule from the "mainstream" press. Any story that casts doubt on the integrity of this administration is hailed as "CONSPIRACY THEORY" which is wild and insane and "tin foil hat" stuff, and moreover is giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. In short, the ESTABLISHMENT is fully powerful enough to squash any investigation and to spin any scrutiny.
So, the blogosphere, where the REAL media, press, and reporting is taking place, has a great disadvantage in the department of making contact with "the public". The Administration and their lock-step media have a virtual monopoly on information the public receives in national "news reports".
But the human spirit is a HYDRA which longs for freedom, for accountability, for TRUTH. The blogosphere is being embraced by ever increasing numbers of people who long to have the veil of SPIN removed, and to see the issues that SHOULD be of national attention.
If America is to be SAVED -- and it WILL be saved -- it will be as a result of the patriots who, like the publishers of the Federalist Papers of old, spread the truth and the compelling arguments and the valid criticisms of our government "leadership", and in a medium which is available to ALL and without censorship.
Well, Tex,
You put forth a very cogent and insightful analysis of what has transpired to date. The corruption and intimidation emanating from this administration makes the Nixon years look uneventful in comparison. I can remember when a sitdown in front of the tube would allow one to receive unfettered commentatries when we could not in any way perceive what side of the political spectrum the presenter was aligned.
Personally, I do not watch any MSM, including cable. An occasional glimpse at C-Span just to keep me anchored to what our Congress is not doing. As for challenging the likes of Fox and the rest with the many unanswered questions of the day and their Pavlovian response to label any who dare so with loony, tin-foil hat and denigrated Conspiracy Theorists ' vernacular, the TRUTH does seem to make its way into our consciousness providing we have the temerity, courage, and fortitude to withstand the assaults of those in power.
A humble Galilean carpenter once stated, " You shall know the TRUTH and IT shall make you FREE."
Woops, some change just fell from my pocket, time for the coffee shop. I must learn to secure it and not let it be held so loosely.
As the gap widens between the mental haves and have-nots, the authors [Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, authors of "The Bell Curve"] predict the rise of a new conservatism, 'along Latin American lines,' with the cognitive elite employing repressive, police-state tactics. (From The New York Times Magazine, October 9, 1994, p.48.)
Not to be unduly alarming, nor to stoke the already present fears of many ... but I did think this was worth mentioning in the current context. Are there people who in fact think along these lines? Probably, yes, there are.
Are there such people, who would install a PLUTOCRATIC control over America?
They are currently, with the Bush Administration, almost in possession of this goal! They have spent TRILLIONS, stolen BILLIONS, spent BILLIONS of the people's money on this very goal.
Their every action -- name any issue or area of policy whatsoever -- has as its ultimate goal to take power FROM the PEOPLE, and to further enrich the already wealthy. An exaggeration? Not at all. If it were not for the NeoCon's control of the "mainstream" media, these thousands of usurpings of THE PEOPLE's powers would be projected as a daily outrage.
Make no mistake: Today's NeoCon Republicans are the ENEMY of FREEDOM (Patriot Act, NSA spying, Gitmo's violation of the Constitution and/or international law/Geneva conventions), the enemy of truth and decency (lies to rationalize war, rampant corruption ala Abramoff, FOX news, Ann Coulter), the enemy of the common man (attempts to privatize Social Security, turning Medicare over to HMOs and Big Pharmaceuticals, eliminating the average citizen's ability to sue a corporation for damages), the enemy of the WORKING man (anti-union, anti-regulation for such things as workplace safety, anti-minimum wage, PRO-outsourcing) , the enemy of MORALITY (claim to be Christian, yet violate the tenets of Christianity right down the line*), the enemy of EQUALITY (calculated disenfranchisement of voters, via fraudulent application of "felon lists", intimidation, placement of error-prone equipment in "poorer" neighborhoods, etc.), and the enemy of our very Constitution ("signing exemptions" whereby the President asserts to be ABOVE the law).
They are would-be tyrants who adhere -- ALWAYS -- to the plutocratic principle that all power should reside with those few who have shown they DESERVE to rule; those who have the most MONEY.
And they are currently using every power of government to make sure those with MONEY can consolidate MORE money, every day, in every way.
We are THERE. And, like the Despotism of the Czars of Russia, like the arrogance of the Aristocracy of France, the PEOPLE are nearing open revolution, and the overthrow of the "masters of industry" who would be OUR masters as well.
* The Ten Commandments (NOT a government document, but a list of principles "Christian" rightwingers supposedly hold dear):
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
[link to www.cnn.com]
2. You shall not make any graven image ... or likeness of anything that is in the earth beneath ... you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
[link to www.moneyfactory.gov]
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
[link to www.bbc.co.uk]
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
[link to www.findarticles.com]
5. Honor your father and your mother.
"Age 26 in 1972, George W. Bush reportedly rounded off a night's boozing with his 16-year-old brother Marvin by challenging his father to a fight."
[link to www.nationalenquirer.com]
6. You shall not murder.
[link to www.alternet.org]
7. "You shall not commit adultery.
[link to www.salon.com]
8. You shall not steal.
[link to www.commondreams.org]
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
[link to mediamatters.org]
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; nor his house, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
[link to www.thedebate.org]
As the gap widens between the mental haves and have-nots, the authors [Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, authors of "The Bell Curve"] predict the rise of a new conservatism, 'along Latin American lines,' with the cognitive elite employing repressive, police-state tactics. (From The New York Times Magazine, October 9, 1994, p.48.)
----------------------------------------------------------
Murray and Herrnstein are two white supremacist morons. It is not the "cognitive elite" who are oppressing us, it is a pyramid of ignorance in which the most incredibly ignorant MFs rule. Only an ignorant "elite" would make a stumbling bumbling Dumbya its leader...and only a complete imbecile would appoint a failed horse show judge the head of FEMA and after the Katrina disaster tell use Brownie did a good job.
of something I read years ago in an autobiography by (I think) Charles Scribner, Jr. He mentioned an employee of humble origins (perhaps one Scribner had personally hired) who had proven to be a very valuable asset to the company due to his keen insight into other people and the ways of the world. Unlike Scribner himself (who had pursued serious academic interests in the Greek and Latin classics before joining the family business, and who does deserve some credit for recognizing talent and ability), this employee (if I recall correctly) had enjoyed neither a privileged upbringing nor an expensive education.Yet he still provided a rare quality to Scribners. And as far as I can surmise, the main ingredient of this quality was very likely the simple fact that this employee, while perhaps an unusually observant fellow, had been by necessity, and still remained, in touch with what is commonly known as -- drum roll, please -- the real world!
If the Democrats take over one or both houses this fall and then the Presidency in 08 as well? larry King had on a program this week with 7 Democrat Senators - the women. After the hell of the last 6 years it was so good to hear sanity and real plans. The media says they have no plans. That is because the Media is so use to and enjoys the unreality of Bush World. So, it doesn't sound like real plans when it's sane. Whatever are they going to do when the grown ups take over congress and bring justice, sanity and solutions to congress? And they are Democrats.
Fox News will switch from cheerleading to daily doses of toxic fear. Any slight negative will become headline popping psychosis from their hyperbolic staff. They will hate America even more than they do now.
Done that. Remember Clinton, with not only Monica, but Whitewater, Vince Foster, and a hundred other non-scandals trumpeted daily by the right-wing media? Clinton managed to remain very popular in spite of it all.
Which is to say that the mongers of political hate and fear have less influence with the American People than they would wish, or we might think.
And it's not to minimize the political hate and fear that those mongers spread (because they are a threat to our Democracy), but to put it in it's true perspective; and to keep in mind that the political hate and fear that we see so many examples of daily, is not what defines or even influences greatly the opinions of the American People, about our national policy.
The People's support of Clinton is the past proof of this, and their opposition to Iraq is the present.
on the stereo, having a cold one. and just thinking, there are guys out there with one tenth his talent who have made it huge. kind of what we see in this country politically. a unqualified egomaniacal nobody sits in the white house, because half of the country doesn't have the common sense to look beyond his last name. and even when his failures have become monumental the republican congress still supports and defends him. don't like the democrats? i'm not wild about them either, but any port in a storm.
Regarding the matter of the "media" portraying support for Troop redeployment from Iraq as "politically perilous":
We had the House last week take up the matter of "stay the course"; no redeployment resolution could get to the floor there, their rules being what they are; but in the Senate we had two redeployment resolutions; they shouldn't be characterized as "stay the course" though; they'd be better called "re-plot the course".
A course that has no foreseeable destination (Or would you think the House's statement of mission, in their "stay the course" resolution, namely, that of a "sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors"; do you foresee that destination? Such a thing cannot possibly be the work of the U.S. Armed Forces; it must be the work of the Iraqi people).
The Democrat's measure to "re-plot the course" included a destination for U.S. Troops in Iraq: Life and Home.
But Senate Republicans blocked the matter, and in so doing left us with no sensible criteria by which to justify a mission for U.S. Troops in Iraq ("a united Iraq at peace with its neighbors"?); in refusing to make redeployment part of the mission, Senate Republicans have us mindlessly "staying the course", just as House Republicans do; neither chamber offers any sensible explanation of how this occupation serves the National Security interests of the U.S., neither chamber offers any sensible mission statement ("a united Iraq at peace with its neighbors"? Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen).
The matter has not been resolved, only postponed; it becomes now a day to day thing for the American People to discuss; a day to day defensive issue for those Senate and House Republicans; they'd have done much better to vote for redeployment, to vote for the Levin Amendment.
They didn't, and the "political peril" is now theirs.
Don't think so? Just watch and see; watch and see how much of a "surge of momentum" and "second wind" and "comeback" the GOP gets out of refusing to redeploy Troops from Iraq.
Iraq is hot, and getting hotter; watch and see House and Senate Republicans sweat.
And if you'd think the "media" onslaught on the matter would ease now with the defeat of the Amendment, you'd be wrong; quite the opposite, that measure's defeat puts the Machine into overdrive on the issue of Iraq and Troop redeployment.
That the measure even got to the Senate floor was significant; that it had the support of thirty-nine U.S. Senators was astounding, and unpredicted; that support in the Senate, combined with the support of the majority of Americans, now represents the largest opposition to the administration's Iraq scheme.
And that support has stepped up the administration's "public relations campaign" on the matter, not relaxed it...
...because they found nothing relaxing in those thirty-nine Senate votes (as they find nothing relaxing in Public Opinion Polls these days).
This "public relations campaign" is as much aimed at those thirty-nine Senators, as at the American People; the support for redeployment is too great for the administration to ignore; they must erode that support.
Among the tactics to be used by the administration in this matter, is one of softly "blowing smoke" up the you-know-what of those Senators and the American People.
Fresh off the astounding Senate vote, we have the administration (or Gen. Casey) supposedly announcing that...
"American combat brigades in Iraq will decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007"
...this is fresh of the press, in addition to being fresh off the Senate's vote; but a more careful look at that "smoke" reveals this:
Not one administration official, or Gen. Casey either, is quoted by name as saying any such thing will happen.
Instead, we have...
"General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity. Word of the plan comes after a week in which the American troop presence in Iraq was stridently debated in Congress, with Democratic initiatives to force troop withdrawals defeated in the Senate."
...and that "American official" in the report, is later referred to as "A senior White House official"; but I'm running out of words, but I say "smoke"; you draw your own conclusion.
Nothing's been resolved, only postponed; it's now day to day; watch and see...
See who it is whose position on Troop redeployment is "politically perilous".
Here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia article titled "William Randolph Hearst":
[ As Martin Lee and Norman Solomon noted in their 1990 book Unreliable Sources, Hearst "routinely invented sensational stories, faked interviews, ran phony pictures and distorted real events."
Hearst's use of "yellow journalism" techniques in his New York Journal to whip up popular support for U.S. military adventurism in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898 was also criticized in Upton Sinclair's 1919 book, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism.
According to Sinclair, Hearst's newspaper employees were "willing by deliberate and shameful lies, made out of whole cloth, to stir nations to enmity and drive them to murderous war."
Sinclair also asserted that in the early 20th century Hearst's newspapers lied "remorselessly about radicals," excluded "the word Socialist from their columns" and obeyed "a standing order in all Hearst offices that American Socialism shall never be mentioned favorably."
In addition, Sinclair charged that Hearst's "Universal News Bureau" re-wrote the news of the London morning papers in the Hearst office in New York and then fraudulently sent it out to American afternoon newspapers under the by-lines of imaginary names of non-existent "Hearst correspondents" in London, Paris, Venice, Rome, Berlin, etc. ]
...the source article is here [link to en.wikipedia.org]
The two books mentioned in this excerpt sound like interesting reading, in particular Upton Sinclair's 1919 book, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism.
I don't know what Hearst might have thought about that book; I wouldn't guess he considered it flattering.
And I'm under the impression he didn't care much for being immortalized (unflatteringly) in Orson Welles' Citizen Kane.
I'm pretty sure that murdoch and ailes don't give a squat what people say about them; they're well-rewarded for their efforts...
It's my guess they'll be immortalized (unflatteringly) too.
As I had said, the matter is simply postponed to a day to day status...
It is more like hour to hour though.
I'm under the impression that Sen. Levin spoke nationally this morning, on the "public relations" thing called Fox News Sunday (any soap-box will do, especially theirs...), and that he addressed the most recent "smoke" of the supposed redeployment of two combat brigades out of Iraq in September, specifically that they would be rotated out, without being replaced.
Good news indeed, were it true.
I'm no cynic, and I'm only as skeptical as my experiences make me...
I remain under the impression that not a single official in the administration, nor any Command Officer, has been quoted by name as saying any such thing will happen.
Right now the administration's campaign remains, to erode any and all support for redeployment, Senatorial or Public.
Hold a sharp knife to such dull rumors; who in any position of authority is saying these things?
I'll happily welcome the return home of any two brigade strength units from Iraq; I'd welcome the safe return of any one brigade strength unit; the American People shall hail and celebrate every living soldier to return home alive from that place Iraq...
Every Mother and Father and Sister and Brother shall rejoice at the safe return of their loved one.
In the absence of facts, we have promises; in the absence of Good Faith, we have promises with no names attached to them...
In the absence of the safe return Home of our Sons and Daughters from Iraq, we have today's "smoke".
I'm no cynic, and I'm only as skeptical as my experiences make me.
(Good Faith negotiators, in this administration?)
Give a name to those alleging the unsubstituted rotation of even one brigade strength unit from Iraq; any name at all, in the administration or in the Command...
Let's have verifiable information, accountable by real authorties; let's not have "smoke".
It remains a day to day thing; hour to hour even.
The peril is theirs, as you can plainly see.
What I don't understand is why I did not hear one single Democrat congratulate the president on the killing of al Zarqawi. I know people are angry. But polls (I just saw one at CBS.com) do show the American public to be more optimistic now about the eventual outcome in Iraq. Don't Democrats risk being seen by the public as partisan rather than, as they presumably hope, as realistic?
bush was personally directing the operation. as for being "realistic" we all know how realistic your republican heroes have been on iraq so far.
Just so you know, I was thinking that if they had patted the commander-in-chief on the back, the Democrats would have made news! By not being so partisan, I think they would have gained more of an opportunity to make very clear their own more realistic understanding of the current situtation on the ground in Iraq, in effect forcing the media to more thoroughly report the grim statistics that continue to go largely unreported.
While some efforts were made by various Democrats to paint a realistic picture, I do believe they were not as effective as they might have been. But I could be wrong.
I happen to agree with the clarifying views which George Lakoff expressed today at CommonDreams.Org (which of course is not a Republican website). He writes that we need to understand that more than incompetence, "the issue of our time" is the inherent failure of Bush's conservative (Republican) governing philosophy.