The press seethes over Bill Clinton, shrugs at George Bush
Two presidents made headlines last week: The current one, for delivering his final State of the Union Address, and the former one, for making miscues on the campaign trail.
Which was deemed more newsworthy? For the press, the choice was obvious: Bill Clinton garnered an extraordinary amount of press attention -- more so, in fact, than any of the Republican candidates running for president, according to one news survey.
That simply highlights the media's over-the-top obsession with Clinton. What really struck me was the difference in tone from the recent Bush and Clinton coverage. The sitting president was delivering his final State of the Union, capping off his failed presidency, which has provoked deep despair among most Americans about the future of the country. And for that, Bush has been tagged the most consistently unpopular president in modern history.
Yet the reaction from the press and pundits last week when marking the final chapter of the Bush decline was mostly to shrug their shoulders and look away. The media has, throughout Bush's gruesome political collapse, shown very little interest in taking part in the usual Beltway pastime of dissecting the miscues, assigning blame, and yes, doing a little bit of grave-dancing.
When it comes to Bush's two-year decline, the press has remained oddly detached. By contrast, the recent coverage of Clinton has been dripping with emotion; with disdain and contempt that bordered on vitriol.
Bush literally drives the country into a ditch while erecting new standards for secrecy and incompetence (Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Walter Reed Hospital, Hurricane Katrina, staggering national debt, etc.), and the press yawns. But Clinton makes ill-advised and insensitive unscripted comments on the campaign trail, and that's what really gets the Beltway press upset -- enrages them, really, as they scramble to find just the right adjective to describe Clinton's allegedly deceitful, abhorrent behavior.
Am I the only one struck by the disconnect here?
I'm not suggesting Clinton is immune from criticism or that he didn't screw up. His comments obviously upset many people who in the past supported him politically. But it sure would have been nice, over the previous eight years, if the same press corps that today has trouble controlling its roiling contempt for Clinton would just once or twice flash the same passion and anger towards Bush for what he's done in the White House and what he's done to this country.
Not only won't the press get angry about Bush, the press won't even dwell on the topic. The recent State of the Union would have been the perfect opportunity for journalists to put Bush's sad legacy in context, to document the extraordinary political and public opinion failure that his presidency has become, and the deep, lasting damage he has done to the Republican Party, which is viewed dismally by the public and now faces an epidemic of congressional retirements. The traditional press, however, has little interest in focusing on the unpleasantness.
In a sense, we're witnessing the logical conclusion to the media's lapdog approach to covering Bush. When the president was flying high during the glory years of 2002-2005, the press eagerly played the role of star-maker, while walking away from its traditional oversight duties. But when the Bush presidency collapsed and the American people abandoned the administration, the press quietly turned away, not wanting to dwell on the unpleasantness.
One of the likely reasons for that is that the press understands its own, almost monumental failure in covering this presidency, especially during the defining moment -- the run-up to the war in Iraq. And remember, this is the same political press corps that had a gut feeling about Bush in 2000; just liked the guy. They vouched for him. Said he was a real, authentic politician who would restore bipartisanship to Washington again.
So, today, journalists aren't interested in dissecting what went wrong with Bush because then journalists would have to dissect what they did wrong, and that's not where they want the spotlight to be. I think there's a collective embarrassment -- a collective shame -- within the industry for being de facto sponsors of the Bush fiasco in the first place. After all, the Beltway press prides itself on being able to spot a winner.
And that's why the press tried for so long to buck Bush up during his slide. Last year, right about the time that Gallup announced Bush's approval ratings had dropped to a new low of just 29 percent, which ranked "in the bottom 3% of more than 1,300 Gallup presidential approval ratings since 1938" (ouch!), The Washington Post published a long, Page One mash note about how, despite his travails, Bush remained steadfast in his beliefs:
At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers. One at a time or in small groups, he summons leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House to join him in the search.
Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?
These are the questions of a president who has endured the most drastic political collapse in a generation. Not generally known for intellectual curiosity, Bush is seeking out those who are, engaging in a philosophical exploration of the currents of history that have swept up his administration. For all the setbacks, he remains unflinching, rarely expressing doubt in his direction, yet trying to understand how he got off course.
Good grief.
For most of the last year, round after round of dismal poll ratings for Bush have been met with a sort of quiet resign among the press corps. Context has been sorely lacking.
For instance, in the last half-century, the only other second-term collapse that compares to Bush's belongs to Richard Nixon, whose fall was fueled by the revelation that a criminal enterprise had been operating from inside the Oval Office. Yet Bush's second-term performance is rarely mentioned in the same breath as Nixon's. And there's virtually no mention of the fact that Bush is currently running between 20 and 30 points behind where his predecessor was during his final year in office.
In fact, some are still passing along the tired White House spin that Bush's public approval rebound is just around the corner. (All the way up to 45 percent!) From U.S. News & World Report, January 10:
George W. Bush and some congressional backers see happy days for the prez this year. His fans have dubbed it his "legacy year," when they hope to lock in his achievements on the domestic front.
Good luck with that.
Compare that to the eager newsroom crowds who used to gather around fresh polling data back in 1998 and 1999 as journalists parsed the latest results in search of the slightest dip in public support for Clinton that would finally confirm the media's long-held belief that the public would eventually turn on Clinton, especially during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
And think back to the 2000 presidential campaign. Did a single day pass when a reporter or pundit did not ask out loud what effect Clinton's legacy would have on the Democratic candidate for president? The laundry list of unknowns was endless: Was Clinton hogging the spotlight? Was he doing enough for Vice President Al Gore's campaign? Was Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign siphoning off Gore's campaign donations? Would voters punish Gore for impeachment?
By contrast, in 2008, Bush does not exist as a political story. Instead, he's been politely assigned the role of a non-entity for the upcoming White House race. But why?
Despite an avalanche of campaign coverage produced, so far I have not seen any media speculation about how the GOP is going to handle the opening night of its nominating convention this summer when the party will almost certainly have to feature Bush and allow him to give a prime-time speech to the nation. Politically, that is going to be a disaster for Republicans as they try desperately, in front of a national television audience, to turn the page on Bush's tenure of failure. For the somnambulant press though, none of that is of any interest.
Two recently published Beltway essays perfectly captured the media's schizophrenic and patently dishonest approach to covering Bush and Clinton.
The first was by Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, who wrote a January 28 op-ed for The New York Times. Weisberg looked back at Bush's first State of the Union address and its "compassionate conservative" theme and noted how Bush "intended to marry the liberal desire for more federal money to the conservative demand for higher standards."
Weisberg assured readers that "Mr. Bush seemed genuinely to want to be the kind of president indicated by that first address."
Of course, none of that came to be. The "compassionate conservative" routine turned out to be mostly empty rhetoric. Why? According to Weisberg's friendly interpretation, it was because Bush "was too distracted by war and foreign policy, and too bored by the processes of government to know if the people working for him were following through on his proposals."
See, Bush is not duplicitous or immoral. And nothing he has done in office would cause a CW scout like Weisberg to get angry or level charges about Bush's character. The president simply became misguided and lost interest. What's the big fuss, people? That's what presidents sometimes do -- they fail miserably and cause all sorts of pain and discomfort for millions of citizens. That's no reason to get excited.
But go out on the campaign trail these days as a Democratic ex-president and be charged with taking an opponent's comments out of context? Now that's reason for reporters to raise holy hell. That's why the pundits could barely keep their laptops steady -- their rage at Clinton was building so rapidly inside them. Clinton was guilty of "lying and cheating," of being "glaringly dishonest," and promoting an "idiotic, lowest-common-denominator political discourse." And that was just from one recent washingtonpost.com column.
According to Newsweek, Clinton's campaign attacks "insult[ed] voters' intelligence." Struck by that harsh rhetoric, I did a search of Nexis to see if during Bush's entire tenure Newsweek had ever claimed that any of the misinformation that routinely flowed from the Bush White House (WMD's, for instance) had "insulted the intelligence" of Americans. I could not find a single Newsweek example.
The other recent essay that (inadvertently) highlighted the media's Bush/Clinton double standard came from John Harris at the Politico, who wrote about how the "liberal establishment" was abandoning the Clintons. (The only actual "liberal" referenced in the long piece was Sen. Ted Kennedy, but who's counting?) Harris was struck by the contemptuous, inside-the-Beltway vibe he was picking up about Bill Clinton:
From Washington's perspective, to judge by the most common criticism heard over the years and again in recent days, the problem is not that Bill Clinton is Bubba but that he is Eddie Haskell -- smug, smarmy, self-absorbed.
Bush has been on the national political scene for nearly a decade, and I doubt I have ever read a mainstream reporter so flippantly pass along anonymous insults about Bush's character the way Harris did regarding Clinton. Of course, Harris did it with ease -- and nobody flinched -- because that's how the press has treated Clinton for years, even when he was in office; no insult or personal dig was considered off limits by the press. (Blogger Atrios once dubbed it the "Clinton Rules of Journalism," i.e. anything goes.)
For the media, it's simple: The suggestion that Bill Clinton has an oversized ego is far more upsetting and newsworthy than George Bush's proven track record of incompetence.
The lapdog press is also largely to blame. If we had the same caliber of journalists today that we had in the 70s, Bush and Cheney would have been shamed out of office years ago.
More like lap-puppies...
You're dead-on using "lapdog press", but a lap dog is usually a mature animal.
With too few exceptions, this is an immature pack of slobbering, yipping, pissing-themselves-for-no-good-reason, ball-chasing puppies.
Gooooood Puhhh-peeees!
Now, President Numbnuts is sticking his finger in our eye one last time with his obscene budget, and all they can talk about is whether Hillary's tears were real or not.
I guess that you're including the guy Bush hired to figure out who should be his Vice President - Dick Cheney. Who did this well-informed consultant suggest for VP position? Dick Cheney ...
Who helped him form the group of people surrounding Dumbya? Same guy who did the review of candidates for VP ...
so bush is so stupid that he couldn't see cheney doing all these things? i know he's dumb, but he's not that dumb.
The difference is George Bush is a lameduck president, who by his own ineptitude, has practically rendered himself irrelevant on the national political scene. He is done, he isn't running for anything except essentially running out the clock. His VP is also done, he isn't running for anything either.
On the contrary, history is about to be made should a woman get elected POTUS, not to mention a former first lady - and it is the Clintons, arguably the most powerful couple in political history and they are poised for an unprecedented return to the White House. If you can't see the inherent interest in that, over the current administration, then you're in denial.
The material they provided in the 90's was of their own doing, and the machinations they have brought back to the political landscape in 2008 is also of their own making, if you want less press maybe you should tell them.
Tommy, You would agree that some or most of the info from the '90s is just fodder for the cannons of the Cons. Is Whitewater still relevant other than a political tool? Hence, isn't some of the discrepancies of the Bush administration equal to or beyond a Whitewater?
I think the press has failed everyone miserably but in this case, President Bush does get a pass from the media. For example, has anyone questioned any Republican candidates about this adminstration as much as Hillary Clinton has be asked about her husbands'? Too bad we don't have a national press to report on the national media.
Prince,
I haven't heard any Whitewater talk?
I think this comparison is apples and oranges. We are now in the thick of the primary season for the next presidential election - in that regard, George Bush is irrelevant. As I said, neither him nor his VP are running - if Cheney was running, then there would be far greater focus on the current administration, but he isn't.
So the focus is on those who are running, not those who will be tossing tumbleweeds around Crawford, or duck hunting in Wyoming.
Except that he was very succesul in pushing the conservative agenda with his rubber stamp Congress. It's the conservatism, not the conservative, that is the problem.
"If you can't see the inherent interest in that, over the current administration, then you're in denial."
The article is not about "interest" as you so subtly distort. It's about the corporate media's disdain of Bill.
Now they seems to have found the balls they misplaced for the last seven years.
rolled over and played dead for Bush
Huh? This is amazing. This press did nothing but create false scandals:
1) Katrina...the federal response was amazing. It was the Democrats in Louisiana that screwed up.
2) The CBS/ Dan Rather fake national guard documents. Bush served honorably.
3) Abu Gharib..a few guards got way out of hand.
3) The extremely stupid Downing Street memo false scandal.
4) Walter Reed/VA hospitals...Walter Redd had been in direpair for years.
Bush increased the VA budget by 40%
5) Valerie Plame..it was actually her fat idiot of a husband that outed her years ago. In 2001, Marc Grossman - a career Democrat at the State Department, Wilsons good friend in college and during their time together at State actually exposed Plame and Brewster Jennings as a CIA operation to AQ Khan, who was the Pakistani working with Northe Korea to develop the "Islamic atomic bomb" for Al Qaeda.
How did Grossman know that Brewster Jennings was a front?...from Wilson of course..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece
..this whole affair is especially emblematic of the evil of the left
You actually believe there is nothing to any of the items in your list? - Yet I bet you still go around telling people the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.
Abraham Lincoln and Julius Caesar too.
You actually believe there is nothing to any of the items in your list? - Yet I bet you still go around telling people the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.
Just the lies and mischaracterizations by the left and the corrupt MSM.
You'd have to be a complete nutcase to think the Clinton's had nothing to do with Foster's death
>>You'd have to be a complete nutcase to think the Clinton's had nothing to do with Foster's death
I think you have a typo there. It should be:
"You'd have to be a complete nutcase to think the Clinton's had *anything* to do with Foster's death
Count Kenneth Starr among those nutcases, then. Because after wasting the taxpayers' money for three years, he was forced to conclude that--gasp--Vince Foster killed himself!
Count Kenneth Starr among those nutcases, then. Because after wasting the taxpayers' money for three years, he was forced to conclude that--gasp--Vince Foster killed himself
That report has been debunked time and time again. New accounts and evidence came up after the special prosecuter's time expired.
This investigation takes apart the Starr report point by point:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html
>>Valerie Plame..it was actually her fat idiot of a husband that outed her years ago.
And of course, your link doesn't back up your contention. How's the book coming on how Clinton murdered Vince? Have a first draft yet? Can't wait!
Stranger wrote:
>>1) Katrina...the federal response was amazing. It was the Democrats in Louisiana that screwed up.
link
Brown took over FEMA in 2003 with little experience in emergency management.
He joined the agency in 2001 as legal counsel to his friend, then-FEMA director Joe Allbaugh, who was Bush's 2000 campaign manager. When Allbaugh left FEMA in 2003 Brown assumed the top job.
Before joining the Bush administration, Brown spent a decade as the stewards and judges commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.
The e-mails Melancon posted, a sampling of more than 1,000 provided to the House committee now assessing responses to Katrina by all levels of government, also show Brown making flippant remarks about his responsibilities. (Read how office e-mails can come back to haunt)
"Can I quit now? Can I come home?" Brown wrote to Cindy Taylor, FEMA's deputy director of public affairs, the morning of the hurricane.
Sooo...where do you show how the federal gov't's response was crappy?
It was the idiot Democrat governor of Louisiana and the idiot Democrat mayor of NO that f*cked things up beyond belief
1) Katrina...the federal response was amazing. It was the Democrats in Louisiana that screwed up.
The recovery and clean up is still going on. FEMA was mismanaged by an incompetent, shoved in a back corner of DHS and is still trying to come back to being the type of organization it used to be. Oddly enough FEMA had no real problems giving away barrels full of cash to people who didn't even ask for it in much smaller scale disasters that happened to take place in a state that just happened to be governed by a certain someone's brother.
2) The CBS/ Dan Rather fake national guard documents. Bush served honorably.
Bush served when he felt like it and where he felt like it and used his father's influence to jerk around both the Alabama and the Texas Air National Guard.
3) Abu Gharib..a few guards got way out of hand.
What?!?!? You really are a thick skulled idiot. There was pressure from high up to use "unconventional interrogation techniques." Abu Gharib was completely authorised and it was only when it became a scandal that those who performed these atrocities were left to take all of the blame.
3) The extremely stupid Downing Street memo false scandal.
Perhaps they could even use whatever your skull is made of to construct deep sea exploration equipment out of. The Downing Street Memo is real.
4) Walter Reed/VA hospitals...Walter Redd had been in direpair for years.
Bush increased the VA budget by 40%
Bush's increase in VA funding is not keeping pace with the need for veteran's services as a result of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It also barely exceeds the constant increases in health care costs, shifts more burden on to veterans in the form of increased co-payments and expanding income measuring qualifications to the entire family of a veteran without actually changing the low end of the threshold. This is just the tip of the iceburg in the accounting tricks used to come up with that 40% figure.
5) Valerie Plame..it was actually her fat idiot of a husband that outed her years ago. In 2001, Marc Grossman - a career Democrat at the State Department, Wilsons good friend in college and during their time together at State actually exposed Plame and Brewster Jennings as a CIA operation to AQ Khan, who was the Pakistani working with Northe Korea to develop the "Islamic atomic bomb" for Al Qaeda.
And other tinfoil hat type people claim that Grossman outed Brewster Jennings because the neocon cabal was behind an elaborate plot involving Khan, the Turkish government and the Isreali government in an elaborate game of trading nuclear secrets and components. Grossman hasn't been charged with anything nor has he elected to sue for libel the assorted news outlets that have all but accused him of treason. Sibel Edmonds, the person who knows the most about this has been placed under a gag order by the Bush Justice Department.
>>And other tinfoil hat type people claim that Grossman outed Brewster Jennings because the neocon cabal was behind an elaborate plot involving Khan, the Turkish government and the Isreali government in an elaborate game of trading nuclear secrets and components.
Oh, I didn't know about this conspiracy theory. But then again, Stranger thinks Clinton murdered Vince Foster, Abraham Lincoln, julius Ceaser, and Jesus Christ. (Sorry, WorrierKing, had to one up you, there!)
(Feel free to add to the list of people who Stranger thinks Clinton murdered.)
And other tinfoil hat type people claim that Grossman outed Brewster Jennings because the neocon cabal was behind an elaborate plot involving Khan, the Turkish government and the Isreali government in an elaborate game of trading nuclear secrets and components.
Nope...it was a CIA operation to nail the North Koreans and al-Qaeda operative AQ Khan. The fat idiot Wilson blabbed this to his very close friend and fellow Democrat Marc Grossman the #3 guy at State who committed treason by exposing Brewter Jennings and Valerie Plame.
Sibel Edmonds, the person who knows the most about this has been placed under a gag order by the Bush Justice Department.
That's because there are more libs that are spilling secrets and exposing CIA agents that are being investigated
But it's good to see you have no disagreement with my take on conservatism
You have your opinion, I have mine........but considering John Edwards' early exiting from the primaries when even his Democratic voters turned away from his liberal policies, that tells you something.
It's not opinion. Conservatism has been demonstrably disasterous for our economy and foreign policy. Prove otherwise.
To recap: Tommy evades his distortion of interest vs. disdain and continues to desperately evade the issue.
Your disdain for conservatism is well documented here, of course it's a failure in your mind, if you want to rail against it or pronounce it dead, be my guest.
And for the record, George Bush's governance was anything but conservative, he spent way too much, he left the borders open, he expanded government, he is big government Republican - far closer to your ideology than mine.
Not to burst your bubble, Tommy, but for the past thirty-five years they've all been big-government Republicans.
Tommy, as the last true Goldwater Republican left alive, is there anyone in the modern Republican party represents the limited-government, laissez-faire, principled conservatism you yearn for?
How about Ron Paul? He's a true conservative--someone who wants to cut taxes, deregulate everything, go back on the gold standard, and stop dealing with foreign nations. He wants to take us all back to the 19th century. Won't you join him?
Yeah, you think he'd be a pushover, excuse me non-partisan. I agree, he probably won't such a hardliner. I like him too. I'll take his good judgment over her experience.
But here's what I find funny. Now that Republicans and the like face massive electoral loses, conservatives have finally learned how to pronounce the term, and espouse bi-patisanship as a virtue. Sorry, it just rings so hollow. After less than two years, the Republican minority has fillibustered at twice the rate of any congressional minority in U.S. history and voted as a bloc on bill after bill.
What the right so deftly implies with the call for bi-partisanship is that the left cannot be trusted to govern at the consent of the people. That's pretty funny considering we have the majority on our side. From healthcare to education to the economy to national security the American left is in synch with the majority of the American people.
Round,
You may be surprised, but I agree with much of what you say here. The Republicans know they are in the tank and now want to reach out, when their governing arrogance didn't have to worry about that too long ago.
Very astute.
I'm weak that way ; )
Sorry, but I would have to say that the success is all in your mind. If we just look around it's obvious. We have in these years of conservative rule more people in poverty, fewer in the middle and the accumulation of wealth in hands of the few grows faster and faster. Our military is nearly broken by this endless occupation. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Fuel costs, edcuation costs, healthcare costs, the mortgage crisis...what does it take to wake some people up to smell the rot?
Sorry, but I would have to say that the success is all in your mind. If we just look around it's obvious. We have in these years of conservative rule more people in poverty, fewer in the middle and the accumulation of wealth in hands of the few grows faster and faster. Our military is nearly broken by this endless occupation. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Fuel costs, edcuation costs, healthcare costs, the mortgage crisis...what does it take to wake some people up to smell the rot?
BRAVO! Roundhouse BRAVO!
Beside the fact that there is no such thing as fiscal conservatism, are you saying he and his rubber stampers haven't successfully centralized power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree?
The facts are they started two major wars, one started with questionable intelligence.
The Supreme Court has two far-right justices and the lower federal courts are stacked with many more
He cut taxes during wartime. Unprecedented to sy the least but not inconsistent with the conservative agenda of low taxes.
Passed a number of controversial bills such as the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill and a number of massive tax cuts. Success after miserable success.
Rolled back and refused to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections. Predatory lending anyone?
Appointed industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies. Yeah, that's right because the most trustworthy way to gaurd the henhouse is to appoint the fox. This is consistent, however, with the conservative view of markets. You know, let the market decide.
Established a greater role for religion through faith-based initiatives. 'nuff said.
Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment: “The Healthy Forests Act” and the “Clear Skies Initiative” to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies. Agian, let the market police itself is the premise.
Won re-election and solidified his party’s grip on Congress. That's a sign of success. No?
To reiterate, he didn't accomplish this all by his lonesome, he had willing accomplices who were of a like mind. He's done right by conservatives, y'all just can't admit conservatism doesn't work for the benefit of most Americans. Sorry.
And if the press reports that the Vince Foster case is still a mystery, is this the Clintons fault or the errant press just trying to stir the pot or make money?
I think the future posts on this subject should be interesting.
Tommy, there’s no denial, it’s a tale of two theories.
The “inherent interest” is the subject of Boehlert’s article (“For the press, the choice was obvious”). He’s not denying it that the interest exists, he’s giving his theory as to why it exists, just as you are.
Your theory is “lameduck” and the bed the Clintons made for themselves.
Boehlert’s theory is the “roiling contempt” for all things Clinton and their “monumental failure” in covering Bush throughout his presidency.
Both theories have merit and I think it’s a combo plate of every one.
Pete, Good points.
But I think to compare the press' treatment of Bush vs. it's treatment of the Clintons right now is not really valid. One could argue the disparity of coverage between the Bill Clinton WH and the Geo Bush WH, but not current political campaign coverage vs. the present administration's failures, in my opinion.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Tommyspeak translation:
George W. Bush is the guy you would have a beer with, a line with, ect....... but couldn't lead himself out of the airport bathroom, with Larry Craig or not, and is simply put the worst President in American history.
Bill Clinton was a brilliant President that got caught having sex in the White House with a woman other than his wife, that could have been otherwise seen as one of the best Presidents of the last century.
This means naturally that the corporate media must handicap Clinton with the "school-yard" type of coverage compared to the Stalin-style cowaring provided Bush that saw a whole White House Press Corps sing from the Republicans script on the eve of war.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"If you can't see the inherent interest in that, over the current administration, then you're in denial."
If you can't see how the ongoing scandals created by this administration are willfully ignored and/or marginalized because they would require true analysis and attention as opposed to immediate, breathless, reactionary, sensationalistic horse-race yammering, then you are happy to let the media get away without doing real journalism and are in denial of just how truly corrosive this administration is and has been.
The Clintons and this election in general have created high level of interest. They have happily used the massive media spotlight shined upon them, complaining, of course, when it isn't exactly what they want and exploiting it when it is, but that doesn't mean that the national media has not been neglectful and even passively collaborative in the executive power-grab that is the Bush administration. To simply characterize Bush's actions as "ineptitude" willfully ignores the quite blatant actions of the president, such as signing statements and double-speak used to justify the erosion of basic American liberties.
That's denial.
"[Bush's]failed presidency, which has provoked deep despair among most Americans about the future of the country"--Eric Boehlert
You can say that again. But it is also"the future of the world". I have that feeling that no matter who wins, the country is beyond repair.
"Bush literally drives the country into a ditch while erecting new standards for secrecy and incompetence"
Eric - please use "literally" correctly. As bad as Bush is, he actually could not literally drive the entire country into a ditch - unless, of course, you have knowledge of some vast new technology engineered by Halliburton.
I noticed this as well. While I appreciate the tone of Mr Boehlert's piece, as David Cross pointed out on one of his albums, when you misuse the the term literally, you completely butcher the use. And it distracts from the point.
What, did Bush literally drive the country off into a metaphorical ditch?
I don't think Bush is irrelevant. He gets high approval ratings in the conservative ranks of the Republican party (eventhough he is not a true conservative, although he has taken conservative positions). He is still a good fund raiser and has star power.
I saw him at an AIPAC event before the last election, and he lit up the room. 5000 people, many standing on their chairs, were cheering "four more years."
Recently, my brother-in-law attended a smaller event at a friend's house in San Antonio. The president spoke for 30 minutes without notes about the transformative power of democracy. My bil and his wife, who are not easily impressed, were awed.
Yes, we've seen how this president's "democracy" has "transformed" Iraq into a violent, chaotic hellhole.
No notes, there is always a first time. But was he sitting on Cheneys' knee. That is the real question. And apparently no questions were permitted.
Why did I even post this I think you are lying?? And I said that without any notes.
Think about it.
HSTY,
I don't think he was referring to Jews in general as knuckle-draggers, but rather those who would go along with anything W says.
It's you who called it the "Jewish lobby", friend-o. Since most American Jews don't support AIPAC, it would be more accurate to call AIPAC the Israel lobby.
In fact, you were the first to bring up Jews at all. Methinks you doth protest too much--your anti-Semitic streak is showing.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the Jews I know that do not support aipac. not all support it financially, but they do support the organization's goals.
it is aipac's critics that refer to it as the Jewish lobby. anti-semites, like the poor, will always be with us.
>>it is aipac's critics that refer to it as the Jewish lobby.
This is totally made up. Post a link, please.
And count me as another person for being against the AIPAC lobby, which should be called the likudinite, pro-expanionst lobby.
one beef i have with aipac is that too many of their guest speakers are dems. we've had bill, hillary, etc. etc. drives me crazy. but i guess they have to be bipartisan because you never know who's going to be in power.
as for a cite, just google jewish lobby, or read the book by mearshimer and walt.
In other words, you have no proof and are just making things up. Thanks for the laugh.
Oh, better yet, knowing that Mearsheimer said the opposite, I did google:
Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’
link
Sorry, here's the full quote. Notice how it says the opposite of what you claim--how Mearsheimer calls it the *Israel* lobby, and points out our point, that anyone who criticizes it is called anti-semitic by our opponenets?
No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of.
Indeed. Sometimes you've even been the one doing the calling.
If they were calling for "four more years" of President Numbnuts, they're KNUCKLEDRAGGERS and IDIOTS... I don't care what ethnic group they belong to.
What will you ever do with your life if we ever get comprehensive campaign financing reform, HB?
It seems that all you, your family, or your circle of friends do for a social life is shell out your bucks at fund-raisers for a few minutes of “feel good” talk from the latest guy you’re trying to put or keep in your pocket.
The president spoke for 30 minutes without notes about the transformative power of democracy. My bil and his wife, who are not easily impressed, were awed.
Such high standards for the leader of the free world. You say he actually SPOKE for an entire 30 minutes coherently? Whew. I can see why your family was in awe.
That may be true. The man is an idiot and has proven he cannot run the country. Overall he may be slightly more popular than tooth decay but his tiny base does still love him. Bush idolotors MAY be insane and completely immune to reality but they arent going away.
better to be dissed than ignored?
Willy dissed, Dubya ignored.
In the corporate age of media, they simply are scared of BushieCo politics, because the moneychangers at the top will pull the rug out on any dissenters to the message.
The ideal resume for a job at Fox Noise.
I'll raise you No Child Left Behind not being fully funded, Bush not testifying without Cheney about the 9/11 Commission, the secrecy over the sources about WMD's. The spending of the surplus, the reduction of environmental protection standards under the "Clear Skies Act," Enron, the Supreme Court limiting the types of cases that can be brought in certain cases against brokers, cronyism in about every political appointment (seriously, a horse show judge with no emergency management experience as head of FEMA?), not listening to the generals who wanted 300,000 troops to invade Iraq, the amazing deficit, the secret energy task force meeting and the Republican Congress's (at the time) allowance that the energy heads did not have to speak under oath, not implementing the suggestions of the 9/11 commission. I could go on
Isn't the final measure of a presidency the "is the country better now than when he took office" theory? When judged this way how can anyone possibly still like GW?
Bush has always benefited from low expectations. The press seems to give him a pass even if he is just breathing.
As for Bush's questions: "What is the nature of good and evil in a post-September 11th world?" I can hardly see Bush asking this question. "Why does the world seem to hate America or do they just hate me (Bush)?" President Bush, the world hates you and your destructive, incompetent, ahistorical policies of total, unlimited warfare.
Bush is a disaster and the press yawns. Clinton makes a few statements, perhaps not politic, and the press roars. The country, our political machinery, and the press corps are totally lost. We remain in the wilderness where Bush has lead us.
Why should the press bother with Bush? After they got him re-elected in 2004 it was on to the next Republican president to be with just enough pandering to the Bush administration not to drag down the potential Republican candidates.
Democrats, being dumb as rocks, are clueless as to what it will take to win the Presidency. All that is required is to have a low smear quotient. In other words, how effective will the media supported Republican smear campaign that is tradition be. Is the shell of the Democrat sufficiently thick that the stream of smears will not convince the public? That is the only requirement. If $400 haircuts are the best the Republicans/News Media can come up with, the Democrats just lost their best chance at the Presidency in 2008.
The efforts of the Republican party at ensuring that Hillary Clinton gets the nomination are staggering. Never have there been a pair of candidates (Hillary and Bill) who have been better candidates for a blitzkrieg of media supported Republican smears than those two. Sixteen years worth of lies and smears all saved up to rehash until next Nov. One week a special on how Bill let Osama Bin Laden go, the next week about how Hillary is a closet lesbian, the next week about how the two of them had Vince Foster killed. By the time they are done the Republican will win by a landslide from those who like the candidate , but far more from those who (after what they have seen) will be scared to death to vote for her.
It is unfortunate that Democrats don't understand how this works. And, of course, whatever new and destructive things the next Republican president does the public will not wake up to it until the media eases the cover up in 2013 after they get him re-elected. Then it will be on to the next Republican candidate and on and on.
Since the FCC rule change went through in December the next four years will see the local newspapers being bought up by television networks. After all, some of those local papers print things that quite frankly contradict some of the message. We couldn't have that so that problem is now resolved. As with the radio stations that are now consolidated into right wing spew boxes, the newspapers will lean further that way than they already are.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html depicts the next Republican quest which is to seal the final leak - The Internet. "Net Neutrality" will be sold to an already stupid American public as being bad for them (if they even find out about it). Given the way the media corporations have been buying up internet assets they will control content. Media Matters will be gone and all resources to find out the truth will be restricted due to "national security" concerns. Live feeds from the US House and Senate on C-Span will be deemed a potential national security threat and you will have to rely on your favorite "news" program for the "truth". The Democrats won't stop it because they are scared of the news media and the public won't stop it because they won't know any better.
Lots to look forward to.
Put down that 18" self repeating, double action mawitser!
NO!..It belonged to my mother!
I'm often struck by one thought as the latest Bush scandal appears on the radar screen...How would Republicans react if Clinton were President?
For example (just a few that spring to mind):
I could go on and on.
The bottom line is, if any of the scandals that have occurred over the last 8 years would have happened under Clinton, Rush and the rest of the reich-wing would be apoplectic.
Thanks for writing this. I see this sort of coverage day after day and it is absolutely crazy making! I used to think that things would turn around...''they could get any worse''....''there's sure to be a boundary beyond which even this press can't go"! I gave all that up over 2 years ago. The 'worse' line keeps moving to places I didn't know were possible.
What I want (I NEED) is someone to tell me what can be done about it! Is there any 'reckoning' important enough to shame the press into attempting some kind of reform??? My objections only titillate a Chris Matthews. He probably makes more money and he certainly isn't 'shamed' by it. Matthews is an 'entertainment' show, but there isn't any more response from print reporters. It would appear that even if you take the corporate influence off of the press, the EGOS are so enormous there is no reader response that will be taken seriously.
Personally, I feel enormously frustrated and very worried about where this has led us. We couldn't have more vivid proof of what disasters a subverted and failed press can heap on a nation...and still it persists. In January of '09 George Bush and Dick Cheney are going to walk out of the White House and go home to their ranches...totally unscathed thanks to a willfully foolish electorate, a spineless Congress, and a prostitute press who will no doubt write cuddly pieces about 'George cutting brush on his first day home'.
Great article, Eric! And as obviously truthful as it is, and the double-standard still being applied by our "liberal press" (read: the extreme rigthtwing lock on the US media), there is no level of shame, dishonesty, massive corruption, massive loss of innocent life, and permanent damage done to this country, and the world, by Bush/Cheney that will EVER raise the ire of the US media.
When Mitt Romney was chastised a couple weeks by the AP reporter who said, "That's not true, govenor!", it highlighted the fact that NEVER ONCE in 8 years has the US media EVER challenged the Criminal-in-Chief like that! Not when they knew he had lied about WMD's, not when they knew he had lied about firing those responsible for outing Valerie Plame, not when he lied about Abu Ghraib being a few "bad apples", etc.,etc.,etc. Imagine if when Bush had made the preposterous connection between Al Qeada and their mortal enemy Saddam Hussein, if the press had simply said, "That's not true Mr President! You know that's not true!" Or when he said there was no doubt that Iraq had WMD's, "That's not true Mr President!", the 4000+ Americans George W Bush sent to their deaths to serve in his vanity war would still be alive! Even when the contempible SOB said just a few months back that he was more determined than ever to put pressure on Iran after the media found out that he KNEW Iran had no nuclear program and that he had KNOWN for months if not years! STILL they let it pass!
The only good thing that will come out of the failed and disgraceful Bush presidency is that, despite the efforts of the MSM to never hold him accountable for his lies and screw-ups, that the American people will hold both him and the GOP responsible for a long time. Particularly in light of the fact that young people are avoiding the GOP like the plague! After the shame and devastation done to the USA by the Republican party, it's highly unlikely there will be any large number of young republicans coming out of this generation or the next.