14/02: House Resolution: Day One
110TH CONGRESS RESOLUTION:
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced
on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional
United States combat troops to Iraq.
Resolved by the House of Representatives:
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
The first day of the proposed three-day debate in the House of Representatives over the above resolution proved that there really was no need for debate.
We certainly need more oversight; we need better leadership. We are in desperate need of hard-headed, rock-ribbed and bipartisan realism. We would all be served well by a rhetorical ceasefire. But clearly thirty-six hours of speeches from the well of the House restating four years of hackneyed and partisan talking points will not prove helpful.
One thing is certain: not one person in Congress will change their mind as a result of this debate.
The Democrats:
False and misleading...failed administration...civil war...we support our troops...George Bush is the only person in America who thinks this plan can succeed...this is a first step to defunding this awful war...this is not a first step to defunding this awful war...our troops are heroic and we support them...wrong war, wrong time, wrong place...sectarian violence...end of the line for a tragically flawed policy...I knew all along this was a bad idea.
The Republicans:
See anyone of my myriad schizophrenic posts on the subject (some options here and here).
In a C-SPAN interview from Sunday, President bushed defined "noise" as Washington chatter. "Everybody in Washington likes to talk," he said. Amen.
But the Democrats have a couple of things right: 1) the war is a mess and 2) the buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Having said that, now what?
One other note: the news coverage seemed ho-hum. The debate did not seem to be the lead anywhere. Most people still seem more concerned with Anna Nicole Smith.
One last note: C-SPAN has an excellent resource for listening to individual speeches here.
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced
on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional
United States combat troops to Iraq.
Resolved by the House of Representatives:
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
The first day of the proposed three-day debate in the House of Representatives over the above resolution proved that there really was no need for debate.
We certainly need more oversight; we need better leadership. We are in desperate need of hard-headed, rock-ribbed and bipartisan realism. We would all be served well by a rhetorical ceasefire. But clearly thirty-six hours of speeches from the well of the House restating four years of hackneyed and partisan talking points will not prove helpful.
One thing is certain: not one person in Congress will change their mind as a result of this debate.
The Democrats:
False and misleading...failed administration...civil war...we support our troops...George Bush is the only person in America who thinks this plan can succeed...this is a first step to defunding this awful war...this is not a first step to defunding this awful war...our troops are heroic and we support them...wrong war, wrong time, wrong place...sectarian violence...end of the line for a tragically flawed policy...I knew all along this was a bad idea.
The Republicans:
See anyone of my myriad schizophrenic posts on the subject (some options here and here).
In a C-SPAN interview from Sunday, President bushed defined "noise" as Washington chatter. "Everybody in Washington likes to talk," he said. Amen.
But the Democrats have a couple of things right: 1) the war is a mess and 2) the buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Having said that, now what?
One other note: the news coverage seemed ho-hum. The debate did not seem to be the lead anywhere. Most people still seem more concerned with Anna Nicole Smith.
One last note: C-SPAN has an excellent resource for listening to individual speeches here.
I intend to post on the debate ASAP--but since the debate thus far is merely recycling old rhetoric, here are a couple of rebuttals remixed and reprised:
One more time, here are the reasons that going into Iraq made sense at the time:
1. Saddam was bad. He deserved ouster, capture, trial and execution. Twenty-five million Iraqis deserved an opportunity to take control of their lives free of Saddam's oppressive regime.
2. Saddam was at war with the United States and a threat to regional security. For more than a decade, we flew combat missions over Iraq and drew anti-aircraft fire everyday. Our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia to neutralize the threat Saddam posed to the region. Our presence in Saudi (part of our essential commitment to preserving the peace) irritated the international Muslim community. In fact, Osama bin Laden cited our presence in Saudi Arabia as the casus belli for war against America in general and 9-11 specifically.
3. Saddam was contained--but only as a result of the costly military commitments cited above. In addition, Saddam was contained as a result of a United Nations sanctions regime. Before the war, several human rights organizations charged that the heartless US-driven sanctions policy had killed upwards of 500,000 Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of adequate medical attention. Later, we learned of massive corruption on the part of the UN in administering the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, by 2002, the flagging resolve of the French and other European powers threatened the entire sanctions program. Containment was a leaky policy taking on more water every day.
4. Saddam unbound meant a return to the status quo ante bellum in which he had threatened his neighbors and worked assiduously to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction.
5. Saddam and 911. It is a long held article of faith in the mainstream media that "911 and Iraq were not connected." This is nonsense. What they mean to say is that Saddam and his regime were not complicit in the terrorist attacks of 911. Those two statements are not the same. Conflation of these two distinct ideas belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the task that confronts us.
One more time, here are the reasons that going into Iraq made sense at the time:
1. Saddam was bad. He deserved ouster, capture, trial and execution. Twenty-five million Iraqis deserved an opportunity to take control of their lives free of Saddam's oppressive regime.
2. Saddam was at war with the United States and a threat to regional security. For more than a decade, we flew combat missions over Iraq and drew anti-aircraft fire everyday. Our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia to neutralize the threat Saddam posed to the region. Our presence in Saudi (part of our essential commitment to preserving the peace) irritated the international Muslim community. In fact, Osama bin Laden cited our presence in Saudi Arabia as the casus belli for war against America in general and 9-11 specifically.
3. Saddam was contained--but only as a result of the costly military commitments cited above. In addition, Saddam was contained as a result of a United Nations sanctions regime. Before the war, several human rights organizations charged that the heartless US-driven sanctions policy had killed upwards of 500,000 Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of adequate medical attention. Later, we learned of massive corruption on the part of the UN in administering the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, by 2002, the flagging resolve of the French and other European powers threatened the entire sanctions program. Containment was a leaky policy taking on more water every day.
4. Saddam unbound meant a return to the status quo ante bellum in which he had threatened his neighbors and worked assiduously to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction.
5. Saddam and 911. It is a long held article of faith in the mainstream media that "911 and Iraq were not connected." This is nonsense. What they mean to say is that Saddam and his regime were not complicit in the terrorist attacks of 911. Those two statements are not the same. Conflation of these two distinct ideas belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the task that confronts us.
Much has been written about Abraham Lincoln, including much about his religious faith. I will not attempt to survey all the scholarly literature here. Neither do I claim to be an expert in Lincoln. But, I do claim to be an expert in the religion of Abraham's father Thomas Lincoln. I base this claim on the fact that the elder Lincoln, a farmer-preacher, belonged to those Baptists who rejected the national Baptist denomination as it developed following the Convention in 1814. He rejected both the newly developing structure and the modernizing doctrinal changes as the Baptist mainstream evolved from a sect into an American denomination prior to the Civil War. Without bragging, I can say that I have been recognized as an expert on those Baptists who remained outside the new denominational structure. (For those interested, my book is The Formation of the Primitive Baptist Movement, based on my doctoral dissertation "Self-Definition in the Formation of the Primitive Baptist Movement as Expressed in their Three Major Periodicals, 1832-1848.")
With regard to the understanding of God, while Abraham rejected his father's politics and agrarian life, and rejected his father's religion, he still, by the end of his lifetime, came to think of God essentially in the same way his father did. (More below)
With regard to the understanding of God, while Abraham rejected his father's politics and agrarian life, and rejected his father's religion, he still, by the end of his lifetime, came to think of God essentially in the same way his father did. (More below)
12/02: Babies and Abortion
In the last two weeks I've visited the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the OU Medical Center several times. A member of our community had a child prematurely. Very prematurely. The baby girl was born at about 22 weeks and weighed 1 poung 9 ounces. Her eyes still were closed and she was placed in a heated compartment ("incubator") with a respirator. The doctors and nurses were realistic with the family and gave no false hope. But, this little girl is hanging on, is developing (her eyes now can open) and has gained 4 ounces. We will watch, wait, and pray, but things are looking better.
Coming away from NICU I have often thought about all the babies that are right now being aborted at the same age as this little girl, and the other premies on that floor. And some are aborted even later, close to the time of natural birth.
What is the difference here between the premies and the aborted babies? Age and development can be the same. Many aborted babies could live if taken from the abortionist to a neonatal intensive care unit. The only real difference is that the adults in control choose for some to live, and some to die.
Do we really want to be in this situation as a nation? A situation in which the life and death of an individual is completely in the hands of someone else? Capital punishment is somewhat different. In that case one can argue that the individual has done something himself or herself which has placed the defendent's life in the hands of a jury. But the babies have done nothing other than exist. And someone else decides if they should live or die. How is their status of babies any different, morally, from the status of an impaired person who needs some level of care?
For my previous argument against abortion see here.
Coming away from NICU I have often thought about all the babies that are right now being aborted at the same age as this little girl, and the other premies on that floor. And some are aborted even later, close to the time of natural birth.
What is the difference here between the premies and the aborted babies? Age and development can be the same. Many aborted babies could live if taken from the abortionist to a neonatal intensive care unit. The only real difference is that the adults in control choose for some to live, and some to die.
Do we really want to be in this situation as a nation? A situation in which the life and death of an individual is completely in the hands of someone else? Capital punishment is somewhat different. In that case one can argue that the individual has done something himself or herself which has placed the defendent's life in the hands of a jury. But the babies have done nothing other than exist. And someone else decides if they should live or die. How is their status of babies any different, morally, from the status of an impaired person who needs some level of care?
For my previous argument against abortion see here.
Today's NYT reads:
Defiant Dixie Chicks Are Big Winners at the Grammys
"After death threats, boycotts and a cold shoulder from the country music establishment, the Dixie Chicks gained sweet vindication Sunday night at the 49th annual Grammy Awards, capturing honors in all five of the categories in which they were nominated" (read entire article here ).
The first clause of the lead contains the MSM stock description of the Dixie Chicks: "threatened, boycotted and mistreated." Woe to any well-intentioned and enlightened dissenter intent on speaking truth to power. McCarthyism lurks in the hearts of these ignorant country-music cretins, and violence and economic coercion are the tools of compliance in Red-State America.
The second clause of the lead offers an abysmally flagrant cliché to describe the Grammy triumph for the Chicks: "sweet vindication." And not because it is merely a trite phrase--but it is also inaccurate. Sweet Vindication? Vindication equals justification. In its most literal sense, vindication connotes exoneration through argument or the exhibition of evidence. I suspect that the verdict of the Grammy voters will enjoy an extremely limited jurisdiction.
Sweet revenge? Maybe. Delicious counterpunch? Probably. Shot across the bow of the "country music establishment"? Yes. The Times actually gets it right in the fourth graph of the story, describing the Grammy haul for the Chicks as a "rejoinder" and a "sharp counterpoint to their shut-out at the Country Music Association awards in November."
An aside: Why did the Country Music Awards "shut out" the Chicks last November? Because the Chicks are no longer on country radio. Country fans in the United States, in general, are no longer buying tickets to see the Chicks in concert or buying their albums. The Chicks are off the radar for most country music fans.
Why did the hicks from the sticks disown the Chicks?
Defiant Dixie Chicks Are Big Winners at the Grammys
"After death threats, boycotts and a cold shoulder from the country music establishment, the Dixie Chicks gained sweet vindication Sunday night at the 49th annual Grammy Awards, capturing honors in all five of the categories in which they were nominated" (read entire article here ).
The first clause of the lead contains the MSM stock description of the Dixie Chicks: "threatened, boycotted and mistreated." Woe to any well-intentioned and enlightened dissenter intent on speaking truth to power. McCarthyism lurks in the hearts of these ignorant country-music cretins, and violence and economic coercion are the tools of compliance in Red-State America.
The second clause of the lead offers an abysmally flagrant cliché to describe the Grammy triumph for the Chicks: "sweet vindication." And not because it is merely a trite phrase--but it is also inaccurate. Sweet Vindication? Vindication equals justification. In its most literal sense, vindication connotes exoneration through argument or the exhibition of evidence. I suspect that the verdict of the Grammy voters will enjoy an extremely limited jurisdiction.
Sweet revenge? Maybe. Delicious counterpunch? Probably. Shot across the bow of the "country music establishment"? Yes. The Times actually gets it right in the fourth graph of the story, describing the Grammy haul for the Chicks as a "rejoinder" and a "sharp counterpoint to their shut-out at the Country Music Association awards in November."
An aside: Why did the Country Music Awards "shut out" the Chicks last November? Because the Chicks are no longer on country radio. Country fans in the United States, in general, are no longer buying tickets to see the Chicks in concert or buying their albums. The Chicks are off the radar for most country music fans.
Why did the hicks from the sticks disown the Chicks?
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Today is the anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. America has been blessed with great leadership when we have needed it. So much has been written about Lincoln that I have little to add myself. Later today I'll post on his conception of God. For now, some links.
Short biography from the White House site.
Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project from Northern Illinois University. Contains material from his Illinois period.
The Lincoln Home National Historic Site.
The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress.
Second Inaugural Address from the Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress.
Short biography from the White House site.
Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project from Northern Illinois University. Contains material from his Illinois period.
The Lincoln Home National Historic Site.
The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress.
Second Inaugural Address from the Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress.
10/02: Anglican Showdown in Africa?
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
I have posted before about the slow schism in the Episcopal Church, and the tensions between the Episcopal Church and the world-wide Anglican communion, of which it is a part. For example, here. Especially upset are third-world Anglicans, particularly in Africa, where the U.S. branch of Anglicanism is views as heretical.
This coming week the Anglican Primates (Archbishops serving as national leaders) will gather in Tanzania. Perhaps the focal point will be the address by Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh. From an article on the upcoming meeting:
A group of conservative Episcopalians, who represent about 10 percent of the 2.2-million member Episcopal Church, is angling to be recognized as the true U.S. branch of the communion.
Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, who has been invited to address the primates in Tanzania, said he will argue that the Episcopal Church has actually walked away from traditional Anglicanism. The 10 dioceses and 900-odd U.S. parishes in his Anglican Communion Network, meanwhile, have remained orthodox, Duncan said.
Full story from the Dallas Morning News here. I'll be surprised if anything so radical happens quickly. But, the numerical center-of-gravity of Anglicanism has shifted to Africa, and the African Archbishops will expect to be heard. What they will have to say will not please the Episcopal Church.
This coming week the Anglican Primates (Archbishops serving as national leaders) will gather in Tanzania. Perhaps the focal point will be the address by Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh. From an article on the upcoming meeting:
A group of conservative Episcopalians, who represent about 10 percent of the 2.2-million member Episcopal Church, is angling to be recognized as the true U.S. branch of the communion.
Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, who has been invited to address the primates in Tanzania, said he will argue that the Episcopal Church has actually walked away from traditional Anglicanism. The 10 dioceses and 900-odd U.S. parishes in his Anglican Communion Network, meanwhile, have remained orthodox, Duncan said.
Full story from the Dallas Morning News here. I'll be surprised if anything so radical happens quickly. But, the numerical center-of-gravity of Anglicanism has shifted to Africa, and the African Archbishops will expect to be heard. What they will have to say will not please the Episcopal Church.
Farmer, once more I am the cynical one, I guess. I think you are too easy on the MSM. You and I do indeed have our points of view, but we are careful not to corrupt basic facts of the matter when we write. The MSM seem under no such compunction: from the Rathergate memo to the way the recent intel report was handled. It seems to me that the MSM have particular directions they wish to see the country take, and write accordingly. I think some of them even are aware of it, but think they are writing for the "greater good" or perhaps "the bigger truth." (see Duranty at the NYT) Check out this post with links from the John Locke Foundation. I have difficulty understanding this behavior with your "Friendly v Unfriendly" paradigm. If they were interested in reporting fairly, the corrections on the Intel story would also have been front-page.
To the above, I must add a level of ignorance that seems to me culpable. For example, it is now over 5 years since 9/11. Most reporting on Islam, however, betrays a lack of serious study of the history and beliefs of that religion, especially Islam's relations with other religions and cultures over its history. At its best, this is laziness, at its worst, it is frivolity. Either term fits the definition of the classic deadly sin sloth.
I refer you to this post on Jihadwatch on the media's inability or unwillingness to ask hard questions of Muslim spokesmen. Here is a portion of the post "Falsifying history as a debating tool."
Both Hugh Fitzgerald and I have written about Islamic apologist and media darling Reza Aslan, noting some of his innumerable distortions -- for one, he calls Muhammad’s community in Medina “a communal, egalitarian society dedicated to pluralism and tolerance.” Sure it was -- with the women veiled and the three Jewish tribes ultimately exiled or massacred by the prophet of Islam. Other than that, it was very pluralistic and egalitarian.
. . .
Here is another example: in ‘Reza Aslan’s Pogrom Amnesia,’ the ever-insightful Ilana Mercer has posted a link to a post by Myles Kantor about a debate between atheist crusader Sam Harris and Aslan. In that debate, Aslan again uses whitewashed history as a debating tool:
About Reza Aslan, the darling of the media on all things Muslim, Myles Kantor observes the following:
“Last night I watched Sam Harris and Reza Aslan’s January 25 debate on religion at the Los Angeles Public Library. Toward the end, Harris noted the anti-Semitic character of the Middle East before the establishment of Israel in 1948.
Aslan responded in reference to pre-state Israel, ‘Before 1948, of course, there were tens of thousands of Jews living alongside their Arab neighbors without any problem at all.’
Without any problem at all? How about the Jerusalem pogrom in 1920 and the Jaffa pogrom in 1921? Or Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safad in 1929? Or the Tiberias pogrom in 1938? (There was a reason the Sephardic Jewish sage Maimonides wrote in 1172 regarding Arabs, ‘Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.’)
Perhaps ignorance of Islamic history is too kind an analysis. MSM reporters regularly are deferential to Islamic spokesmen. For once I would like to see the same adversarial attitude shown in White House Press Conferences applied here.
To the above, I must add a level of ignorance that seems to me culpable. For example, it is now over 5 years since 9/11. Most reporting on Islam, however, betrays a lack of serious study of the history and beliefs of that religion, especially Islam's relations with other religions and cultures over its history. At its best, this is laziness, at its worst, it is frivolity. Either term fits the definition of the classic deadly sin sloth.
I refer you to this post on Jihadwatch on the media's inability or unwillingness to ask hard questions of Muslim spokesmen. Here is a portion of the post "Falsifying history as a debating tool."
Both Hugh Fitzgerald and I have written about Islamic apologist and media darling Reza Aslan, noting some of his innumerable distortions -- for one, he calls Muhammad’s community in Medina “a communal, egalitarian society dedicated to pluralism and tolerance.” Sure it was -- with the women veiled and the three Jewish tribes ultimately exiled or massacred by the prophet of Islam. Other than that, it was very pluralistic and egalitarian.
. . .
Here is another example: in ‘Reza Aslan’s Pogrom Amnesia,’ the ever-insightful Ilana Mercer has posted a link to a post by Myles Kantor about a debate between atheist crusader Sam Harris and Aslan. In that debate, Aslan again uses whitewashed history as a debating tool:
About Reza Aslan, the darling of the media on all things Muslim, Myles Kantor observes the following:
“Last night I watched Sam Harris and Reza Aslan’s January 25 debate on religion at the Los Angeles Public Library. Toward the end, Harris noted the anti-Semitic character of the Middle East before the establishment of Israel in 1948.
Aslan responded in reference to pre-state Israel, ‘Before 1948, of course, there were tens of thousands of Jews living alongside their Arab neighbors without any problem at all.’
Without any problem at all? How about the Jerusalem pogrom in 1920 and the Jaffa pogrom in 1921? Or Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safad in 1929? Or the Tiberias pogrom in 1938? (There was a reason the Sephardic Jewish sage Maimonides wrote in 1172 regarding Arabs, ‘Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.’)
Perhaps ignorance of Islamic history is too kind an analysis. MSM reporters regularly are deferential to Islamic spokesmen. For once I would like to see the same adversarial attitude shown in White House Press Conferences applied here.
The Okie Gardener is onto something when he calls the coverage of Hillary "friendly" (see his post here). Friendly is a moderate and appropriate characterization. Democratic candidates generally get a lot of friendly coverage in the MSM.
My long held thesis:
No rational observer can deny a liberal bias in the mainstream media (MSM). On the other hand, bias should not be confused with orchestrated advocacy. CBS News and the DNC are not in cahoots. The MSM bias for liberal candidates and causes is real; it is systemic and institutional, but it is not concerted.
For example, this blog has a rightwing bias, but that does not mean we consciously lie, dissemble, or distort the facts to make our points. Moreover, we do not get talking points and/or marching orders from the RNC. We are completely independent agents attempting to come to terms with the issues of the day in an honest way, filtering the world through the lenses of our experience and individual moral compasses. The big difference between us and them is that we are generally more honest about what we are doing.
Back to understanding the Beltway media: It is important to note that political agenda is not the only factor in play within the MSM. As I have said previously: The MSM's cynicism acting in conjunction with its other biases for conflict and sensationalism are also essential in explaining its political coverage.
For example, the Clinton scandals received plenty of attention--much of it quite negative and judgmental, especially in the beginning. However, eventually, the political battle lines overwhelmed the initial shock and disgust registered by the MSM, and, in the end, the stories conformed to the standard pro-Clinton and anti-Republican template.
For more on this see these previous posts: a general overview of the landscape (here) and a defense of Fox (here).
Some more recent cases in point:
Consider the current unfriendly MSM coverage of the Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, which has contributed to the impression that the GOP is unwilling to debate the war in Iraq. A more sophisticated, more accurate, and less unfriendly storyline would depict McConnell as, at the very least, clever, good-natured, and well within his rights. Genuinely (perhaps excessively) friendly coverage would show him as a new master of the Senate and celebrate his exceptional parliamentary stratagem (as I did here a few days ago). One wonders: if Nancy Pelosi had executed an equally brilliant maneuver on her side of Capitol Hill, how would the MSM have chosen to characterize her coup.
Consider and compare the firestorm and coverage concerning George Allen with the more recent Joe Biden imbroglio. The divergence seems disproportionate well beyond the significant differences in tone, intent, and language within the individual cases. Who can deny that the Washington Post was merciless in their desire to dislodge Allen from his Senate seat?
Consider the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice.
An aside: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense.
I try not to get all my information about anything from NPR, but it just so happens that most of the trial coverage I have heard on this case comes from Nina Totenberg. From what I have gleaned from that particular source, I am fully expecting the Libby side to either flee the country over the weekend or throw themselves on the mercy of the court when they are asked to present their case on Monday.
I wonder if there is another side of the story.
On the other hand, perhaps we worry too much about this. That is, I would wager today that more Americans are experts on the life and death of Anna Nicole Smith than the combined total number of citizens who have ever heard of Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, or Scooter Libby.
My long held thesis:
No rational observer can deny a liberal bias in the mainstream media (MSM). On the other hand, bias should not be confused with orchestrated advocacy. CBS News and the DNC are not in cahoots. The MSM bias for liberal candidates and causes is real; it is systemic and institutional, but it is not concerted.
For example, this blog has a rightwing bias, but that does not mean we consciously lie, dissemble, or distort the facts to make our points. Moreover, we do not get talking points and/or marching orders from the RNC. We are completely independent agents attempting to come to terms with the issues of the day in an honest way, filtering the world through the lenses of our experience and individual moral compasses. The big difference between us and them is that we are generally more honest about what we are doing.
Back to understanding the Beltway media: It is important to note that political agenda is not the only factor in play within the MSM. As I have said previously: The MSM's cynicism acting in conjunction with its other biases for conflict and sensationalism are also essential in explaining its political coverage.
For example, the Clinton scandals received plenty of attention--much of it quite negative and judgmental, especially in the beginning. However, eventually, the political battle lines overwhelmed the initial shock and disgust registered by the MSM, and, in the end, the stories conformed to the standard pro-Clinton and anti-Republican template.
For more on this see these previous posts: a general overview of the landscape (here) and a defense of Fox (here).
Some more recent cases in point:
Consider the current unfriendly MSM coverage of the Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, which has contributed to the impression that the GOP is unwilling to debate the war in Iraq. A more sophisticated, more accurate, and less unfriendly storyline would depict McConnell as, at the very least, clever, good-natured, and well within his rights. Genuinely (perhaps excessively) friendly coverage would show him as a new master of the Senate and celebrate his exceptional parliamentary stratagem (as I did here a few days ago). One wonders: if Nancy Pelosi had executed an equally brilliant maneuver on her side of Capitol Hill, how would the MSM have chosen to characterize her coup.
Consider and compare the firestorm and coverage concerning George Allen with the more recent Joe Biden imbroglio. The divergence seems disproportionate well beyond the significant differences in tone, intent, and language within the individual cases. Who can deny that the Washington Post was merciless in their desire to dislodge Allen from his Senate seat?
Consider the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice.
An aside: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense.
I try not to get all my information about anything from NPR, but it just so happens that most of the trial coverage I have heard on this case comes from Nina Totenberg. From what I have gleaned from that particular source, I am fully expecting the Libby side to either flee the country over the weekend or throw themselves on the mercy of the court when they are asked to present their case on Monday.
I wonder if there is another side of the story.
On the other hand, perhaps we worry too much about this. That is, I would wager today that more Americans are experts on the life and death of Anna Nicole Smith than the combined total number of citizens who have ever heard of Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, or Scooter Libby.
09/02: Edwards and His Bloggers
It is not just conservative, Republican-leaning religious folk who are upset with John Edwards for keeping two hateful bloggers on his campaign. Democrat-supporting Roman Catholics also are upset and vocal. LGF has the story.
