Fox and Friends

Well it's safe to say that this hasn't been a banner week for Future President Kerry.  I don't think it's a disasterous week; none of the big anti-Kerry stories (Berger's wandering hands, the problems with Richard Clark's story) are real campaign sinking torpedoes.  But it's not been the greatest.

On the other hand it hasn't been a terribly grea weak for Fox News either, as this new Documentary Outfoxed has gotten out to the people.  It demonstrates to those who don't know that the best argument for Fox News isn't that it is fair and balanced (it isn't) but some vague argument about how it balances the more "liberal" news stations. 

One claim being made by Fox defenders and employees is that they can't be seen as pro President Bush because they are the ones who broke the story of President Bush's DUI.  Well Eric Boehlert takes issue with that particular interpretation in an article at Salon today.

"The truth is that it was a resourceful 27-year-old reporter at a local Fox affiliate, WPXT-TV in Portland, Maine, who uncovered the DUI story, not the Fox News Channel in New York or Washington, the partisan national network that's the focus of Robert Greenwald's new documentary, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism." Nobody associated with "Outfoxed" or elsewhere participating in the media debate has suggested that local Fox news teams in places like Bakersfield, Calif.; Birmingham, Ala.; or Boise, Idaho operate under Republican marching orders as they cover arsons, car crashes and zoo openings. So it's not that unusual that an enterprising reporter, operating off the FNC reservation as it were, could play a starring role in the DUI story. Not surprisingly, Ailes and Cameron are now conveniently trying to pretend that it was Sean Hannity's "Fair and Balanced" Fox News, those bold seekers of the truth, who unearthed the damaging dirt on Bush that almost cost him the election."

Of particular note in Boehlert's article is the way they chose to present it in 2000 as compared to how they present it today. 

Around the Horn; It's all one song

Here we go with another exciting trip round the Liberal Coalition Universe.  An extra long one today, I hope.

First of all we welcome the return of MercuryX23's Fantabulous Blog, and in this post he contrasts Liberal humor with that that emmenates from the current Governor of California.

And Then . . . has some trenchent comments on the 9/11 report and the difference between repairing a machine and defeating evil forever. 

Kick the Leftist has some thoughts on the Philipines pulling out of Iraq.

Rick's Cafe Americaine has an important piece on how Insurance Companies are taking advantage of American Soldiers.

Rook's Rant has a piece on the timing of President Bush's request for intelligence.

For those who love music, Sooner Thought has an article on a recent Sting / Annie Lennox concert. 

Sooner Thought also posted a piece at The Liberal Coalition website about Kalyn Free, who seems like someone worth checking out, and lending a hand too as she tries to get into Congress.

The Yellow Doggeral Democrat has a section dealing with Dennis Kucinich's endorsement of John Kerry. 

The Gotham City 13 have a treatise on a soldier in Afghanistan who claims to have had constant contact with Donald Rumsfeld.

Dohiyi Mir has some hard-boiled commentary on a certain member of the Bush Campaign. 

bloggg has a collection of quotations from our current President. 

blogAmy has some well written thoughts on going through a Police Barricaide.

The mighty edwardpig emerged, groundhog like, saw President Bush's chances unfolding, and apparently returned to haitus.  Hopefully he'll return often from haitus; he's good. 

rubber hose has some commentary on where the national Abortion debate is. 

Anyway that's an extra long one.  Hope you enjoyed--tune in next time when the cow says "Neigh."

The Law is an Idiot

Good article today at Salon by James K. Galbraith.  He goes through President Bush's recent approval numbers, but then moves onto something puzzling President Bush said recently, as part of his effort to explain why we invaded Iraq.

"Bush made this clear the other day with his definitive defense of his war in Iraq. He said: "Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq ... We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."

Was this just the latest lame defense of failure? Or was it a calculated statement of doctrine? It could be either. Unlike the neoconservatives before the United States went into Iraq, we should be prudent and assume the worst.

Read Bush's statement again. In it, he asserts a right to remove any "declared enemy" with "capability" to produce weapons who "could have passed that capability" along.

"Capability"? "Could have"? What trouble spots in the world doesn't this fit? It certainly fits North Korea and Iran. Will this doctrine thus lead to a raid on the internationally legal Iranian Nuclear Plant next year? It could, as the Times of London has reported, citing an unnamed U.S. administration source. "

Anyway the whole article is interesting, but I for one think we might have enough to right now without invading Iran or North Korea. 

John Kerry already controls France

This in interesting news that Emmet Tyrell passes off almost offhandedly in his latest article. 

"Just when things were going swimmingly for the presumptive Democratic presidential ticket, a cloud appears on the horizon. The French Consulate in New York has tacked onto its front door an announcement reminding Americans once again of French haughtiness ... and of French geopolitical ambitions."

You catch that?  Apparently it's bad news for Future President Kerry that France has advised those seeking visa's be polite.  That's because Future President Kerry is the secret king of France; so anything France does reflects badly on him.  I guess you can see why people complain about the media; they should be telling us all about Kerry's control of France.  But I'll bet you weren't even aware of it until this moment.   

I'm Dreaming of a Genie In a Magic Bikini - An Absurdist Post

"My Friends, do you ever marvel . . . at me?" - Rush Limbaugh, just before 2:00 p.m., July 21, 2004.

"I keep saying, greatness does not need to be explained. Greatness does not need to be defined and John Kerry continues to have to explain himself and to define himself because who he is doesn't stand out, and who he is doesn't strike anybody as great." - Rush Limbaugh on or around Monday, April 26.

I just can't get my head around those two statements.  They seem so . . . contridictory. 

"My Friends, do you ever marvel . . . at me?" - Rush Limbaugh, just before 2:00 p.m., July 21, 2004.

I guess honesty forces me to admit that at times I do marvel at Mr. Limbaugh.  But not for the reasons he's probably thinking of. 

"My Friends, do you ever marvel . . . at me?" - Rush Limbaugh, just before 2:00 p.m., July 21, 2004.

Oh and those three ellipses are not indicating any missing lines; just to show the pause. 

Independents Unite!

Kathleen Parker writes an interesting article over at Townhall about the virtues of being independent of either party.  Apparently both parties are guilty of extreme partisanship.

"We're ripe for a terrorist attack, yet we've become so stridently self-absorbed and distracted by partisan one-upmanship that you begin to wonder whether anyone's manning the barricades."
 
What crowd pleasing title does Ms. Parker give this discussion of the perils of partisanship?  "Beyond bashing Bush."  In it she mentions Michael Moore twice, but can't find room for Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage.  She could also note that the Bush campaign spends three or four times more on their campaign website bashing Kerry than Kerry's website spends bashing Bush. 

So I have to admit I find this article remarkably similar to other articles that have more honestly admitted that they think Democrats are partisan and if they weren't partisan they would be more pro-Bush.   

Still, at least she didn't suggest that Democrats hate President Bush irrationally. 

Foreign Policy

For those interested in good political writing (as opposed to what I seem to be capable of today), you might check out this piece by Joshua Micah Marshall  that appeared in the Atlantic.  Mr. Marshall writes "Talking Points Memo" over there on the left and this article concerns how President Bush and Future President Kerry's foreign policies are likely to differ.  Well worth checking out.

Deep Thoughts

I've been thinking about the latest edition of This Modern World. For those who haven't seen it, here it is.
 
I have to admit that I do fit some of the characteristics of a "sensible Liberal."  And, on the other hand, I've commented more than once on the dangers of being overly concilitary towards Liberals.  It's enough to realize that many conservative leaders don't want liberals to exist in America to realize that compromise is not always the wisest course of action. 
 
Tom Tomorrow is also correct when he notes that many liberals should just admit that the anti-war protesters were right and we were wrong. 
 
I disagree, however, with the idea that moderation in discourse is always wrongheaded.   The two examples he gives (discomfort with calling the President a Liar and liberal attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11) I can get behind.  Some of the attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11 have been misguided at best (while others have been dead on, such as those from the Daily Howler).  On the other hand, there are occasionally some outrageous things said by those on the left.  One has only to summon Ted Rall to one's mind.  Are we committed to never criticizing those on the left?  
 
One possibility is that we should have two parties; one for Moderate Liberals and one for People Further Left (boy is that an awkward phrase).   But, in reality, that's a pipe dream.  The truth is that for the foreseeable future, rightly or wrongly, we've got one party for the left and one for the right. 
 
I will reiterate a criticism I've had with this argument; it gives short shrift to the idea that a Moderate Liberal might actually disagree with the Person Further Left.  It's assumed that the Moderate argues from a Moderate position simply as a tactic, but that in reality his goals are essentially the same as the Person Further Left.  That may not always be the case. 

I'm reminded of an old Limbaugh bit where he made fun of Moderates by suggesting there woudl never be book called "great moderates in history."  Of course Limbaugh basically assumes anybody not a hardline Conservative is essentially a liberal.  Mr. Tomorrows last line seems to indicate that he feels that "Sensible" Liberals are more or less working for the Republicans. 
 
Anyway I can tell I'm having a hard time getting my point to come out organized, so I'll just cut it off here. 

Both Sides of the Mouth

Rich Lowry writes an article today in which he imagines all liberals to be essentially the same person, and that "person" is hypocritical because he seems to have two different opinions on the issues.

Perhaps an example would demonstrate to Mr. Lowry the folly of this argument. Take Ms. Moderate Liberal and Mr. Less Moderate Liberal. Ms. Moderate Liberal says, "Well, invading Iraq might have been an ok idea, but the way he went about it unilaterally and without the support of the UN, well that wasn't very smart." Mr. Less Moderate Liberal says, "Are you kidding? Invading Iraq was always a bad idea, and we should never have done it, particularly since Iraq was no threat to the United States." Mr. Lowry, evesdropping on this conversation and unable to tell two liberals appart, assumes hypocricy on both parts.

But of course Mr. Lowry hardly needs to go to the trouble of listening to what liberals say when he can just make stuff up. Take this section. "If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations."

Of course, I need hardly point out that while Liberals are critical of President Bush's failure to keep much control over spending, of far more concern are his tax cuts, which are a much larger part of the equation in figuring out how high the deficit is going to go. Mr. Lowry chooses not to spend much time on taxes in his little essay.

Mr. Lowry is, of course, no stranger to how a President can inspire some intemperate comments; I think we all remember how sensible the Republicans were during the Clinton Years.   

There's a Riot Going On!!!

Well a couple of big stories in the news on the upcoming Republican Convention.  It's already well known that dozens of protests are planned during the convention which is being held to tie in with the remembrance of September 11th (so that Team Bush controls the news cycle for quite a little while). 
 
Well it turns out that some Conservative groups are planning counter protests.  According to AP Reporter Sara Kugler, "Activists planning to demonstrate against the upcoming GOP convention should be on the lookout for young conservatives gearing up to protest the protesters." 
 
These brave young conservatives are apparently called the Protest Warriors (and in a 100% unrelated story, the good folks at Make me a Commentator!!! are considering changing their name to Commentary Warriors).  
 
This is at the top of their website.  "Welcome to ProtestWarrior.com, a website created to help arm the liberty-loving Silent Majority with ammo -- ammo that strikes at the intellectual solar plexus of the Left. "
 
The intellectual solar plexus of the Left.  There's a phrase that's rife with possibilities. 
 
In other happy news is this editorial, by Adam Cohen, at the New York Times.  Apparently Mayor Bloomberg in 2004 is somewhat similar to Mayor Daley, Mayor of Chicago in 1968.  The 1968 Democratic Convention was somewhat of a debacle, as anti-war protestors clashed with the Chicago City Police Force.  Could such a debacle happen in 2004?  
  
While it doesn't seem likely that we will see a repeat of 1968, according to Mr. Cohen, it also seems unlikely that the Protesters will receive a warm welcome. 
 
"Mayor Bloomberg's roots lie in a social organization that's very different from the clubhouse, but equally intolerant of spontaneous outbursts. Until he ran for mayor he had spent his life in the corporate world, where ? as in a political machine ? people pursue a common goal by working through the system. Employees who try to harangue leaders into changing corporate policy are not engaging in free speech. They are being insubordinate."

Mr. Cohen calls on Mayor Bloomberg to welcome the protesters, provided they stay within the law.  At any rate, we got Protesters, Counter-Protesters, and a Mayor who prefers silence to dissent.  I'm not saying anything is necessarily going to happen, but it probably could. 

Confusion about the Message

(Overheard at the Offices of the Center for Consumer Freedom.)  

Flunky:  Look, Boss I'm just not sure about this latest article. 
 
Boss:  What, that hollywood piece?  It's boffo. 
 
Flunky:  Well it's gratifying, but what's our point?  I mean do we list all these hollywood people and point out how according to Government Regulations they are all overweight.
 
Boss:  So.  Gives a visual representation of how over regulated we are, and how detatched from the real world Government pencil pushers are? 
 
Flunky:  Yeah Boss, but we don't like Hollywood either.
 
Buss: (eating Danish) What's that?
 
Flunky:  Our fans don't like Hollywood either. 
 
Boss:  So?
 
Flunky:  Well this is going to make them look good, isn't it?  Sort of pointing out their healthfulness. 
 
Boss:  So we make a lot of jokes about how big hollywood types are all fatsos.  I thought I had a few jokes like that in there anyway.  Something about Conan the Obese?
 
Flunky:  Yeah, I noticed that.  You know he's a republican, right? 
 
Boss:  Yeah but Conan was a piece of crap, so I figure it's ok. 
 
Flunky: Anyway I'm just saying our message might be a little confused.  Are we angry at the regulators or Hollywood. 
 
Boss:  Look, nobody will notice, so who gives a  damn?  Just run it and let's go have lunch. 

OK not really heard at the offices of the Center for Consumer Freedom. I made that part up. But the rest of it is true.

Left Behind Redux

You remember a couple of weeks ago I pointed out a website that dealt extensively with the Left Behind series.  Well, Nicholas D. Kristof deals with the series today and he asks some pointed questions.
 
"These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.

If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite properly linked the fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the intolerance they nurture, and it's time to remove the motes from our own eyes."
 
Pointed questions indeed. 

A Cartoon

This one is from Don Asmussen, and I like it.
 
 

Edited to add this is from the last election cycle, not the current one. I think.

New Quote

Yep, a brand new quote here from your buddies at Make me a Commentator.  And to top it off a new Quotes Page.