Those Damned Liberals

In his latest article, Brent Bozell takes Liberals to task for rushing to attack Conservatives in the wake of the Tuscon Shooting.

I have never witnessed such an immediate rush to tar a majority movement in my life -- without an ounce of evidence.

The star of the media's Smearing Olympics was Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat who rushed to the readily available media microphones to proclaim the shooting was the natural outgrowth of hot "anti-government" talkers, that "the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from the people in the radio business and some people in the TV business" was to blame.

Let's be honest here. I assumed when I heard about this attack that it was a right wing attack. Why would I think that? Because for decades the right wing noise machine has described Liberals and Democrats as the enemies of America, as wanting Americans to be miserable so they can get political power, as being basically evil. Limbaugh conservatives see liberals as their enemy. Or to quote Mr. Limbaugh.

We view liberals as a threat to the founding of this country. We view them as a threat to the future. We view them as a threat to the traditions and institutions that have defined this country's greatness. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with.

Is it surprising that after years of such characterization, I might expect that some day somebody might act on this world view.

Here's the thing. Limbaugh and Palin and Beck and all don't feel powerless. Whatever they pretend, they know that elections come and go, and their ideas will get back in power. That's the way of it. Do their followers share the same mentality? Or is it possible that their followers, after hearing years of Conservatives explaining that the system just doesn't work and that Democratic politicians are evil, might decide that they can't wait for the system to work. That they know where evil is and they know how to deal with it.

Obviously in this case, Loughner turns out to be crazy. And, it must be acknowledged, some of the Reporting on this issue was hasty. I had a gut reaction to this news; but I'm not a reporter. Reporters should wait until they get all the facts.

Loving America

Brent Bozell's latest article shows his inability to honestly critique media. Which is a bit problematic since he tries to function as a Conservative Media Critic (fortunately for Bozell, all his readers want to hear is how bad and out of touch Hollywood is). His latest target is Oliver Stone.

Sadly, that [World Trade Center] was but a brief hiccup in Stone's career, a befuddling, out-of-character career move. In most of his movies, Oliver Stone is clearly not a fan of America, both her leaders and her policies. Think "Born on the Fourth of July," "Platoon," "JFK," "Nixon" and "W."

See Bozell doesn't undersand criticizing harshly something you love. H edoesn't understand how someone like Stone can love his country and wish it well, while also being discouraged at the choices it makes.

Which is odd because one presumes Bozell has no trouble understanding how a conservative could be disgusted with President Obama or with the sexual predillictions of some Americans while still loving America. But the thing about it is that Bozells image of America is tied up almost entirely with his conservative ideology; in his mind, to a great extent, to really be American is to be conservative. So criticizing libertines or progressives, even if they happen to be U.S. Citizens, isn't criticizing America because libertians and progressives aren't really Americans.

Poor Rush Limbaugh

Brent Bozell steps up to the plate this week to defend Rush Limbaugh against some pretty mean insults coming his way. For one thing, many liberals make fun of him for being fat.

Now I'm somewhat with Bozell on this one. It is one thing to note that Limbaugh doesn't have much sympathy with the hungry in America; that's fair game. But some of these attacks go well beyond that and are frankly pretty ugly.

But of course Bozell, being Bozell, has to overstep.

Let us be honest: Sometimes conservative talk radio goes too far. But never will you hear a credible conservative talk show host -- say, Rush, or Hannity, or Levin or Ingraham -- resort to this sort of ugliness.

They don't have to. They just call liberals liberals and laugh, while those liberals explode with outrage.

Yeah that's all Rush does. Wait, no it's not. What Rush does on his show is gin up hatred for Liberals as often as he can.

We view liberals as a threat to the founding of this country. We view them as a threat to the future. We view them as a threat to the traditions and institutions that have defined this country's greatness. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with.

Like that.

And as I've noted before, Limbaugh doesn't confine himself to insulting the powerful and the wealthy. Instead he attacks every liberal as a threat to this nation. So while I'm not keen on the fat jokes, there's still plenty about Rush to attack.

Unhinged

For years I had to wade through articles insisting that Liberals were mentally unstable or unhinged in their attacks on President Bush. I don't doubt that there were some articles that went a little over the top in their attacks on President Bush; I pointed a few out from time to time.

That said, Brent Bozell's latest article on President Obama rivals anything liberals said about Bush.

Obama's so egotistical he thinks America has two historical eras, Before Obama and the Glorious Now. After sitting through a 50-minute diatribe from that communist thug Daniel Ortega, who ranted that America had unleashed a century of expansionist aggression, Obama's response wasn't national, just personal: "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was 3 months old."

. . . American reporters saw this as a glorious moment. Time's Tim Padgett said the hate-America gift was appropriate, because Obama "proved at the Trinidad summit to be the first U.S. president to get it." Obama "gets" the America-haters.

The first thing that jumps out at you reading this article is just how much Bozell hates Obama.

But secondly, he has know knowledge of Latin American History; he doesn't realize or care how much Latin America legitimately resents the United States. We have acted aggressively in that part of the world for decades, and they want to be sure we don't go back to those ways. Bozell doesn't know that, or, if he does, doesn't care.

Getting along with Latin America involves acknowloging our history, which Obama is willing to do. The fact that Bozell doesn't like it, and wishes Obama believed in the childish version of America where everything America does is great (except when a liberal is around), well, as I said, it's kind of childish.

In other news we discovered another planet. Two actually. The LA Times has the story.

The Most Liberal Senator in Congress

I'm keying off of an article by Brent Bozell III here. It's his typical drivel; the left wing media is in the tank for Obama and hates McCain. Parenthetically that view is so at odds with reality that I am curious to see if people outside of Right Wingers are going to buy it.

But that's not my main point. In the middle of his dopey article, he makes this statement.

He was asked if he could handle the coming "assault" from the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that could be heard manufacturing its wicked armaments off stage. What lies will they stoop to tell? Blitzer suggested told Obama they're going to "paint" him as a tax-and-spend liberal.

"Paint" him? Who needs to add any paint to that picture? That is the truth -- he's the most left-wing senator in Washington -- and they know it.

How is Barack Obama the most left wing Senator in Congress? Well the National Journal keeps track how Senators votes and based on their votes assigns them a score. Four years ago John Kerry beat out all of his colleagues to become the most liberal in the senate and this year Obama somehow got the brass ring. What are the odds that two Presidential candidates are the most liberal in the senate?

Pretty high actually, when you consider both men had to balance their congressional duties with the rigors of the campaign trail. When you are running for President you can't show up for every single vote (which is why Presidential candidates often get dinged for absenteeism as well as Liberalism). Obama and Kerry had to pick their votes, and naturally picked those votes that mattered most to them. And theirs a natural tendency for those votes to be more liberal.

The National Journal knows this. I would guess many Conservative Commentators know it too; but that won't stop them from saying, over and over again, Obama is the most Liberal Senator in the Senate.

Limbaugh's World

Brent Bozell has written a review of the Limbaugh "phony soldiers" comment, and it's about what you would expect. Long on ideology, short on logic. He does make this comment, which has been common from right wing commentators on this situation.

Before reviewing the facts of the case, one has to shake his head in disbelief that anyone would accuse Limbaugh of an anti-military bias. A day doesn't go by when he isn't praising our military on his radio program.

The question isn't Rush's love of the troops; it's his acceptance of the existence of liberal troops. Liberals who fight to defend this country alongside conservatives. Rush Limbaugh, and most conservatives presumably, aren't keen on highlighting this contingent of troops, because they don't fit the narrative of Conservatives as loving their country, Liberals as hating it. Hell it wasn't a month ago that Limbaugh had "I hate the USA" (as sung by Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton and others) in heavy rotation.

He also repeats one of the bizarre allegations by Rush - when he said Phoney Soldiers he was talking about Jessee McBeth and a bunch of people in Washington guilty of defrauding the veterans administration by claiming to be veterans. That, of course, doesn't fit the context at all. The callers point which Rush backed up with his "phony soldiers" comment, was that the media goes after anti-war Soldiers and ignores pro-war soldiers. In that context complaining about phony soldiers whose motives are financial makes less than no sense.

At any rate, the issue seems to have largely died down; hopefully this will be my last post on the subject.

Censor Censorship

Today Townhall appears to have decided to grapple with the tricky question of what people should be allowed to see. First of all Brent Bozell argues in favor of the FCC cracking down on Television indecency. Specifically he takes on a Libertarian named Peter Suderman's argument that we should stop letting the FCC run our television economy.

HBO is a pay cable network and therefore outside of the FCC's regulatory purview. What is viewed on that network is precisely what would appear on broadcast television if Hollywood were left to its own devices. One simply cannot dispute that Hollywood has coarsened the culture with its increasingly offensive programming.

So what to do if you're a "conservative" like Suderman? You yawn your disinterest and play make-believe in your commentary. Perhaps he'd feel differently if he came off his coastal perch at NRO and visited the real world.

So apparently Bozell is in favor of increased FCC regulation.

On the other side of the fence is Cal Thomas who argues, unsurprisingly, that Government Regulation isn't so great. Specifically he is taking on the proposed a la carte suggestion for cable TV.

In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, Martin is to be joined by at least one other commission member, one network executive and an advocacy group representative in support of legislation that would allow cable and satellite TV subscribers to select their programs "a la carte," meaning consumers could choose the networks they want to come into their homes and reject others. This cafeteria approach might sound good at first glance, but suppose someone didn't want to see the violence in Fox TV's "24," but did wish to see the violence of NFL football? Since Fox carries both, consumers who rejected Fox because of "24," would not be able to watch NFL football.

Not only is this a bad business model in that cable and satellite TV make money by telling advertisers they can reach a certain number of homes, it also takes away the privileges and responsibilities of individuals to make these decisions. I don't want - and you shouldn't either - any government official or bureaucrat deciding which cable shows are good for me, and which ones are not.

I have to say that Thomas's argument here makes no sense whatsoever. He describes a program in which individuals would have the choice of which networks they take, and then gets angry at the Government for telling you what you can and can't watch. What?

I guess he might be talking about his example of 24 vs. Football, but isn't that the networks call? Not the governments?

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

It's not going to be a very good show tonight.

I think you should change the channel, change the channel right now or better yet turn off the TV. Now, I know it seems like this is supposed to be funny, but, uh, tomorrow you're gonna find out that it wasn't and by that time I'll have been fired.

No, this is not a sketch.

This show used to be cutting edge political and social sketches, but it's gotten lobotomized by a candy ass broadcast network. Hellbent on doing nothing that might challenge their audience. We're about to do a sketch that everyone's seen like 500 times. No, no one's gonna confuse George Bush and George Plimpton, yeah we get it. We're all being lobotomized by this countries most influential industry. It just throws in the towel on any endeavor to do anything that doesn't involve the courting of 12 year old boys. Not even the smart 12 year olds, the stupid ones, the idiots of which there are plenty thanks to no small mention of this network. So why don't you just change the channel? Turn off the TV do it right now.

The struggle between art and commerce. Well, there's always been a struggle between art and commerce and now I'm telling you art is getting it's ass kicked and it's making us mean and it's making us bitchy. It's making us cheap punks and that's not who we are!

People are having contests to see how much they can be like Donald Trump. We're eating worms for money. "Who wants to screw my sister." Guys are getting killed in a war that has theme music and a logo. Using both your hands as a crack pipe, oh yeah sure every once in a while we pretend to be appalled.

Pornographers! It's not even good pornography. It's just a side of snuff films and friends that's what's next because that's all there is left. And the two things that make them scared gutless of the FCC is and every psycho religious cult that gets positively horny at the mention of a boycott.

I don't know how many of you watched Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, on Monday. It's Aaron Sorkin's new show, and it's very good. As most of you know the show starts with the Director (Wes Mende) of the fictional Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (a bit like Saturday Night Live, now that I think of it), getting told that he has to cut a sketch that we later find out is called "Crazy Christians." A sketch, we are also told, is hilarious. We do not get to see such a sketch, because Aaron Sorkin wisely realizes it would have to be brilliant. And by setting the bar so high, well, better off not showing it.

Anyway Mendel gets angry and goes up on stage and cusses out the world, using the words above.

I suspected that Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center would have commentary on this issue, and I was correct. And as I suspected his commentary is full of the standard distortions and pathetic lies.

He frames it around the basic idea that Sorkin is pissed that Christians criticize Television, while he, Sorkin, is perfectly willing to criticize Christians. This is of course nonsense on a couple of levels. The types of Christians Sorkin is commenting, like Bozell's Media Research Center, are clearly not interested in simply criticizing media. Rather, thru the boycott and other pressures, they try to eliminate media that offends them.

There's a clear difference between saying "You shouldn't have said that" and saying "you shouldn't have been allowed to say that" or "you should be punished for saying that." Brent Bozell tends to say the later two, but doesn't want to admit it.

He also makes this nonsensical aside. "The show begins with an improbable "standards and practices" censor telling the producer of the fictional "SNL" that he can't run "Crazy Christians". . . " Again Bozell can't admit that such Standards and Practices people exist because it would expose the game. But they do exist - listen to the commentaries on Simpsons or Futurama or Family Guy and you will here them referenced again and again. Artists want to push the boundaries.

He describes Sorkin as anti-Religious people. Sorking clearly isn't fond of the Dominionists, and takes shots at them regularly (and has everytime he gets a TV show). But if you see episodes like "The Local Weather" from Sports Nights or "Two Cathedrals" and "Shibboleth" from the West Wing, you can see that Sorkin has, if not much respect for religion, certainly plenty for religious people.

Finally, if you ignore the Crazy Christians bit, aren't most of Mendel's complaints exactly the same as many Christians? I mean aren't Christians upset that TV has gotten so mean and cheap? Aren't they upset about reality shows that degrade us? Aren't they concerned that TV is becoming Pornography? In other words, shouldn't there be some common ground here?

But if people found commen ground I suppose there wouldn't be as much work for people like Brent Bozell who make their money dividing us.

The Path to 9/11

This is the name of a docudrama coming to ABC to be showing on the 10th and the 11th, presumably to commemerate September 11th. The right wing is very pleased with it, as it lays the blame for September 11 right where it belongs (in their minds). Consider this passage from Hugh Hewitts latest article.

As a very accurate docudrama, "The Path to 9/11" has drawn the deep anger of the Clinton political machine. Representatives of that era have been demanding at a minimum edits and some outright cancellation of the program. Monica Lewinsky makes an appearance, you see, as does Bill Clinton's videotaped testimony about his perjury. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is portrayed as indecisive, Madeleine Albright as misdirected, George Tenet as sputtering.

And here's Brent Bozells take on this program.

Both Clinton and Bush officials come under fire, and if it seems more anti-Clinton, that's only because they were in office a lot longer than Team Bush before 9-11.

Brent Bozell doesn't show his cards as much as Hugh Hewitt. Obviously the program has to seem to be fair to be credible; otherwise it can be attacked as propaganda. Brent Bozell, being somewhat media savvy understands this. Hugh Hewitt doesn't. And Rush Limbaugh really doesn't.

The game plan in defending this movie is pretty straightforward though. Portray those who criticize the movie as a small clique of Clinton Loyalists, unwilling to allow their hero to be tarnished even slightly. Even though the movie takes shots at both the Bush's and the Clintons, Democrats aren't willing to shoulder their part of the blame.

That's not exactly the problem. The problem is that the movie distorts the Clinton Years. One key scene involves Sandy Berger receiving a call that Heroic and Manly CIA agents had Osama Bin Ladin in their sights and they requested the White House give them permission to open fire. The White House, personified by Sandy Berger, dithers and eventually fails to give permission to off Bin Ladin. Sheldon Rampton gives a more accurate version of what happened in an article at AlterNet.

The only problem with this "perfect example," which Murty praises because it "honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden," is that it didn't happen. In reality, it was CIA director George Tenet, not Berger, who called off the operation, which never got anywhere near "surrounding Bin Laden's house in Afghanistan." According to the 9/11 commision report on which the movie is supposedly based, Tenet told us that, given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to "turn off" the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger's recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.

The CIA's senior management clearly did not think the plan would work. Tenet's deputy director of operations wrote to Berger a few weeks later that the CIA assessed the tribals' ability to capture Bin Ladin and deliver him to U.S. officials as low.

For another review of the Clinton record on fighting terrorism check out this article by William Pitt at Truthout.

It's also worth noting that the film has been screened for dozens of conservatives, down to such extremists as the gang at Frontpage Magazine. However when President Clinton requested a copy of the film, he was denied one. There's also the timing - they are showing a film which teaches that Republicans are better at understanding and fighting terrorists than Democrats pretty close to the election. Good timing, eh?

The Pain of being Brent Bozell

Brent Bozell's life mission, one he has chosen for himself, is proving that the media is biased against conservatives and in favor of liberals. Back in the day this was the accepted view, even among many leftists/democrats. These days with numerous assaults on the conventional wisdom, he's got to come up with proof.

His latest article is about Ned Lamont; he's upset that he's being described as the Anti-War candidate, rather than the crazed extremist far left candidate. Of course the first label happens to be a bit more accurate than the second. When I read what the right wing is saying about Mr. Lamont I'm astounded at how they describe this fairly sensible business person who happens to oppose a war that, at this point, a majority of Americans oppose.

But then we get to the amusing "proof" of Media Bias.

CBS even offered that view, as reporter Trish Regan referred several times to "this now infamous kiss" from Bush to Lieberman at a State of the Union speech. Bush is "infamous"? Isn't that quite a leap for an "objective" network?

First of all, Mr. Bozell, it is the kiss that is infamous, not the President. Secondly, the reporter was clearly talking about how that kiss looked to Lamont supporters, not profering hers or CBS's opinion.

If you want insight into how Ned Lamont thinks, you might check out his op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal.

Comic Books and Brent Bozell

Brent Bozell, who is professionally upset at the news media, the movie business and the television networks, is also, surprisingly enough, professionally upset at the Comic Book industry. What a surprise.

If you haven't heard yet, the new Batwoman is going to be a lesbian (and a lover of an already existing lesbian character in the Bat Universe, if memory serves). He also notes that a few years back, Marvel put out a comic book about the Rawhide Kid which transformed him into a gay cowboy.

Most of it is Bozell lamenting over these characters in an artform he believes should be kept for children. I've got nothing against comic books for Children, but I don't think that's the only audience possible for the combinations of words and pictures.

He closes his article with this question.

Who would have predicted, 10 years ago, that the comics would become a red-light neighborhood where sexually perverted superheroes would be packaged to elicit from children fascination and sympathy?

For those interested in trivia, this September will mark the 20th anniversery of Watchman, a comic book by Alan Moore. And for those of you who don't see the connection, you should go get Watchman and read it or reread it.

Bush's NSA Program to Get Information On Everybody that Everybody has Called: two Conservative views

The newest manufactured brouhaha -- over the National Security Agency (NSA) creating a database of phone records to track terrorist phone patterns -- was just the latest in a long string of stories trumped up to make Bush look not just incorrect, but dictatorial, even evil. USA Today hyped the story, and the media pack lapped it up, but it failed the first test of newsworthiness: Is it new? No. USA Today's scoop was mostly a retelling of what the New York Times reported last Christmas Eve, that the phone companies had given the NSA "access to streams of international and domestic communications."

. . . It's only when Republicans hold the White House that the networks fear an "imperial presidency." But the problem for Americans is an imperial media, so assured of its own self-congratulatory role as defender of America's freedoms, but such an emperor with no clothes of fairness or balance.

From Brent Bozell, "The database double standard."

The NSA's defenders cite Qwest's refusal, which shows supplying the data was voluntary, as evidence the program is legal. In fact, it indicates just the opposite: Had Qwest been presented with a lawful subpoena or court order demanding the data, it almost certainly would have complied, and if it hadn't the government could have forced it to do so.

Instead, the NSA resorted to extra-legal methods, pressuring the phone companies to divulge the data through appeals to patriotism, warnings about terrorism and (according to USA Today) threats of lost government contracts.

. . . seeking statutory authority should not be considered optional: Whether he likes it or not, the president is not above the law.

From Jacob Sullum, "Is the NSA's phone call database legal because the President says so."

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to determine which of these two men is a "real" conservative.

Lies Lies Lies

Brent Bozell's latest article repeats a lie that we covered yesterday.

On Friday, House Republicans finally showed some spine and did something wonderful. They called for an up-or-down vote on withdrawal, and put everyone formally on the record.

So much for the most "influential Democrat" in the Congress. The House -- Democrats and Republicans -- handed Murtha (and the press) one of the most lopsided, humiliating defeats imaginable. The House vote for withdrawal: three in favor, 403 against. So much for that "growing" public demand for the removal of American troops. The headline should have been "Overwhelming House Majority Votes to Support Bush in Iraq."

Here is the Resolution Congressman Murtha put forward.

The text of the Murtha resolution:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. Military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. Troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Here is the bill that the Republicans cynically put up that was defeated.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Perhaps you can't see a difference between those two bills. Perhaps you can't see any difference between "immediately" and "at the earliest practicable date." If you can't seen the difference, I am a bit sorry for you.

Brent Bozell wants to pretend that their are only two options; either you want to pull troop out immediately, or you support President Bush's continuing the war for as long as he likes. A vote against this cynical vote is a vote for President Bush. How dumb does Brent Bozell think we are?

Well, dumb enough, I guess.

The Unbearable Burden of Brent Bozell

Brent Bozell is a conservative media critic, which is not a fun thing to be these days. A conservative media critic believes that conservatism is the right answer. A conservative media critic, therefore, believes that a fair and accurate repetition of the facts will provide evidence that conservative principles work and liberal principles fail. So when the news fails to provide this; he naturally is upset at the news for lying.

This is far more than simple bias; Brent Bozell believes, as do many on the right, that America's news organizations are systematically lying to the American people in order to hide the success of conservatism.

Bozell's latest article talks about why President Bush hasn't gotten a lot of credit for having saved us from Terrorist attacks since September 11th.

Perhaps the results are less important than the question. It recognized a fact that no one in the liberal media wants to acknowledge above a whisper: Doesn't Bush deserve some measure of credit for how or why the country has not been attacked again on his watch?

He does deserve a measure of credit; I put it at approximately two and a half tablespoons; but I'm naturally generous. In the long run, however, his steps in invading Iraq may create increased danger rather than lessened.

The underlying critique of the media, however, seems strained. I gather that Bozell would like the news presented in such a way as to underline how we are safe thanks to President Bush. For an example, the question "Do you approve of how President Bush has handled the war in Iraq?" is not as good a question as "Given that we have not been attacked by terrorists since September 11th, 2001, do you approve of how President Bush has handled the war in Iraq?" The second question underlines how President Bush has worked to keep us safe.

But with mountains of evidence piling up against how President Bush has run this country, and with the American people increasingly aware of how things are going; well, it's harder to convince people these days.

Mea Maxima Culpa

Brent Bozell is mad at CBS and Dan Rather. Well that goes without saying. Bozell founded the conservative "critique" of media, the Media Research Center.

You all remember last year Dan Rather participated in a report which flagged up the AWOL story. The story was later demolished by the presence of forged documents. Dan Rather and many others (including myself) still believe that the substance of the report was largely accurate. President Bush was lax in his performance of his guard duties. This is intolerable to conservatives.

To conservatives the presence of the forged documents prove that President Bush served with no laxness (as President Bush has claimed). And Dan Rather should have committed seppeku live on television out of shame for his mistake. And CBS should have replaced their entire news staff with hardcore Republicans. So the fact that Dan Rather is being honored for his career in journalism on the event of his retirement is a slap in the face.

To me, it seems like Bozell is getting worked up after nothing. Rather's gone. He's been replaced by someone of a much more conservative bent. On the other hand, Bozell's goal isn't good journalism, it's conservative propaganda. So keeping up the pressure, well, I guess there's no harm in that.

Townhall Report

I just read every article over at Townhall for Thursday, June 23 (as of 9:10 in the morning, more articles may be added later).

There were articles by Brent Bozell and Ann Coulter about Dick Durbin's comments from last week. Apparently he said something along the lines of "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." Republicans do not like this being said, apparently. They are pushing the idea that we are, in fact, too nice to our prisoners (Ann Coulters article is entitled "Guantanamo loses 5-star rating."

Emmet Tyrell and Robert Novak both wrote on Senator Biden. Novak reveals that apparently Biden uses political means to achieve his ends. Shocking. Emmet Tyrell's article is devoted to calling Biden (and any other Democrat he can think of) a liar.

Ak'Bar A. Shabazz also writes on congressional matters. In this case he covers an official Senate apology for failing to pass anti-lynching laws back in the day. He did make a minor misstatement in his article though. "Many have blamed 'southern conservatives' for filibustering anti-lynching legislation. They would be more accurate if they attributed the opposition to 'southern Democrats'. For, it was the Democratic Party that was most active in opposing civil rights legislation during that movement." While technically accurate, this formulation gives the impression that there were separaterate groups - Southern Conservatives and Southern Democrats. In fact, at that time, they were one and the same. It would be most accurate to say "Southern Conservatdemocratsrats." But perhaps accuracy isn't Mr. Shabazz's point.

Suzanne Fields rights on the sanctity of Marriage. Debra Saunders writes on PETA (wembarrassinglyngly enough, recently had some of their charges die). Larry Elder writes on how Senator Kerry's grades show him to be a dummy (compared to President Bush). Alan Reynolds writes a somewhat confusing article on why Oil Prices aren't controlled by demand for car gasoline.

This is tiring.

Terrence Jeffry comments on a subcontractor at Oak Ridge Nuclear facility who hired undocumented aliens. As you might imagine, he's opposed to that.

Cal Thomas comments that PBS and NPR are too liberal. And by too liberal, he apparently means liberal at all.

Both Ross Mackenzie and Tim Chapman do columns that collect a lot of different short themes in them. Kind of like this post really.

Finally, Michael Furtado writes a column filled with links on how Scientists will defeat Germs. Because Scientists are smart and Germs are not. And Marvin Olasky writes an article recommending his five favorite Civil War Battle Grounds for you to visit.

None of those articles is really jumping out at me to comment on so I present them all. Enjoy.

Turnabout is . . . something . . .

Senator Byrd has been in the news a lot lately for his fiery rhetoric against President Bush. He's become something of a hero to many leftists as the one Democrat willing to stand against President Bush. He's also popular with people on the right for his former (1940's) involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Brent Bozell doesn't mention that tidbit, but does call him a nut in an article today.

He then trots out this old chestnut, "When Clinton's opponents mobilized against him, when they circulated speeches on the Internet, Time called them "Clinton haters," remember? In fact, anti-Clinton politicians were maligned before they even got started."

Of course there is a difference. President Clinton's opponents were well-financed and absolutely dedicated to ending his presidency. Senator Byrd is a lone man, and, by Bozell's own argument, wields little power or influence within his party.

You also have the spectacle of Democrats giving the President everything he wants in order to invade Iraq whenever he wants, and Byrd being one of the few voices of dissent against this strategy. Can you imagine the Republicans giving Clinton that kind of authority? Neither can I.

Of course there is also the standard rhetoric about how Byrd has been proven wrong about Iraq. Our quick victory over Iraq proves that we can defeat a third world military, which apparently Senator Byrd contested. Of course the larger point that Senator Byrd made over and over again was that this attack would not make us safer and would in fact make the world more dangerous. It would give recruiting opportunities to al-Queda. It would increase tension between the United States and the Middle East. And the people of Iraq would end up more or less as they started. I hope that that last prediction does not end up being correct, but there's evidence to suggest that it will. At any rate, any of those predictions may still come true.

The Election's Over

I know you were looking forward to an exciting and busy campaign season, watching our candidates debate the issues and articulate their vision for America. But it turns out that conservative columnists have determined that all the Democratic candidates are jokes and that President Bush has no chance of losing the election.

Consider these words from Ben Shapiro. "Just as in 1972, today's Democratic Party is a party in flux. But unlike 1972, there's no Watergate on the horizon. George W. Bush could hardly be mistaken for Richard Nixon. Nixon, a moderate, regulated wages and prices, pursued a soft-line foreign policy of detente and pulled out of Vietnam. Most of all, Nixon was paranoid about his political opponents.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, is a committed conservative and is fearless in staring down his political opponents. If Bush had been president in 1972, Republicans would have enjoyed two decades of uninterrupted presidential power. With the Democrats partying like it's 1972, today's Republicans have an opportunity to begin a new era of conservative dominance."

And Brent Bozell, noting that none of the Democratic candidates appears to be conservative, writes, "This whole field is outside the mainstream, collectively on the fringe left. . . . Democrats worry that none of the candidates is well-known enough to beat President Bush. Instead, they should worry that their candidates will become too well-known."

So you see, according to Conservatives, this election is already over. Democrats may as well pack it in, and if you pay attention to Ben Shapiro, you might not get another shot at it for 20 years. Unless of course, conservative columnists might have some vested interest in disheartening the Democratic party.

Answering Questions

TERRY MORAN: May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?

THE PRESIDENT: I think if you remember back prior to the resolution coming out of the United Nations last fall, I suspect you might have asked a question along those lines -- how come you can't get anybody to support your resolution. If I remember correctly, there was a lot of doubt as to whether or not we were even going to get any votes, much -- well, we'd get our own, of course. And the vote came out 15 to nothing, Terry. And I think you'll see when it's all said and done, if we have to use force, a lot of nations will be with us.

From last weeks press conference we see this exchange. Since then Terry Moran apparently commented that all the white house press corps were like zombies, in that they loved eating brains. No, actually he meant that they were like Zombies in that they sat there stupefied, and asked the president really dopey questions.

Well, Brent Bozell stepped up to argue that a All Zombie Press Corps would be a good thing. He is offended that President Bush is getting such difficult questions. It's not like back when we had President Clinton, who, I think we all agree, got asked questions about his sexual life for two years. Yep, just because are about to go to war, this is no time for the press corps to do their jobs.

Translation

From an article by Brent Bozell on the anti war movement.

"Isn't it amazing that liberals, who are perpetually congratulating themselves for their unparalleled sophistication and their ability to corner the market on nuance, approach the prospect of war on television with little more intellectual heft than the rudimentary idea that war is bad?"

Translation : Liberals are sissy "intellectuals" who think they are smarter than everybody, but are really stupid.

Reality : attending a protest quickly reveals that while some don't have a clue, many have a pretty sound argument as to why we shouldn't engage in this war.

"Our 21st century flower children won't confront the ugly reality of what happens if Saddam Hussein is left to keep accumulating weapons of mass destruction."

Translation : It's all ex-Hippies who live in fantasy land.

Reality : Most people I talked to did express a concern over Saddam, and his potential acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. But they believe that the inspections will hinder that potentiality, and that containment works.

"Why not schedule some air time for the millions of Americans who aren't protesting in the streets, who aren't carrying signs smearing their president with swastikas and telling the cameras they're patriotic?"

Translation : All real Americans are 100% behind the president.

Reality : I don't think Bozell and others would be as insistent on this point if they really believed it.