They Just Don't Get It

Stung by criticism from bloggers and others over a lack of will to truly examine the rise of the right wing media and how the MSM has cowed itself over the years, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz has looked down from his ivory story and attempted to determine what is going on in the streets.

After a quick looksey, Kurtz pronouncesd in a column in the Post that the Left's complaint is Why aren't you on our side? and the Right's complaint is Why can't we get an even break? What a joke. One only has to look at the favorite news organizations of the Right (FOX News) and Left (NPR). Which offers complete and balanced coverage (NPR) and which plays on one side (FOX - Republicans)?

Actually the Right wants it both ways - they want the media to be on their side (FOX News) and if not they complain that they don't get a break. What a crock!

Once and for all, this is the way it is - conservatives expect news coverage to be slated in favor of conservatives (i.e. Fox News) and get mad when it isn't. Liberals expect complete coverage (NPR) and get upset when it isn't.

But in the mind of pundits like Kurtz, asking tough questions of Republicans is akin to taking the Democrat's side, a point he made when Arianna Huffington complained that Tim Russert of Meet the Press gave GOP Ken Mehlman the traditional "E-Z Pass.

For years the Left has been pushing the media to just to do their job, not be a one-sided propaganda machine such as the Right has established with FOX News or the Wall Street Journal editorial page (which even the paper's news staff thinks it off the wall. - "They're wrong all the time. They lack credibility," said one Journal reporter)

For example, remember when the White House press corps woke up one morning earlier this year and decided it was okay to ask tough questions. Jon Stewart on The Daily Show joked that "We've secretly replaced the white house press Corps with actual reporters!"

However the Right has been pushing the media to cover the news from a right-wing perspective (attack Clinton, give Bush the benefit of the doubt) and it worked. Even the Post once upon a time admitted that in a column by John Harris.

Yet when liberals read stories like Harris's and get upset, the Kurtz's of the world call them "angry." One could live with the angry tag if the media would then apply the term "crazy" to the Ann Coulter's of the world, but too many in the MSM just laugh off comments by Coulter and Limbaugh.

In the end it's election year so the MSM wants to seem "balanced," or balanced in the eyes of Fox News so don't expect much to change.

Big Bang Goes Boom

The Bush administration's idea that the way to get peace ran through Iraq was what Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. called "the Big Bang" theory.

"Installing a democratic government in Iraq would force a new dawn. Newly empowered Muslim democrats would reform their societies, negotiate peace with Israel and get on with the business of building prosperous, middle-class societies," Dionne wrote of the Bush administration's plans.

So how's that working out? Un huh, just great. Well I'm sure the Republicans will want to review this during the upcoming election. Right. Or as Dionne describes the GOP's plan, For the next 3 1/2 months, they want the choice before the voters to be binary: staying the course and being "tough," or breaking with President Bush's policy and being "soft."

Must be nice to be able to demand that people not examine your competence in order to determine your fitness. Kinda like CEOs. You get paid a lot no matter how bad you are. Well Bush is called the CEO president.

Emptying the Lockbox

When George Bush was on his ill-fated campaign to privatize Social Security in 2005 one of his campaign stunts was to visit the Office of Public Debt Accounting to find the collection of Treasury Securities that make up the Social Security trust fund.

During his visit Bush said that there was "There is no trust fund -- just IOUs." Other conservatives pointed out that the Social Security payroll taxes are collected, but spent by the government and that privatization was needed to strengthen Social Security.

One might think Bush would have thought more about why those hard-earned payroll taxes were not being saved. Instead this week Bush signed into law a $70 billion tax cut, which will only lead to increased deficits and a less solvent Social Security.

This comes only two weeks after the government released reports showing both Social Security and Medicare would start taking in less money than it spends earlier than previously projected.

Even with the Social Security Administration taking in more money than it spends, it still isn't enough to cover the GOP's drunken sailor spending habits so all the tax bill does is increase the national debt. Conservatives try to claim that tax cuts actually bring in more revenues but that has been discredited.

The Washington Post pointed out that even conservative economist dispute the claim, one saying that tax cuts only replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five.

Conservatives also like to point out that taxes are predominately paid by the rich, without considering their share of income or factoring in payroll taxes. Even when one doesn't factor in payroll taxes, the conservative Tax Foundation's promotes government statistics that show only the very, very rich pay more than their share.

For instance the top 6-10% of tax payers receive 11.18% of income and pay 11.48% of taxes; the top 11-25% receive 22.5% of income and pay 18.04% of taxes; and the top 26-50% receive 21.15% of income and pay 12.6% of taxes.

So why are we mortgaging our future to make the very, very rich richer?

Papers? What Papers?

In 2004 when former Clinton advisor Sandy Berger was accused of taking papers from the National Archives the Right was indignant, yet today there doesn't seem to be much of a concern about Republican lawyers taking papers to prevent them being reviewed by the public.

According to the Washington Post, a newly released report from the National Archives inspector general's office shows that federal investigators failed in their first attempt to nail down what happened to the file, which became a flashpoint in Roberts' otherwise smooth confirmation process.

The Post added that the lawyers working for the White House were allowed to bring personal belongings with them into the room while they worked, investigators wrote. The lawyers also were left alone in the office with the records for as long as 30 minutes while they participated in conference calls with the White House, the report said. All of which is unusual.

Berger was fined $50,000 by a federal judge for illegally taking classified documents dealing with the terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration out of the National Archives. And the Republican lawyers? The Post points out that the White House has declined to reveal the identities of the lawyers who conducted the document review, and their names and those of archives officials were redacted in the inspector general's report.

In addition, in the Roberts case, officials had to try to figure out what was in the missing papers. In the Berger case, he returned copies of the papers he took.

So in both cases people take papers from the National Archives that they weren't supposed to. One gets fined. The others? The White House says that there’s no evidence that anybody reviewing the files engaged in wrongdoing.

Maybe they were just smarter about taking and destroying the paper trail.

Party Like It's 2000

If you listen to conservatives bray about the economy one would think that we are approaching Clinton era economic prosperity. Instead, more than five years after taking over the White House, a few economic indicators are approaching levels last seen in 2000.

Last week the Dow Jones Industrial average reached a high of 11,640 and the Treasury Department announced that the difference between revenue and expenses in April was $118.9 billion, leading conservatives to complain that Bush is not getting credit for the current economic situation.

Yet any in-depth look at the complaints show that at best the economy is producing some numbers similar to the end of the Clinton-Gore era. The Dow Jones hit its all-time high of 11,723 January 14, 2000, nearly 100 points above the recent high.

While it is easy to look at the Dow figures, the surplus number are harder to examine and so the latest conservative "complaint" is that the media is underreporting the April budget surplus numbers issued by the Treasury. Yet a number of media outlets took the Treasury numbers hook, line and sinker and proclaimed that at $118.9 billion the government had a huge surplus.

However in 2001 the Government had a surplus of $189 billion so the $118.9, while encouraging, is nothing to write home about. (See chart for comparison of April surplus to overall annual revenue, compared to the increase in the national debt.)

Also in 2000, before Bush could this program of tax cuts and spending spree, the national debt increased by only $18 billion. So far this year the debt has increased $427 billion with five months to go. With the best tax collection month in the books, is a $700 billion increase in the national debt possible?

(Yes, the media says the deficit is only up $184 billion so far this year and may come in under $350 billion, but since conservatives always complained during the surplus years of the Clinton administration that one should really look at the increase in the national debt, surely they would want us to do the same now. (And for an even more bizarre view, see the views of Treasury Secretary John Snow.)

When someone mentions the increase in gas, conservatives are always quick to point out that according to inflation it has not increased that much, if at all. So how come no one wants to adjust the April surplus numbers? Perhaps it wouldn't make Bush look that good?

The only reason the April surplus numbers look as good as they do is that federal revenue has been down in recent years so comparing the April surplus to Annual revenue, the $118 billion surplus represents a larger percentage than if federal revenue had been increasing over the past few years.

So are we back to Clinton era prosperity? No, only by borrowing heavily and mortgaging the future are we getting decent economic numbers, as opposed to responsible economic policy setting the stage for long term progress.

Can't Handle Colbert

After ignoring Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday night (try to find any mention of Colbert in the Times article) but finding the public flocking to the Internet to view the clip, the Washington Typists have decided to say Colbert "fell flat" perhaps in hopes that public won't be tempted to check it out.

Instead, just as Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire signaled the end of that show, could Colbert's performance may change the way the media acts?

The problem with Colbert's talk was that it hit too close to home for Bush and the media, leaving them unamused. But what did people really expect? Colbert's shtick is to act like a conservative blowhard who thinks he knows a lot but in reality is clueless, perhaps a little too much like Bush and the many in the media.

And so when Colbert makes the follow statement, media people are not amused.

"Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

The reaction of the press was probably similar to Tucker Carlson on Stewart after he had reduced the show to ashes.

"Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny," Carlson pleaded to Stewart.

Anyone who has watched The Daily Show probably has seen a skit that may have been over the top and one ends up feeling slightly sorry for the person being interviewed because of their cluelessness. Saturday night was not one of those days. Perhaps the video skit, replayed on The Colbert Report Tuesday night to good reviews, went on too long, but the speech was funny.

The problem conservatives and the Washington Typists face is that the Internet gives people the chance to both view the performance and read the transcript. So while the media can claim it wasn't funny, just as thousands later viewed Stewart's appearance on Crossfire, thousands have also viewed Colbert's performance and found the following comments to be funny or satirical.

I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the "No Fact Zone." Fox News, I hold a copyright on that term.

I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.

But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist, telling us what is or isn't true, or what did or didn't happen. Who's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American! I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, by the way, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is.

We can't forget the man of the hour, new press secretary, Tony Snow. Secret Service name, "Snow Job."

Snow Job

So the media spin for the day, which several in the media have picked up hook, line and sinker, is that Bush picked an outsider to be White House Press Secretary.

Tony Snow, an outsider? You've got to be kidding. Just because he wasn't on the official White House payroll doesn't mean he isn't an insider. After all he works for FOX and that's little more than a GOP propaganda machine.

Just look at some of Snow's experience: commentator for FOX News and as host of his own radio talk show; director of speechwriting for the first President Bush; editorial page editor of the conservative Washington Times, and substitute host for Rush Limbaugh.

What few in the media are willing to say out loud is that FOX and the various right-wing radio shows are little more than extensions the GOP or White House, so Snow has been working for the White House for quite a while now.

If the media was really interested in this story they would examine the relationship among FOX and red radio and figure what a huge propaganda machine it is, and one that the GOP can utilize without paying for it, and during election years, have it count against any campaign spending limits.

A few in the media say Democrats are helping Bush on the Snow hiring by pointing out that Bush is willing to bring in someone who has criticized him. And while Snow's comments on Bush are fun to read, maybe the reason Bush had to ignore Snow's criticisms is that since he's at 32% approval rating it was probably impossible to find someone who hadn't criticized him.

So rather than showing that Snow is an outsider, perhaps hiring a so-called "critic" shows that even the hard core are now criticizing Bush.

Conservatives Complain about Frankenstein

After spending years acting like spoiled, unbehaved, or angry children, conservatives have decided that society is angry. But rather than actually act like grown ups and take responsibility and help fix the problem they helped create, they are now working to hide their role in creating the angry society.

The latest example is the new White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's complaints about comments made about him. After spending years belittling and degrading others Snow had the gall to write a column "We need a pause button for the insult industry" where he asked "Where do such passions come from?"

Gee, Tony, I don't know. Maybe from listening to you, as American Street pointed out, or your budy Rush Limbaugh, whose comparison of former Senator Tom Daschle to the devil may have inspired threats against Daschle, or Jerry Falwell's or Robert Bartley's Wall Street Journal editorial page long term crusade against President Clinton.

While one might think that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, apparently conservatives believe that by attacking, rather than admit responsibility, is the best political move.

Recently Daniel Henninger of the previously mentioned Journal's Editorial page also complained about the Internet and liberals without mentioning the Journal's or conservatives role in degrading today's political discourse.

Now it's no doubt that the Internet is a wild and uncouth place in many areas. The question is why? Could it be that after eight years of relentless and unfounded attacks on Clinton, followed by the media's War on Gore, that the public now thinks its OK to act that way? If so, isn't it a little hypocritical to complain about what one helped create?

CIA Determines Scapegoat

With the announcement by a lawyer of fired CIA officer Mary McCarthy that she had neither the access to the information she is accused of leaking nor did she leak the information, one has to wonder if the CIA determined who to blame by looking at campaign contributions rather than evidence.

If true, then a statement by political hack turned CIA director, Porter Goss potentially passed along was dishonest or disinformation by alleging that McCarthy "knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence, including operational information."

NBC reported that "a defense source tells NBC News that while McCarthy may have failed her polygraph on the issue of having unauthorized contacts with reporters, she did not fail the question about leaking information on the secret prison system."

The CIA says unauthorized speaking with the media is grounds for dismissal, McCarthy's lawyer said that was why she was terminated. However it appears Goss decided to go the extra mile in order and found a Democrat to blame for the leak. (Maybe the classified information McCarthy leaked is that the Bush administration is incompetent, although I'm pretty sure that information was declassified long ago.)

So at Goss's CIA outing a fellow agent is OK but telling the media about secret prisons is cause for finding a scapegoat. That must make CIA agents sleep well at night knowing that their job is secondary to the political whims of the Bush administration.

But with Bush's approval rating dropping to the freezing range and stories on the prisons winning Pulitzers, it may have become extremely important to find a scapegoat. McCarthy appeared to be a good one, donating money to Democrats and John Kerry. One has to wonder if the CIA's investigation was limited to running CIA employee names through Fundrace.org until they got a hit for someone contributing to Sen. John Kerry.

During his confirmation hearing, Sen. Jay Rockefeller questioned whether Goss would be politically objective after reviewing a series of attacks Goss made on Kerry on security issues yet didn't attack Republicans.

With Sen. Kerry getting high marks for his recent public statements lately and the American people abandoning Bush, perhaps this is Goss attempt to get back at Kerry and Democrats.

Or perhaps there is actually something to the CIA is claim. Unfortunately, the history of dishonesty the Bush Administration has built up leads one to question anything and everything they do.

FOX = GOP?

If anyone had any questions about whether FOX News is biased one only has to look at recent media reports about the relationships between the GOP and the FOX News network.

In one episode a FOX News anchor praises a questionable political hit job, while in the other two FOX news staff are rumored to be under consideration for White House Press Secretary.

In the first, in an article on FOX News anchor Brit Hume in the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz reports that former President Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry said that Hume would sit in the front row during press briefings doing crossword puzzles and that "If you tried to slip a little spin in, he'd suddenly erupt and say, 'Wait a minute!'

Wow, what a great reporter! Yet Kurtz also mentioned that Hume and Fox News were among the first to jump on the charges by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam record, with Hume pushing the controversy day after day.

As the lead panelist on "Fox News Sunday," Hume said in August 2004 that the book by the Swift Boat Veterans "is a remarkably well-done document. It is full of detail. It is full of specifics. The charges that are being made of Kerry, of irresponsible and indeed in some cases mendacious conduct in his service in Vietnam, are made by people who were there."

Remarkably well-done? For a GOP political piece of spin it may have been remarkably well done. As a journalist piece it was hardly well-done. Factcheck.org pointed out the multiple problems with the book and the veterans stories and even the Post has pointed out the problems, yet Kurtz failed to point out, or challenge, Hume on the problematic book. Maybe crossword puzzles are getting harder these days.

It's doubtful Hume's views surprise anyone, even though they go against the networks "fair and balanced" slogan. Reasonable people instead probably think Hume's on the GOP's payroll. He may not be but his coworker soon may be. FOX News reported that one of the people the White House has approached as a possible replacement for McClellan is FOX News Radio host Tony Snow and the Washington Post said Dan Senor, a Fox News contributor and former spokesman for the U.S. civilian authority in Iraq, is also among those being considered.

One wonders if Snow, a frequent guest host for Rush Limbaugh and GOP cheerleader, will have to take a pay cut to go on the "official" GOP payroll?

White House Needs New Lackey

Perhaps the pressure of being a White House lackey finally got to be too much for Scott McClellan, who announced today he was resigning as White House Press Secretary.

Since July 2003 years McClellan has been the face of the White House, spouting its half truths and distortions, helping his boss retain his job in spite of the administration's overwhelming incompetence.

In typical dishonesty, stupidity or cluelessness, Bush said of McClellan at the resignation announcement, "I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity."

The question now is would anyone want to hire someone who basically soldout for a spot in sun, or as Pink Floyd wrote in Wish You Were Here..

...did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

Time will tell.

Perhaps Rumsfeld Should Stay

One of the points that hasn't been made during the discussion over whether Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should resign is whether Bush would appoint a more qualified or competent person to replace him.

The same point should be considered during the discussions over the talk of impeaching George Bush. What would that accomplish? Make Dick Cheney President? Please. If there is one person who would do a worse job as President than Bush it is Cheney.

While people have an interest in holding government officials accountable, the Bush administration, whether through planning, arrogance, or stupidity, aren't very good about personnel issues and there is no guarantee that a replacement would be any better. One only has to look at the number of people who told the truth and left while the yes-men or true believers stayed around to continue their destructive impulses.

One such example was former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in who in The Price of Loyalty, wrote that efforts to collect evidence and construct smart policy are, with little warning, co-opted by the White House political team, or the Vice President, or whoever got to the President and said something, true or not."

And just look at who Bush picked to replace Andy Card as Chief of Staff - Josh Bolten, who helped oversee the transition of budget surpluses to massive budget deficits as White House Budget Director.

One could hope that getting Bolten out of the Budget Office might mean that a more competent person would step into the role, but that would involve Bush picking a more qualified person as opposed to a true believer.

So rather than pushing Bush to install good people in his government, perhaps the public should be more interested in using the power they have at the ballot box to put good people in government.

Free Speech Scares White House

One of the ironic, or hypocritical, aspects to the Bush administration's profession of love for liberty, freedom, and democracy overseas is how much they apparently despise it when it takes place in the United States.

The recent decision to attempt to silence, or counteract, former military personnel over the administration's failed Iraq policy is only the latest example of an administration that came to power by short circuiting democracy and has worked to curb freedoms over the past five years.

In the past, when a Democrat such as John Kerry would criticize the administration over Iraq, they would face attacks on their patriotism and intelligence, such as Zell Miller did in a truly disgusting and dishonest speech at the Republican Convention in 2004.

But today the administration is faced with a growing chorus of criticism from former military officers, some of whom served in Iraq and saw first hand the folly of implementing a plan by people who didn't understand the situation and didn't care to understand the situation.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said he believes that the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort.

A number of people have pointed out the comparison with Vietnam when the military kept quiet and saw a war disintegrate. Apparently not wanting that to happen again, several retired officers are speaking out.

Maybe they believe that if more people like John Kerry had spoken up during the Vietnam War, fewer Americans would have died. And that prospects probably scares the Administration. Just imagine if someone in the media were to put 2 and 2 together and figure that out then Kerry's Vietnam criticism could be viewed in a whole new light and his current views would also gain credibility.

And who wants to be in office when everyone knows the other guy would be a better president. Nearly half the country figured that out long ago, the worry for the White House is that more than half might now have figured it out. Look what a recent poll found out:

Unhappiness with Bush is so pervasive that 49 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry if the 2004 presidential election were held today, to 39 percent who say they would vote for the president.

The End to Charmed Political Lives?

With the announcement by former House Minority Leader Tom DeLay that he would not seek reelection, apparently the charmed life of a number of Republicans is coming to an end.

DeLay, according to the Washington Post, will step down from the House rather than face a reelection fight that appears increasingly unwinnable. This, only a few days after a former top aide plead guilty and apparently decided to cooperate with investigators.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist already had decided to not seek reelection and apparently is looking forward to not being in the Senate. In an article in the New York Times, Frist said that he loved being leader but that he would find it liberating to leave.

Apparently Frist feels that in the Senate people aren't getting the proper view of him. "The real Bill Frist, they don't really see," whined Frist, who wants to run for President in 2008. Oh what a shame. I mean if people were to get an realistic view of Senators then John Kerry would be President and John Edwards would be Vice President.

At the top of the charmed food chain is George Bush and he is already prevented from seeking another term, although he actually only won one term as President so you have to wonder if he might go to the Supreme Court and argue to be allowed to win a second term.

Instead Bush apparently is going down in flames with approval ratings in the '30s and even military men criticizing his administration. In remarks Sunday on NBC, General Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps, a former commander of the Central Command who retired in 2000, said that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should be held accountable and should resign for tactical mistakes in Iraq.

With an election approximately seven months away, and prospects of a Republican loss growing larger everyday, one might think Bush would decide to clean house. But that would involve admitting his house is dirty and that is something he is unlikely to do.

In the past Bush, DeLay and Frist survived by changing the storyline and attacking others but at this point it is difficult for people to look away from the mess in Washington, meaning the charmed life for the three and their groupies may be about over.

What Report? Oh That Report

Faced with declining poll numbers and a public that has grown suspicious the administration has decided to attack the messenger, or the media, which is always a crowd pleasing activities among the red staters.

While some might think that the more than 2,000 Americans deaths since the start of hostilities in Iraq is important, apparently a bigger issue with whether the media is accurately reporting what's going on in Iraq or are just a bunch of negative nellies.

But leave it to the press to do a poor job of defending themselves. In the Sunday's Washington Post Ombudsman column (unbelievably titled The Post and the Whole Picture in Iraq), and a Monday column (A Turning Point In Iraq) by Post media critic Howard Kurtz, the issue of whether the media was being too tough on the administration was reviewed.

There were laundry lists of examples but after thorough review, well very little was decided. It's just too bad there isn't a neutral party to review of the situation in Iraq to tell us if things are better or worse off than people believe.

Oh wait, there is such a report! Last week Keith Olbermann on Countdown reviewed a U.S. State Department report titled Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which Olbermann pointed out had been released at a news conference earlier this month, with Secretary of State Rice herself delivering the opening remarks, the 23 pages on Iraq stating unequivocally that even a highly selective inventory of the terrorist attacks in that country during the last year could barely begin to catalog all the violence.

Quote, 'Bombings, executions, killings, kidnappings, shootings, and intimidation were a daily occurrence throughout all regions and sectors of society. A illustrative list of those attacks, even a highly selective one, could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence,' the report also stating that the attacks were being waged by any number of people, not just insurgents, for any number of reasons.

So basically things are horrible over in Iraq and if the State Department is to be believed, perhaps even worse than the picture the media is painting.

So why is the media reporting on a study that shows that their reporting probably skewed? Who knows. Perhaps they don't want the public to know how bad it really is over there.

Crybaby Conservatives

Not satisfied with control of all three branches of government, talk radio, and business, conservatives' complaints have lead them into a featured role on the mainstream media.

Apparently some in the media haven't' been following the GOP script over the past few year and have ventured into digging into stories and reporting facts as opposed to a what's presented on the All-Spin Zone, also know as Fox News.

Unlike the 2000 Presidential election when, like good little boys, as the American Prospect recently wrote, "the MSM deputized itself judge, jury, and executioner for [Al] Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, spinning each day's events to portray the stolid, capable vice president as a wild exaggerator, ideological chameleon, and total, unforgivable bore.

Lately, like a Rip Van Winkle who awoke from a conservative spell, the media have been rising off their knees and questioning the administration. Knowing this day would come, conservatives have been complaining for years about lack of representation in the MSM, hoping they could infiltrate and overtake this habit of looking for the truth.

So in effort to balance well-reported, thoughtful work (which, if anything supports conservatives more than liberals) the Post knuckled under and opened its website to a Republican operative and not surprisingly he immediately act like as a traditional conservative, complaining about how conservatives are treated well and how they don't get enough respect.

Unknowingly, Red America gave an inside glimpse of itself and its supporters when it attempted to criticize a Toronto Star story on sociology study that explained that said Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

Well, duh! Just look at George Bush. He loses the 2000 election but like a spoiled baby he gets his way and the White House. And just as a spoiled baby grows up to be a spoiled brat, Bush now demands he get his way, whether or not it's good for the country.

Perhaps the country could hire the SuperNanny to straighten out Baby Bush, but instead just as parents can only look forward to when their spoiled brat leaves home, America will be left to count the days until the Crybaby in Chief leaves office.

Update - It's worse than it sounds! Joe Conason of Salon and the Howard Kurtz of the Post give the full story.

Don't You Dare Do to Us What We Did to You

Apparently conservatives have come up with a plan to rally conservatives around the failed "p"residency of George Bush. Basically it involves criticizing Democrats for considering "censuring" Bush.

While there is a little talk of impeachment, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feinfold is pushing a motion to censure Bush over wiretapping. As the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz pointed out "most Democrats believe Bush probably did break the law in approving warrantless eavesdropping" but the resolution "is scary to most senators with D."

Why? Because Republicans can use their TV and radio talk shows (Ok, they aren't owned by the GOP but they might as well be) to stir up their voters by claiming things like censure motions and impeachment are political ploys and only hurt the country. Brian Jones, a Republican spokesman said "This is raw partisan politics."

Right, and like the Clinton investigations weren't? Apparently investigations into a person's private life are not partisan politics but an examination of whether a president acted illegally is partisan politics.

If that seems confusing it would be simpler to understand the the GOP position is basically it's always OK to investigate Democrats and never OK to investigate Republicans.

So Now Book Smarts Are OK?

After a presidential campaign spent criticizing Sen. John Kerry and Democrats for sophisticated and nuance responses to issues, all of sudden with the uproar over the ports deal, administration apologists have discovered the need for sophisticated, or "book smarts."

On Hardball Wednesday night, conservative columnist Kate O'Beirne said the problem with the Dubai port deal was that those investigating the deal were actually hindered by their sophisticated understanding of how ports operate, i.e. they were too smart to deal with the issue.

At the end of the day, and after a thorough investigation, perhaps the port deal is a good one. After all one has to think that if Bush's political underlings weren't involved, perhaps the deal was actually determined on its merits.

And former President Bill Clinton is working with Dubai on how to promote the deal so one has to think that if people using the often maligned book smarts are in favor of the deal then there must be something to it.

Or maybe not, but we may not know yet. Democrats, who for years have tried to govern and run for elections based on book smarts rather than on emotion have gotten beaten at the ballot box, might be excused for raising questions based on the appearance of a deal.

Conservatives, on the other hand made their living belittling book smarts and science on many issues and so for them to all of sudden use book smarts as the answer is hypocritical. But it's not a surprise as few have said the governing conservatives have principles.

In an excellent column describing the differences the between the current White House resident and the last President, Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out that the Administration will take 45 days to review and explain the deal but Bush probably won't be able to explain it to the public.

Especially not now that the Washington Post is reporting an investigation into a second Dubai firm set to take over precision components used in aircraft and tanks.

As Fineman put it Suddenly, it's a complicated, gray world out there: the kind that a Bill Clinton would feel at home in, and could explain.

You know, someone with book smarts.

The Fear Monster Bites Back

Karl Rove must be burning the midnight oil these days. After years of burnishing the image of George Bush as the person who would protect Americans, recent events in Iraq and in Washington must be causing Rove to come up with a new playbook to replace the Fear and Security one he has used too long.

In mid-January Rove outlined his "view" of the differences between Republicans and Democrats saying "At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security," Rove said. "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Despite this comment being ridiculous to start with (Democrats were the one who helped push for the Department of Homeland Security while Bush and the GOP took the U.S. into a war that has destabilized the Middle East), Rove's comments were more about appearance rather than reality.

Rove probably knew he was being dishonest but his goal was to outline how the GOP would portray itself and Democrats, not how they actually were. And based on history he had every reason to be confident. Afterall, despite numerous news reports that showed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 the average the average viewer of FOX News was significantly more likely to have misperceptions than someone who got their news from NPR.

The problem for Democrats is that too often people believe what they want to believe, which was the company line the GOP was pushing, rather than reality.

Today the tables have turned as events based on reality and appearance are taking over the news. With Iraq moving toward civil war and the news that the administration is proposing a UAE government firm take over major operations at six U.S. ports, more Americans are starting to question the Administration.

As Pat Buchanan said on the recent McLaughlin Group "When Bubba in Mississippi woke up and found out Arab sheiks are taking control of our eastern ports, it was all over for Bush."

For those who wanted to take a thoughtful and nuanced approach to the port deal, perhaps it was fine, but after being bludgeoned for years for acting based on thinking rather than emotions is it any wonder why Democrats are opposing Bush on this, and they may have a good case. One can only image the ad Karl Rove would have made against a President John Kerry if he had done EXACTLY what Bush had done.

So the problem for the Bushies is how to talk about security without having people think about the disaster in Iraq and Arabs running our ports. The old conservative line "be afraid, be very afraid" has come back bite the administration.

Heck of a job Bushie!

Trip Outside the Bubble

George Bush stepped out of his protective bubble on Tuesday and found out reality and his view of reality don't always match up and that he and his programs are not popular.

In retaliation, expect the wing nuts to mount a full scale attack on those who pointed out the king has no clothes, basically saying that a funeral was no place to speak the truth, no matter how relevant or appropriate the criticisms were.

Bush was at the funeral of Coretta Scott King in Atlanta where other past presidents and religious leaders paid tribute to the live of Mrs. King and her late husband. During the tribute, the Washington Post pointed out that former President Jimmy Carter delivered some of the most pointed comments, noting that Martin Luther King Jr. had been "the target of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance" in his day. The remark raised the issue of a controversial eavesdropping program that President Bush authorized to combat terrorism but that some critics have charged violates U.S. law.

Conservatives complained that was inappropriate comments for a funeral, yet Bush had no problem, as the Post pointed out, recalling the threats and bombings aimed at intimidating her husband, and the rifle shot in Memphis that ultimately ended his life.

Apparently it is OK to talk about some of the troubles that Dr. and Mrs. King faced, just not the ones that are relevant today and raise questions about the current administration.

So as a result expect conservatives to make the point that dissent is tolerated, just not anywhere where people are paying attention, such as a public funeral. Also expect a lot of comparison about the funeral of Sen. Paul Wellstone in 2002 and how Democrats acted poorly. But also expect a lot of lies. As Al Franken pointed out, conservatives made mountains out of ant hills in 2002 and turned that funeral into political opportunity, leading to the election of Republican Norm Coleman to replace Wellstone.

This time the only question is who conservatives will retaliate against for speaking the truth.