Over and over and over and over again

On the very same day that we find out that the Bush Administration behaved criminally in their politicization of the Justice Department, we find that the Department of Homeland Security will be heightening our terror alert status over the next couple of months. As Josh Marshall writes, the reason for the change in alert status is pretty simple:

US to be place on "heightened terror alert" in response to Republican efforts to maintain hold on presidency.

Perhaps others will see this as a bit cynical, but as noted by others- this wouldn't be the first time that the terror alert has been raised when it seemed politically expedient for the Bush Administration:

I know that these are both left-leaning commentators, but I think in light of today's findings regarding the conduct of the DOJ under Bush- the traditional press has good reason to ask- not accuse, but simply ASK- whether this is politically motivated at all. Unfortunately, it looks like the press is going to buy this hook, line and sinker (from the ABC article above):

The reasons: There are no specifics indicating an attack on the U.S. is imminent, and U.S. officials do not want to be accused of trying to inject themselves into the presidential campaign.

But...he's the kind of guy that you would want to have a beer with!

The headline to this story really says it all:

Goodling Passed Over Experienced Counterterrorism Prosecutor Because Wife Was A Democrat

I wonder if the traditional press will ever come to grips with how they enabled all of this. To review- the US attorney scandal only became a scandal when a sucky blogger got to the bottom of the story. Even then, there has been almost nothing written about the ways the Bush administration politicized EVERYTHING. Nor has there been anything close to official condemnation from the punditocracy.

It is this particular aspect of the whole scandal which is so anger to-the-point-of-blind-rage inducing, we will hear nothing about how the Bush administration put millions of Americans at risk because someone's wife was a Democrat- there will be no public hand-wringing, no sternly worded editorial from the Washington Post, no call for criminal prosecution, NOTHING.

Wow...just, wow

The next person that says the media is in the tank for Obama, I am going to beat with Disco's beard.

Must...maintain...campaign...narrative...

As I noted yesterday, the press has almost completely ignored the McCain rape joke. But there was another item that came out a little under a week ago that has also not gained any attention from the mainstream press. In this instance, Cindy McCain gave an interview to CNN where she said that the only way to get around Arizona was by 'small private plane'. Now, I am not an expert on the modes of transportation available to the average American; but I am going to guess that the vast majority (99.99%) of the American public does not have ready access to a plane.

So, here we have an instance where the McCain's reveal their ridiculously favorable financial status and their complete ignorance of how most of us live- but there is nary a mention in the elite press. Now if Barack or Michelle Obama had said this, you can be pretty damn sure that the media would have hopped all over it.

There is a simple, but tragic, reason for this discrepancy- reporting on the McCains' elite status would go against the already decided upon narrative for them. As ThinkProgress detailed, much of the media has determined that McCain and his wife are 'regular people'. As such, we can easily sketch out the rules for how the McCain narrative is to be handled-

Rule 1: McCain is a straight-talkin' man of the people, who is just as regular as you and I.
Rule 2: If any story reveals that he is not a straight-talkin' man of the people, who is not as regular as you and I- then refer to rule 1.

If they don't report about it, I guess it didn't happen

I am sure that if Obama had made the same joke about a woman getting savagely raped, there would also be no press coverage of it too.

Saint McCain

via John Cole, we have the following:

Bob Schieffer, on Face the Nation, responding to John Kerry stating that McCain has completely changed his position on a large number of issues:

“Are you attacking John McCain’s integrity?”

This quote is really just covered in irony. John Kerry, who will forever be known as a serial flip-flopper, brings up the fact that McCain has repeatedly changed positions on a number of issues, and the response from Schieffer is that bringing up such issues is an attack on his integrity. Wow.

The way the guardians of the discourse see it, just noting that McCain has changed his mind is beyond the pale and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why that is. I don't know of another figure in American politics who is consistently painted in such a favorable light by the media and is afforded as much room for error.

The only other person that even comes close is Colin Powell, so it may be a military thing. Yet, if it was, people like John Kerry, Wes Clark, Bob Kerrey, Chuck Hagel or Max Cleland would also be afforded the same privileges by the media- but they aren't. It could be that McCain's history as a POW has set him apart from others, so that he is viewed as having integrity than any of the others. But should his experience be valued more than triple-amputee Cleland or Medal of Honor winner Kerrey?

Could it be his support for Campaign Finance Reform? Probably not. If it was, a bevy of liberals would get the same favorable treatment from the press.

At the end of the day, I think the simple reason for this deference to McCain is part of a vicious circular logic. The press loves McCain because he is a maverick. Why is he a maverick? Because the press says that he is.

just kill me now

From an AP 'analysis' that will come out tomorrow:

Perhaps most damaging was Thursday's statement in North Dakota, where he said he would reassess his stand on the Iraq war after he visits the front later this summer for briefings from American military commanders. Republicans tried to play that as an expedient political flip flop — a signal Obama was moving away from his vow to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months of taking office, a defining issue of his campaign.

Obama quickly said that wasn't the case but the Republicans rushed in with a critical broadside.

Note to the AP, this is only damaging if you carry water for the republicans. As Josh Marshall notes, this is just really embarrassing for the AP on so many levels.

All Aboard!

This piece makes me angry on so many levels, it is hard to see straight. Here is the intro:

Straight Talk Express Gets an Upgrade

Sen. John McCain and his wife Cindy walk off his campaign plane after arriving in Allentown, Penn., June 30, 2008. (Associated Press)

By Juliet Eilperin
ABOARD THE STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS -- The Straight Talk Express has gone airborne.

Hmm...I wonder if there is any straight talk on that express? But wait, the media fawning gets worse- a hell of a lot worse...

McCain senior aide Mark Salter quipped this morning that "only the good reporters" would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. "You'll have to earn it," he said.

You wonder if the press will ever realize how their mancrush on McCain impacts the lives of everyday people and our standing in the world. Once again, we have an election that will be decided, not by policies or ideas, but on which candidate is cooler to hang out with.

The Right Kind of People

The President's practice of going exclusively to friendly audiences is certainly not new, as BarbinMD at DailyKos reveals, a similar gathering went on today in Nashville. The President was barraged with tough questions such as these:

Q Sir, thank you very much for your service to our country so far, we appreciate that very much.

Q Mr. President, I appreciate your position on the war in Iraq. We've got a debate that's going on as much about should we stay or should we come home. Is there a way to change the tenor of the debate to determine how we win in Iraq?

Q I personally admire the way you've conducted the government and I admire your backbone, where you just stand and take a position. (Applause.) I'm not happy about the influx from Mexico...Now then, thirdly, when they do these polls to determine how you're rated, how come, if they have 1,000 people, they call 750 Democrats and only 25 Republicans? (Laughter and applause.)

Q And I want to thank you for the appointments or the nominations for our Supreme Court. That will be a wonderful legacy for you. (Applause.)

Q Semper Fi. First of all, Mr. President, I want to thank you, personally, for your support for our veterans. My son was lost in Iraq, and I want to thank you very much for your strength.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. Thanks for sharing that.

Q I also wish that there was some way that, as the press make so much to-do about what goes on in areas around pretty much the 50-mile area around Baghdad, which is pretty much where everything is going on, if there was some way to offset that with all of the great things that are going on.

So, the White House was able to find the last half-dozen people remaining in this country who still think the President is the most bestest President ever. Yet apart from just how damn creepy this all is, shouldn't there be some serious press scrutiny over this practice?

For one, isn't it a bit disconcerting that only those who think the President is awesome get to ask him questions? Those that really dislike the President also pay taxes, why shouldn't they have an opportunity to speak their minds? Couldn't someone in the press corps ask this question of either the President or Tony Snow? When you think about what it means for this country, that a President views himself as only the leader of those that support him- it's an absolute outrage. If the press was really interested in asking the tough questions, they could certainly ask about this.
Secondly, what does it say about a man who cannot face ALL of the people? Why must he be protected from any possible criticism?

If we lived in a world where the press was focused on keeping the powerful in check and not on trivial news stories, we might be able to find this all out. Yet, I cannot recall a single news story which asked if this practice was fair. The Daily Show did a bit on how maddening these Potemkin Town Halls are, but outside of this the press has been happy to let the President and his crazed supporters play pretend.

Fact Checking

I just watched some of Michael Moore's smack down of Wolf Blitzer, and it is good. I would like to see the whole segment, which I imagine will be up later on other websites.

In a nutshell, Moore asked Wolf if CNN is going to apologize to him for attacking Fahrenheit 9-11 when it turned out he was ultimately correct. As I pionted out previously, Moore has a much better record than the vast majority of other pundits/commentators. Yet, as this commenter from Atrios notes:

I would love to see any statement from this administration get one tenth of the fine-toothed combing that every single scene of Moore's movies get.

I would also extend this to CNN, MSNBC and certainly Fox News. The media's standards for Moore's movies border on the ridiculous. For instance, in one of the many articles that sought to fact check Moore, they point to the fact that he did not mention the following:

Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category. Americans do have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when it comes to nonemergency elective surgery such as hip replacements, cataract removal or knee repair.

In regards to the last part, I think this only strengthens Moore's point about the feebleness of the U.S. health care system. If you need a boob job or liposuction, you will be hurried right along. If you need emergency surgery, well you are kind of screwed.

On the first part of the quote, this certainly helps Moore's argument about the weakness of the American system. As is revealed in an earlier segment of the article:

Like Moore, we also found that more money does not equal better care. Both the French and Canadian systems rank in the Top 10 of the world's best health-care systems, according to the World Health Organization. The United States comes in at No. 37. The rankings are based on general health of the population, access, patient satisfaction and how the care's paid for.

According to this little nugget, we can assume that the measure of patient satisfaction is most definitely skewing the overall results. I would be curious to know what our ranking would be if patient satisfaction was left out. CNN could have found that out, but I am sure they try their best to stay away from anything resembling journalism.

In CNN's defense, I should point out that Michael Moore is fat.

Not surprised

Libby's sentence was commuted, and I am firmly in agreement with Atrios about the coming press coverage. The White House essentially got away with a very serious crime, and no one will call them on it.

Iran and the White House

Glenn Greenwald helps break down the latest NY Times article on the White House and Iran. I suggest reading the whole thing because he does a great job of analyzing the press coverage. I will, however, provide the money quote for the posting:

If this is how the media is going to report on the potential U.S.-Iran war, I'd say the odds of that conflict occuring are quite high.

Sadly, we are going to see the press behave in exactly the same way as they did in the run up to the war in Iraq. They will try to convince the public that they asked the tough questions but in the end, the administration line will be the press's line.

Never Taking Responsibility

Recently on Good Morning America, Michael Moore was being interviewed by anchor-stud Chris Cuomo. During the interview, Moore took ABC and the rest of the mainstream media to task for not asking the tough questions during the run-up to the Iraq War. Cuomo nearly lost it. Here is the video:

As I have said before, the press will never take responsibility for the mess in Iraq and the role they played by laying down. Yet, this is still going on. Just yesterday during the daily press briefing, Tony Snow made the argument that increased violence in Iraq means that we are making progress.

Q Let me follow on that, because I think some American officials have called this an act of desperation. And I'm wondering how this is seen as an act of desperation. Does that mean that the terrorists are so concerned that they're sort of being shut down, and that the surge is so effective that they're now desperate to make a statement?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think, again -- a couple of things. It does fit a pattern that we see throughout the region, which is that when you see things moving towards success, or when you see signs of success, that there are acts of violence. We saw that, certainly -- we've seen that in Lebanon, once again, today, tragically. We also saw it earlier in Lebanon. We have seen it on a number of occasions where, when Israel and the Palestinians seem to be getting close to a deal, there are kidnapings and acts of violence.

What you have seen in the last couple of months -- it's well documented -- is, increasingly, Iraqis are turning against al Qaeda. And that has been one of the sort of heartening developments. You've not only seen it in Anbar Province, but you've seen it elsewhere.

So one of the responses one might expect for al Qaeda at a time like this -- when the Iraqi people are turning against them as foreign fighters, essentially invading the country and trying to commit acts of bloodshed against innocents in order to blow the country apart -- that it would be one of those acts of desperation once again to try to get the Iraqis to fight one another, rather than training their sights on al Qaeda.

By utilizing Snow's logic, we would assume that decreased violence would indicate that things are actually going poorly. In the mind of any sane individual however, this line of reasoning would be forcefully rejected. If the press were really doing their job and asking the tough questions, Snow would have been laughed out of the room. Perhaps, one of the reporters would have said "That is the most ridiculous load of bullshit I have ever heard. Ever." Instead, the follow-up to his response was the following:

Q This could actually be read, then, as a sign of success for the American --

This is exactly what Moore was talking about, rather than exposing the twisted logic and half-truths of the Bush Administration, the media continues to lap up whatever half-assed explanations are being doled out.

Really Manly Men

I am royally annoyed by the media hubbub surrounding the entry of actor Fred Thompson into the 2008 presidential race. It is like the last 6 years haven't happened. The major pundits are all a twitter over Thompson's manliness just like they were all a twitter over Bush's masculinity in 1999.

Glenn Greenwald does a great job of breaking this all down in one of his recent blog posts. I especially like this:

The only thing that makes Thompson a "tough guy" is that he pretends to be one; he play-acts as one. There is nothing real about it. But in the same way that George Bush's ranch and fighter pilot costumes (along with his war advocacy) sent media stars swooning over his masculinity and "toughness," the Howard Finemans and Mark Halperins, along with the Bush followers in need of a new authoritarian Leader, are so intensely hungry for this faux masculine power that the illusion, the absurd play-acting, is infinitely more valuable to them than any reality, than any genuine attributes of "toughness."

Like President Bush before him, Thompson has no unique qualifications to be president. He served for a very short time in the Senate and before that his only major governmental role was as a lawyer for the Watergate commission. All this man has done is master the role of acting tough. In that case, why don't we nominate grade school bullies to public office? Better yet, lets hire doms, I mean their whole shtick is to act tough.

IOKIYAR

Remember a couple of weeks ago when CNN was all a tither over Nancy Pelosi visiting Syria? Some on CNN thought the trip meant that Pelosi was not only putting her job as SotH in jeopardy, but also the safety of this country.

Well...Condi Rice is visiting Syria, and what has CNN got to say about that? Do you think they brought up the fact that very recently the Bush administration was scolding Pelosi for visiting Syria?

As you might expect---crickets.

He's Staying

I know there is a possibility that I will be proved wrong on this, but I stand by my assertion that, as it stands now, Gonzales will not resign. I think you can already see the way this is going to play out, as the Bush administration will continue to stall on this until it blows over.

In the meantime, the administration will play the spin that Congress is playing politics while the major media will swallow this line. Already the media has ignored the fact that the gross politicization of the Justice Department is an incredibly dangerous thing and I can't recall any major news reports which have highlighted this issue. Nevermind the fact that there has been no coverage of the specious voting fraud claims or the unequal prosecution of Democrats; instead, we are supposed to believe that this is just a vendetta on the part of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the gang.

I don't like being right about this

As noted in my post below, I am doubtful that the press will do a very good job of reporting on the US attorney scandal. Unfortunately, the New York Times provides some evidence for my point. What is even worse is that they provide some political cover for the Bush administration, by making this about attorneys who weren't doing their job:

As the months passed and the list was refined, a broad range of parties provided comment, either by directly naming prosecutors or raising an issue that touched on them.

J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, then speaker of the House, for example, appeared in one exchange among Bush administration officials inquiring why the United States attorney’s office in Arizona was apparently not prosecuting marijuana possession cases involving less than 500 pounds.

Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, also asked a White House official to explain why prosecutors were pursuing charges against illegal immigrants only if they had been counted entering the country illegally eight or more times.

Nowhere in the article, do the reporters mention why this is such a problem. Namely, the Bush administration was using a little noticed clause in the PATRIOT Act which allowed for the replacement of vacant US Attorney posts.

This is the entire reason why so many folks are up in arms about this. They used this provision to play a political game, by doing this secretively they were able to circumvent Congressional approval. This is about the executive branch taking more and more power.