Comments
Comment #211426

Thanks Jack. I was unable to read all the articles, but after discarding everything from the notoriously inaccurate Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, there was some interesting stuff.

For example, in the Libby article, it turns out that CNN is the least biased media outlet. Either that, or Wolf Blitzer is just too stupid to understand what the verdict means. :)

The talk on China’s charm offensive was interesting as well. I’ve been blowing that trumpet for years now. While the US is quagmired in Iraq, China is filling the power vacuum in Asia.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 11, 2007 12:28 AM
Comment #211427

A reader sent this in to Andrew Sullivan’s blog. Please stop blaming the “leftist media” on Bush’s mistakes.

What makes the whole Libby thing different is that the Republicans did it to themselves. This is not the Democrats going after Nixon. This is not the Republicans going after Clinton.

No. The right hand man of the most powerful Republican Vice President in history was done in by a lot of other Republicans. The John Ashcroft Justice Dept agreed with the CIA request to investigate the Valerie Plame leak. Ashcroft’s Republican assistant, James Comey, appointed one of his own, Patrick Fitzgerald, perhaps the only Republican in Chicago. When Libby lied to Fitzgerald, and in so doing, made Fitzgerald’s leak investigation meaningless, Fitzgerald sought to expand his investigation, probably by going to the same sort of Republican three-judge panel that agreed to expand Kenneth Starr’s investigation some years earlier.

Then, after years of Republican complaints that the press had too much immunity under the First Amendment, Fitzgerald basically had the law completely reinterpreted, and forced a lot of very rich, very well-backed reporters to testify. In fact, the only person who saw, who is likely to see, jail time in this whole enterprise was a reporter for the Republican bete noir, the New York Times.

In the end, a Republican prosecutor got Republican judges to get Democratic reporters to testify against Republican politicians.

Similarly, just like all the leading players on both sides of the issue in the U.S. attorney firings are Republicans. Most of these U.S. attorneys were appointed by John Ashcroft, a former Republican elected official, with the support of Republican senators and congressmen. Just like a new Republican Secretary of Defense is forcing the generals feet to the fire in the Walter Reed scandal.

But to hear the right-wing media tell it, Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorneys, and Secretary Gates are all bleeding heart liberals trying to bring good conservatives down. But that’s not true. This is just another vast right-wing conspiracy. Only this time, they are purging themselves.

Posted by: Max at March 11, 2007 12:28 AM
Comment #211429

The Bush Administration, and to a lesser degree, the Republicans in general, have been corrupt in their handling of government power. Libbey got what he deserved by violating the law. If the FBI came and interrogated me, and I lied to them, I would be convicted. Nothing makes Libbey any more special under our Constitution than me.

Cheney has been caught time and again lying to the American public, and Bush has flaunted the Constitution and the law with his signing orders and flagrant circumvention of treaties, laws, and the Bill of Rights, with the help of fellow Republican Congresspersons.

If anything, the media should be pressing for many more actions against this Administration. But, when the Attorney General is as corrupt as the President, it’s tough to get any action under the law taken against the Administration. It is a very sad statement on how our Constitutional system has failed to check a branch of government out of control and out of bounds of the Constitution.

One party government is an abomination of our democratic republic and its failure to prevent such authoritarian rule to come into being.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 11, 2007 12:35 AM
Comment #211431

AP, not just Asia, but Africa as well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 11, 2007 12:37 AM
Comment #211433

Posting sources is sort of like a rorschach ink blot test. The thing people see reveal more about them than about the sources. That is why it is so much fun and worth the effort.

BTW - I put the part about Bush in the title as an experiment. I want to see how many more vistitor come if Bush is in the title.

Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2007 12:45 AM
Comment #211435

AP, not just Asia, but Africa as well.

…And South America.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 11, 2007 12:51 AM
Comment #211443

Jack,
Media loathing for President Bush? Tell me, what is his approval rating?

Posted by: phx8 at March 11, 2007 1:13 AM
Comment #211458

Phx8:
Isn’t Pres. Bush’s apporval rating about 8-10% higher than Congress’s Approval rating?

Posted by: Rhancheck at March 11, 2007 5:42 AM
Comment #211459

Rhancheck… This is true but remember there are still alot of republicans in congress.

Posted by: Jeff at March 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Comment #211462

For those of you who don’t bother reading it, the Pew study basically vindicates the so-called liberal media.

The overall results of this varied snapshot would suggest that, with some exceptions, the early verdict coverage was reasonably straightforward, with little hint of overt celebration.

In contrast, imagine what would be on FOX if Al Gore’s chief of staff was convicted on multiple felonies. Break out the hats and hooters, it’s party time!

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 11, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #211464

Just heard last night that FOX is the predominant station aired in Iraq for our troops, as well. That would explain some of the polling of any of our troops’ support for Bush and the war.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 11, 2007 11:31 AM
Comment #211466

Logical necessity can be a factor in a consensus, as can be internal and shared biases. The key is to know which, and why.

Republicans who still support Bush want him to be the man not given the chance to succeed, not one who had many chances and blew them. What does it say about the supporter to bet on this bad horse so often? It’s not pleasant, and I know that from experience. It says more about such a person while they continue to believe irrationally in somebody, or not believe, than after they have rethought and reformulated their thoughts on the matter. It’s easier to be forgiven when you have repented.

The key is evidence. Arguments, whether they are simple or sophisticated, can become motivations themselves, as we come to believe them and the original premises and their structure fade in our minds.

Evidence should be the primary reason to reject evidence, not possible bias in the source. One should not, as in the Libby case, invent a political motivation for the jury out of thin air to explain the guilty verdict. One should examine the law, and reports on the testimony, instead of simply deciding that must be how things went down. There is an excellent account by one of the jurors that gives a sense of how the jury felt and thought.

There are other accounts. I think people should learn about the ways that lawyers, journalists, scientists discern the truth about things, how they check their facts and back their conclusions. It also helps to understand the way rhetoric and Logic work and how they don’t, in order to better understand what kind of arguments are and are not as conclusive as claimed.

The Republicans were once quite good at making arguments. Now they’ve become victims of them. The time has come for Republicans to figure out things for themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 11, 2007 12:29 PM
Comment #211472

Rhancheck,

“Isn’t Pres. Bush’s apporval rating about 8-10% higher than Congress’s Approval rating?”

No. That was true when the Republicans were in power. Since November, Congress approval ratings have crept up to the low 30s, about the same as Bush.

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

This is a good site, by the way, for anyone looking for poll summaries.

Two recent approval rating polls for Bush show 29% & 30%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

As more data comes in during the next week or two, it seems plausible we will see more numbers showing Bush has slipped below Congress in the estimation of the people.

Woody,
The word “celebrated” is certainly loaded, as you note. The media reported the Libby conviction and made it a lead headline, as they should have done. It is not every day the OVP Chief of Staff gets convicted of felonies.

Posted by: phx8 at March 11, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #211474

Btw, the two polls showing 29% & 30% are not shown on the pollingreport site. One is by Zogby. Interesting that Zogby has seen its credibility decline these past few years.

Posted by: phx8 at March 11, 2007 1:05 PM
Comment #211479

Phx8,

For what it’s worth from your own links, Congress’ approval ratings have crept down to where Bush’s are since the Democrats took office. It was a short honeymoon.

Posted by: Rob at March 11, 2007 2:18 PM
Comment #211480

Not all views, interpretations, opinions are equal. It’s interesting that one often hears about the “leftist”, “mainstream”, “liberal” media on one side (usually a long list) and then the “fair and balanced” media on the other (Fox news and maybe the National Review for those that actually read something). Right wing views have historically been relegated to the fringe because all too often they are not based upon history, fact or good logic.

I love Fox news. don’t get me wrong. It is wonderful entertainment, but I would never make the mistake of watching it for reality based information. Stop and think about why The Colbert Report’ and The Daily Show are so effective, largely as a parody of what and how news is reported by the Right. Fox has largely become an extension of these show out of “comedy central”; not only as fodder for comedy but comedy as it stands alone. Tell me that you all don’t get a good laugh when Fred Barnes, for example, is asked to defend the indefensible and becomes all red-faced and sputtery. He really does look on the verge of clutching his chest and going down right there!!

You know, we often hear stories about NASA, going to the moon, history of, going to Mars in the future; well, there is a group of people who believe that we never went to the moon, that it was all concocted on a hollywood movie set (“see the picture of the flag they planted, it’s waving! there’s no wind on the moon!” That level of insight and logic.) If we are going to fall into the trap of respecting all opinions and give them equal balance, shouldn’t we make reference to this group whenever the media does a story about “man in space”???
There has been an experiment going on the last six years or so; an injection of republican-philosophy-into-reality experiment. Take a look around, at all levels of government sponsored reality: economics, politics, ethics in both business and government, foreign policy, our nation’s defense (are we defending the United States of America in the streets of Baghdad or did we just send 3000 more people half way around the world to participate in 9-11, the sequel? You tell me.
Anyway. There is an avalanche of information and history and fact that contradict what organizations like FOX promote as fair and balanced fact. Should we respect opinions or reality?

Posted by: charles Ross at March 11, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #211482

Charles

It depends on which Fox News you are watching. Fox News Sunday is certainlty the equal of ABCs this week, which shares a similar format and it is better than Late Edition on CNN. Special Report is better than the evening news on any of the networks, although the comparison is unfair, since it is an hour long. My favorite hour long news is the Newshour on PBS.

Something like the O’Reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes are more along the entertainment/editorial lines. They are like Countdown.

All news organizations can get into serious trouble. Fox certainly was not as biased as CNN’s Peter Arnett. Fox also does form a balance for others. Rathergate would have passed virtually unchallenged except for Fox. I know the partisans would cry about this because it probably contributed to John Kerry’s defeat, but it is important to have a check on the truth and day Rather was not objectively telling the truth.

Bias in the news does not mean you disagree with it. Bias just means that it systematically over or underestimates and gets things wrong in a consistent way. Just being wrong doesn’t make you biased.

I see a significant biased in reporting economic news. The economy has been doing very well since 2003, yet much of the mainstream news would lead you to believe that a serious recession is weeks away. Their predictions have been wrong for more than three years now. The “when” is very important in economic predictions. It is sort of like predicting rain every day. Depending on where you live, you will be right a certain percentage of the time, but your predictions are worthless.

In any case, the days when a newsman could say “That’s the way it is” and expect people to believe it are over. You have to consume a variety of news sources and watch the results.

Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #211491

Ann Coulter is right! She is also correct! Edwards is! Al gore is fat! Hillary is no JFK!

faggot is no more mean than cracker!

Posted by: im at March 11, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #211509

Got to wonder if all these article were about loathing of bush, maybe they are all true.

Better reading then the sports page.

Posted by: KT at March 11, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #211595

Charles Ross said:

There has been an experiment going on the last six years or so; an injection of republican-philosophy-into-reality experiment. Take a look around, at all levels of government sponsored reality: economics, politics, ethics in both business and government, foreign policy, our nation’s defense (are we defending the United States of America in the streets of Baghdad or did we just send 3000 more people half way around the world to participate in 9-11, the sequel? You tell me.

This whole Iraq mess reminds me of an ABC show “Dinosaurs” a few years back. They went to war with a slogan of W.A.R. (We Are Right). And they wore uniforms with big bullseyes on the back. Sounds a lot like what we have done with our troops in Iraq, but at least “we’re not fighting them on the streets of America.”


Posted by: Ben at March 12, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #211938

You’re absolutely right, Jack. Just read the Federal deficit reports for the last six months on the back page of our local newspaper. It was better than Clinton’s numbers through most of his two terms in office. However, you would think that the Iraq War is spending us into oblivion by the reports coming out of the MSM.

JD

Posted by: JD at March 14, 2007 12:38 PM
Post a comment