Like the Bear, I listen to NPR because it's very good, even though the political slant there is just plain funny at times. However, he points to an interview on NPR recently that was quite beyond the pale. I was certainly not amused. I was a little depressed.
I'm tired of hearing from people who point to every casualty, every bombing, as proof that the Bush administration "had no plan" for post-war Iraq (this is simply inaccurate) and as proof that our efforts there are doomed to failure. But, I figured there'd be plenty of that stuff. The visceral loathing for Bush in some quarters is so intense, they'll jump on any problem or frustration or setback as still more proof that Bush Sucks. I think I've said this before: I don't consider such statements political positions so much as twitches.
Still, when a reporter says the "high point" of being in Iraq was having it "confirmed" that our efforts are doomed, that's just.... I have no words for it.
Dean wrote: "The visceral loathing for Bush in some quarters is so intense, they'll jump on any problem or frustration or setback as still more proof that Bush Sucks."
Even if true, I'll remind you that the Republicans tried to impeach President Clinton (and failed). And they're trying to recall California's democratic governor Gray Davis now. Why? Because the republicans "visceraly loathe" them.
If I were a republican, I think I'd look long and hard in the mirror before attempting to villify democrats for "visceral loathing." It seems to me that that's what republicans do for breakfast.
Can you say Rush Limbaugh? Bill O'Reilly?
Yes, visceral loathing for Clinton was a problem during those years. I've said so many times. I was never all that fond of him but the obsessive Clinton-hating got to be a real problem.
Although I do think impeachment was exactly the right thing to do. Then again, I also think acquittal by the Senate was also exactly the right thing to do.
As for the California recall: actually it was one Republican's effort, not the party's. Indeed, the party in California tried to distance itself from the effort--although now that the recall election is going forward, obviously they're going to try to win it.
When it comes to visceral and irrational hatred of the President of the United States, and kneejerk "he's a failure!" responses to everything that isn't 100% perfect, I have begun to suspect that this is a permanent part of our politics. I remember the vicious attacks on Reagan and the obscene Iran/Contra witch hunts, and I've read plenty about how hated Nixon was LONG before Watergate.
I continue to find all of it appalling, and will point it out whenever I see it. It should be ideas and policies we discuss, not people. Ad hominem is a childish form of criticism and reasoning.
How exactly is NPR very good? I mean the only decent news reporting they have is from the BBC. The in house stuff on NPR is further left than even the BBC. This is an example of the extremism on NPR.
I know lots of right-of-centre type who say NPR is good but for their prejudice. Surely the fact that they pander to extremsts and actively attack anyone to the right of them is a sign of how bad the network really is?
John,
Yeah, it must really suck whent he President lies under oath, and is impeached; it's just so partisan...
For what it's worth, I have absolutely no use for Limbaugh, and I dont' listen to O'Reilly, nor Coulter; I would have thought she would be a better bad example than O'Reilly. :)
Dean, did you see that twit JohnC over at the Bear's site? After making some of the ususal asinine remarks (e.g. "using 9/11 as a GOP re-election campaign"), said poster was challenged on alternatives. His response? Claims that US militia groups (which, he inferred, were linked to the Oklahoma bombing) wanted to overthrow the government, and random remarks about the Mafia. Sheesh. It sounded like he'd rather have the 101st and SOF invading Brooklyn and Omaha... :)
NPR does indeed lean to the left, but then again, so does the TRUTH....hello!
I still can't believe that what Clinton did wasn't what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they spoke of "high crimes and misdemeanors." An impeachable offense? Hardly. It pales in comparison to the lies Bush has told us, and we're not calling for his impeachment.
Dean, what's your take on "Frontline?"
Tim the Soldier
Well, Hell, Tim, you forgot some stuff: not only has Bush lied (he lies so much, I bet his name really isn't George!), he stole the 2000 election, he started the war in '01 to take people's minds off the recession, he started the war in '03 to take people's minds off the lousy economy again, the war is really his way of paying off Halliburton(oops no, sorry, the war is really about cheap oil)...
No, to tell the truth, Bush deliberately instigated the 9/11 attacks so he can destroy American democracy, and install a crazy, right-wing Christian theocracy instead, with that nutbar Ashcroft acting as the new High Iquisitor.
And his family put the Nazis in power.
Not to mention Bush shoves puppies into a plastic shredder every afternoon for fun.
Get a grip. Despite what you can't believe, committing a felony through perjury is exactly and precisely one of the crimes the founders had in mind.
Well, unless you're Clinton. I suppose that "lie," "felony," and "perjury" are in the same slippery category as "sex" or "is."
Go ahead and regale us with the tale of Bush's lies.
Like the time he went on national television and swore he never had sex with that intern. Whoops, that was Clinton, too.
You know, you really shouldn't be trying that tactic after eight years of Clinton. I'm not a "Clinton basher" (that is, I don't amuse myself in my spare time verbally abusing the former President, nor spend any time at all blaming him for all the country's problems) but I' m not going to whitewater him (oops! I meant "whitewash", heh). He was, above all, a snake oil salesman. Hell, he had the nickname "Slick Willie" even before he was elected President. Nobody can spin the way he can. Well, Carville, maybe... :)
Casey,
You know, there are tasty decaf brands available at your local market. You're killing me dude. Your tactic seems to be overreact to everything in the extreme....are you living in a fantasy world?
From the Godfather: "...now who's being naive Kay?"
Tim the Soldier
Frontline, like NPR tends to lean left, but also like NPR it often does top-notch work. If they'd just come out and admit their biases, like the folks at The New Republic or The National Review, I'd have no complaints. Everyone's got a bias, and I think more honest reporting comes out of admitting that you have them, and then trying to be fair to the other side.
You know, in other words, be a real liberal, and not just a lefty.
Dean,
That's why you're my hero. Of course that lumps you in with my other heroes, Carville and Franken.
Tim the Soldier
Tim: this comes from mainlining Jolt Cola. And, no, I DON'T have a problem, OK? {GLARE}
Heh. I just get so irritated whenever I see someone dismiss what Clinton did, but keep harping how "Bush lied." (even though no one ever seems to manage to come up with very good specifics)
Point: Clinton did, in fact, lie under oath. This is, in fact, a felony, and as such more than comes under the heading of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Point: I keep hearing about how "Bush lied" (or "Bush's lies") but, somehow, I miss just what it is he lied about. Please elucidate. :)
Parenthetically, while I think that what Clinton did was wrong (i.e. banging some slut half his age, then lying about it to the nation), I also think that the perjury charge came goddamn close to entrapment. Hell, the folks up on the Hill knew he was boffing the little tramp; they just wanted him to stick his head in the noose, which he obligingly did. To me this seems very close to a situation where (say) a man lies to the Feds about where he was a particular night (maybe he was cheating on his wife, but it has nothing to do with the case they are investigating), but since it's a felony to lie to any Federal officer, BAM! Gotcha! So now they can use this to blackmail the poor sucker into doing whatever they want.
Hell, if you're gonna hang the President, hang the SOB fair & square.
But you still should admit the bastich committed a felony, ok? At the very least, they haven't nailed Bush on any felony charges (much less on any misdemeanors), so back off on the moral relativism, please? :)
I must say I am terribly disappointed in your affection for Franken. At least Moore can be funny sometimes. Franken doesn't even qualify as an amusing smart-ass. He's just an ass. Sometimes I think he's more the "liberal mirror" of Limbaugh than Moore is.
And at least Carville has some Gollum/hobbit sort of twisted charm about him. Heh.
BTW, I must confess that Dean pays me a small honorary each month to act all crazy on his blog; this makes him look much more reasonable than I... :)
Casey,
Man, I can't find Jolt Cola in the stores where I live. I used to love that stuff! Point taken. I still think Franken is hilarious and astute in his observations. (Remember, he was the FIRST to predict that Buchanan's speech at the 92' convention cost Bush 41 the election.) I caught his appearance on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show last week and nearly pissed my pants it was THAT funny. Of course, some people didn't find humor in the early SNL which he was one of the lead writers, but to each his own.
Thanks for baiting me all the same.
Tim the Soldier
Our pols have become what the media loves to display, carping factions fit for the Jerry Springer show. And I mean both parties.
The recall of Davis is due to fiscal liberalism exhibited during a time where conservativism should have been implemented. He could have slid by with his policies a few years back, but not in the recent ecomonic climate. The results have rocked the state into a rude awakining.
Tim, that's probably why I prefer Dennis Miller over other "political" humorists; he'll go after anyone regardless of party.
And, you're welcome for the baiting. I think... :)
BTW, you never said; just which lies was Bush telling anyway? I mean, I've heard (over and over and over...) that "Bush liked about WMDs," but what else? I certainly hope you aren't quoting Krugman from the NYT?
Did anyone other than me hear Saturday morning's roundup of the news of the week during which Daniel Shore (who I think is fighting a losing battle with Alzheimer's or generic age-related dementia) said that he felt GWB was doing a poor job handling Vietnam?
I kid you not. Scott Simon was immobilized for a second, then concluded the interview as rapidly as he could.
I mean, it's one thing to believe that Iraq is Vietnam, but to actually say it out loud is rather gauche.
Tim, The Truth does not lean even remotely left. The Truth is what happens when you can speak all of the relevant facts and let them speak for themselves. The very failure of the Media to do this proves that they have their own nontruth agenda.
If the Media had been able to report the news accurately, no market opportunity would have ever existed for the Rush Limbaughs and Fox Newses of the world.
"If the Media had been able to report the news accurately, no market opportunity would have ever existed for the Rush Limbaughs and Fox Newses of the world."
Your point makes absolutely no sense. People always like to hear what they believe to be the truth actually is the truth. There is always a market for biased information. If there weren't then the Weekly World News, National Enquiror, and any other tabloid would not exist.
People *like* bias, which is exactly why we have Rush Limbaughs and Fox News.