The Republican Media- No. 5

I don't mean to pick on CNN as a part of the pro-Republican media. It would be easy to select items from FOX News to demonstrate a pro-GOP slant. But given that FOX News is a virtual arm of the Republican Party, demonstrating bias there would not prove bias in the mainstream media generally. And besides, one can go to the Republican National Committee's website and get reports nearly as objective as those on FOX News. Herewith an exchange from Larry King's interview with President Cheney televised last night on CNN:

King: "So, those 3,000-plus lives have not died in vain?"
Cheney: (agreeing) "Yes, sir."
King: "So in restrospect you would still go into Iraq."

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 commission) found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization before the U.S. invasion." Further, Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, in a Defense Department report released in April, 2007 and here summarized by WashingtonPost.com, reported that "captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides 'all confirmed' that Hussein's regime was not cooperating with al-Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq."

Sure, the Administration has been trying since that disastrous day in 2001 to make the linkage between al-Qaeda and the late Saddam Hussein. According to TIME.com, NBC reported that former NATO commander-in-chief General Wesley Clarke stated that "people in and around the White House had made a concerted push to link 9/11 to Iraq and... he was urged to make that link during his TV appearances." CBS, TIME noted, reported that "Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had urged his aides to begin making the case for striking Saddam as well as bin Laden within hours of the atacks."

Richard A. Clarke, the counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council on September 11, 2001, recounted in his book Against All Enemies Inside America's War on Terror- What Really Happened this regime's push for war by manufacturing a link. Shortly after the attacks, Wolfowitz told Clarke (who had argued that only al Qaeda was "an immediate and serious threat to the United States") "you give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1999 attack on New York without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."

So Larry King conflates our incursion into Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. And therein repeats a key Republican talking point, the myth that Iraq was involved with the attacks, thereby suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. And this is repeated throughout "the liberal media."

Department of Irony:

Hank Aaron: former Milwaukee Brave, Atlanta Brave, and Milwaukee Brewer; Hall of Famer; holder of the Major League record for career home runs with 755; one of the greatest players of alltime; and according to Politico.com...

-has supported black voter registration drives in the Deep South
-participated in the successful gubernatorial election of Roy Barnes and Zell Miller in Georgia;
-has been involved in the successful campaigns of his brother-in-law for the Georgia legislature and the U.S. House of Representatives;
-appeared shortly before the 2000 Presidential election with Bill Clinton ("the first black President") before 25,000 people at an event at a high school football stadium;
-attended a Georgia fundraiser earlier this year for Senator Clinton's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination (and has contributed to her Senate and presidential campaigns);
-and, although not noted by Politico, publicly criticized at the National Press Club the reluctance of the Major Leagues to promote minorities into management.

Barry Bonds: as of this writing, with 754 career home runs, about to break Aaron's record; once a Pittsburgh Pirate, for many years now a San Francisco Giant; one of the greatest players ever; reputed, though not proven, prolific user of steroids (has not flatly denied use, but claimed he was unaware they were steroids he had been prescribed); and according to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome "is not politicllly involved at all in town. Even before the whole steroid thing happened, he was never really courted politically."

In an ESPN/ABC news poll conducted in April of 2007, baseball fans were asked whether they were rooting for Bonds to break Aarons' record or for him to fall short. The results:
overall: 37% in favor, 52% against, 11% no opinion
blacks: 74% in favor, 18% against, 9% no opinion
whites: 28% in favor, 60% against, 12% no opinion

Go figure.

The Republican Media- No. 4

One evening last week, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown named Ann Coulter his "Worst Person in the World." She recently had written "Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday's Democratic debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign.... because it was so filled with liberal conspiracy theories that would frighten normal Americans." Olbermann asks whether Coulter really meant that the Republican Party should play the tape repeatedly- unless, of course, Fox News really is the "advertising arm of the Republican Party," as he so cogently put it.

There was, I think, a revealing statement made today by Newt Gingrich on GOP News Sunday, hosted by Chris Wallace. The former House Speaker remarked "I think the Republicans have three major choices in Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson (but) I think Senator McCain has taken positions so deeply at odds with his party's base that I don't see how he can get the nomination."

I'll grant you immigration (illegal immigration). But would this be the same John McCain who, according to ontheissues.org, has received a 0% rating by the American Civil Liberties Union (12/02); a 0% rating by the National Abortion Rights Action League (12/03); and an 83% rating by the Christian Coalition (12/03)? And the same John McCain who has been the most ardent and visible Republican supporter in the United States Congress of Gulf War II? Why, yes, it would be.

And would this be the same Rudy Giuliani, who, before his recent conversion of convenience, was supportive of gay rights, gun control, and abortion rights(including partial birth abortion)? And who, according to right-wing firebrand Ann Coulter, opposed welfare reform and the nomination of Bill Clinton? Why, yes, it would be. But it is the same Rudy Giuliani who is running against the estate tax, paid on estates worth over $2,000,000, affecting the wealthiest 2% of Americans. One might be cynical enough to conclude, if Gingrich is correct, that cultural issues (or Iraq) really aren't that important anymore to the movers-and-shakers of the Republican Party.

"There's a skirmish of wit between them. Much ado about nothing."
Mr. William Shakespeare
"Much Ado About Nothing"
Scene 1, Act 1

In the most famous exchange of the recent Democratic debate, held at The Citadel, a questioner asked whether the candidates would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition,during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
Senator Obama, before conjuring up (his) memories of Ronald Wilson Reagan and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, responded "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration- is ridiculous."

Senator Clinton retorted "Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I thik it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes..."
Then the quarrel heated up. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer argued that his client "understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America's presidency years ahead of time by making such a blanket commitment." Clinton aide Madeline Albright stated "you can't just show up and have an event." Clinton herself in Iowa's Quad City Times characterized Obama's comment as "irresponsible and frankly naive." Obama responded in the same newspaper "I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon." And he added that what was "irresponsible and naive" was voting to authorize the Iraq war.

Clinton was right, of course, that the groundwork must be laid before discussions between heads of state, which Obama seems to acknowledge by noting that he wasn't proposing an afternoon tea. Similarly, ABC News reports that in a pre-debate interview with a Miami Herald reporter, the Illinois senator contended that he would meet with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez only "under certain conditions." And Obama was right when he unearthed a Clinton quote from April, "I think it is a terrible mistake for our President to say he will not talk with bad people" and right on target when he referred to the spat as "a fabricated controversy." Clinton herself indirectly acknowledged the context of the debate, when her answer included "but I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration." Right. And whether a Clinton or Obama administration, the President will be open to discussions with any country, with proper preparation, under the right circumstances. Much ado about nothing.

Some reflections on comments made by MSNBC (on their bi-weekly Super Tuesday) pertaining to the July 20, 2007 Democratic debate at the Citadel:

Charlie Cook of Cook Political Report said that it's easy to overrate the importance of any of these debates, that one way of viewing a debate is whether it upset the order of the race. It did not, as he pointed out. And as to the importance of the debates: the most searing memory I have of the GOP debates thus far is Senator McCain, more than once, forcefully defending the war in Iraq. He's wrong on the issue, of course, but he appeared confident, committed, and principled. And he has sunk like a rock.

Patrick Buchanan argued that the fellow from Michigan who brandished his rifle and referred to it as his "baby" represented real Americans that Democrats have to appeal to. No, Pat. Democrats have to appeal to gun owners and to those NRA members (not synonymous)for whom gun control is not their primary concern. But most of these would refer to a gun as their "baby," and they will not vote Democratic anyway. For the vast majority of Americans, some other issue such as national security, fear of terrorism, high taxation, immigration/illegal immigration, mediocre education, inadequate health care, or Social Security ranks higher. If registering your weapon, or not being able to obtain one if you're mentally ill (well, in some states), is your primary concern in life, you either should be congratulated for living a blessed, secure and sheltered life- or you're a criminal.

Host for the hour Andrea Mitchell and journalist Eugene Robinson agreed that John Edwards should not have criticized Hillary Clinton's jacket when, toward the end of the debate, each candidate was asked to say something he/she liked and disliked about the candidate to his/her left. They disapproved of a male candidate being negative about the clothing as, Mitchell put it, the only female candidate. But the former North Carolina Senator was obviously merely trying not to take too seriously a question which should not have been taken seriously. (In fact, Joe Biden would term it a "ridiculous exercise.") And Edwards was not asked to comment on anyone else. We may be on the verge of "making history" (as Senator Clinton and her supporters are not shy in emphasizing), but we still must be condescending toward women, treating them differently, more deferentially, than men. Or at least that's the way Andrea Mitchell and some who consider others to be sexist would have it.

Contrasting Styles At Democratic Debate

Despite the nature of last night's Democratic debate in Charleston, South Carolina, there were these moments of substance:

Senator Obama, in an obvious swipe at Senator Clinton: "...but what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq is before we went in." After the Illinois Senator commented further, followed by applause, did Anderson Cooper question Mrs. Clinton about the remark? "To the question of, did the troops- Are the troops dying in vain, though. Yes or no?" (Generously, we can call that "conflict-averse"; not so generously, more conspiratorily, that Cooper did not want to press Clinton on Obama's big issue, that he is the one Senator on stage who voted against authorizing the war.)

Former Senator Edwards on gay marriage in a response to Reverend Longcrier: "But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know... my wife Elizabeth... actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it." John, we know you are thoughtful. And conflicted. And respectful of the opinions of others, especially those of your wife. That, in the minds of many voters, is what separates Democrats from Republicans. Republicans seem so self-assured- or arrogant. The "no apologies" party. The "Daddy Party." Try this, given your views. "I support full partnership benefits for everyone, regardless of sexual preference, how they were born, fully assured of God's love. But I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and do not support legalizing gay marriage."

But John Edwards had what I believe was the best, most meaningful moment of the debate, contrasting himself to Clinton and Obama: "And the question is, do you believe compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies- they are notgoing to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

And you know I can't get through a blog of this sort without criticizing Hillary Clinton. Rob Porter from Irvine, California asked Mrs. Clinton "would you use this word (liberal) to define yourself?" After taking 194 words to describe herself as "a modern progressive," Clinton was asked by Cooper "So you wouldn't use the word "liberal," you'd say progressive?" HRC nodded, to applause.
How about this, Senator? "Yes, I am a liberal. I'm in favor of clean air, clean water, and national parks we all are proud of, despite assaults from special interests. I'm in favor of good wages for all Americans, and distressed at the record high of mortgage foreclosures we've recently seen in our country. I'm in favor of equal opportunity- not necessarily equal outcomes- for everyone, regardless of race, religion, or gender. And I'm in favor of a leader who is strong enough to pursue diplomacy first, to talk with our enemies when necessary so our people are safe and secure, and to resort to war not as a first, but as a last, option. And I'll be that President starting January 21, 2009."
But embracing the word "liberal" requires courage.