So they're saying, basically, "If there's any doubt Fox is biased against Democrats, it was put to rest when Fox got angry when we accused it of being biased against Democrats."

Yeah, and if there's any doubt that black folks are uppity, it was put to rest when they staged all those protests against white folks keeping them down.

The thing is, though, there wasn't any uncertainty. Fox isn't an objective news source; they're part of the Republican message machine. FNC viewers had a higher rate of voting for Bush than evangelicals, Southerners, conservatives, or registered Republicans at large. This isn't a coincidence.

There's no reason to give the network the time of day, much less allow it broadcast a party primary debate. Don't give them the veneer of legitimacy the CBC debate would offer; treat them exactly the same way you'd treat WorldNetDaily, because honestly, that's what they are.

The amount of stretching that would be required to countenance an analogy between FOX News and the civil rights movement is just beyond me. I congratulate you GB on your athletic ability.

So they're saying, basically . . .

No. Try again.

Come on, GB. Even a right-wing partisan would have to acknowledge that the response by Fox to the letter from Nevada's two top Democrats, Tom Collins, head of the party, and Senator Harry Reid, is hardly becoming of a "news" organization:

According to the Post, Fox News VP David Rhodes said "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party."

You gotta question your own perceptions if you were not startled by this, and instead find a basis to sympathize with Fox.

Sure, but this all seems like a ploy from the Democrats to make Fox more biased, not less. It's like when you're arguing with someone and they say, "Why are you being so defensive?" Of course, then you say, "Hey, I'm not being defensive!" but by then, you ARE being defensive.

How anti-Democrat can FOX news be if it wants to turn over a big chunk of its airtime to let the leading Dem candidates speak for themselves? Shouldn't their message come through loud and clear no matter what channel happens to be carrying it?

How anti-Democrat can FOX news be if it wants to turn over a big chunk of its airtime to let the leading Dem candidates speak for themselves?

I dunno, GB. How anti-Republican would the Huffington Post be to offer itself as a venue for Republican debate? It couldn't possibly be that they might want to control how the debate is framed and presented to influence their readers, right?

Are you being willfully obtuse, GB?

For example.

Fox can try to spin or distort the debate all it wants, but it can't control the words that come out of the candidates' mouths. You can tell when someone is making good points even though someone else is trying to make them look bad.

In fact, the spinner's efforts usually backfire and make himself look bad. For example.

In fact, the spinner's efforts usually backfire and make himself look bad.

So, Billy O'Reilly's built his entire career on the fact that his spin usually makes him look bad? How much shit do you think he's gotten away with outside of being nailed on a few moments like that? Conservatively.

Well, sometimes, O'Reilly makes good points, too. If you catch the clip of him on Letterman, O'Reilly actually comes off as the reasonable one, IMHO, as he tones down his act while Dave tries to nail him with a lot of snarky cheap shots. Which just proves my point; if you play the dishonest bully and the other guy is straightforward and sincere, you end up looking like a jerk.

Now, it's possible that some Fox viewers actually like watching people like O'Reilly act like jerks, but you're never going to win over that audience segment with reasoned argument anyway, no matter what network you're on. You may as well let them watch the Dems on Fox, since they'd never watch a Dem debate any other way.

The "War on Christmas" Letterman interview of O'Reilly?

From my point of view, Letterman stood his ground admirably against the stupid, absurdist, permanently outraged O'Reilly.

I'd be interested to see a gender breakdown on O'Reilly's viewer-stats.

Sure, but this all seems like a ploy from the Democrats to make Fox more biased, not less.

So is that constant whinge from many prominent conservatives about how liberal the media (and academy) is really designed to make the media and academy more liberal? Is that what working the refs does, gets them to make more decisions against your team? Did, for example, Hugh Hewitt's handling of Mark Halperin actually turn Mark into a rabid leftwing firebrand?

GB, Fox is demonstrably biased, and their reaction - one not in the least becoming of a news organization - is proof. The letter from Reid and Collins did not merit this reaction.

"You may as well let them watch the Dems on Fox, since they'd never watch a Dem debate any other way" - While I agree with this point, one problem is that giving Fox an exclusive gives it too much control over the broadcast of what would be a limited number of debates.

With disgust with Bush and Republicans growing, Dems may be justified in simply writing off Fox and viewers on the right who are unlikely to change their minds anyway - and who somehow see Fox as the victim in all of this.

The funniest comments are from the Drudgers saying that the GOP should cancel its debates on CNN in retaliation. Dudes, CNN is many things, but on our side isn't one of them. Also, no Democrat gives a good goddamn who you decide to have broadcast your debates. They're yours. Put 'em wherever you please. Let Fox and CBN do all of them if that's what you want.

since they'd never watch a Dem debate any other way.

Why should any Democrat care if people who aren't going to vote in Democratic primaries watch the Democratic primary debates?

Why should any Democrat care if people who aren't going to vote in Democratic primaries watch the Democratic primary debates?

The small hope that some of them may change their minds, apo. After all, many Republicans are also disgusted with their party.

But I would agree that that's a very thin reason to go with Fox, since these voters would probably be willing to change the channel anyway.

Dudes, CNN is many things, but on our side isn't one of them.

Oh yes it is. It's almost meaningless to single out specific examples of how and why, because it's more of an overall pervasive ethos, kind of like how you said Michelle Malkin doesn't know she's silly in the same way fish don't know they're wet.

It's almost meaningless to single out specific examples of how and why

Oh, oh, here's one!

Did, for example, Hugh Hewitt's handling of Mark Halperin actually turn Mark into a rabid leftwing firebrand?

I'd say that's not an analogous situation, because Halperin, for whatever reason, appears to have been pathologically determined to curry favor with Hewitt. Hewitt slapped him around, and he just kept coming back begging for more, like that Beavis & Butthead episode where they have a crush on Todd the abusive gang leader.

Fox was not desperate to win the Dems' approval. Rather, it made a nice gesture, had the roses smacked out of its hand, and concluded, "The hell with this; look what it gets us."

Like how they breathlessly reported Whitewater, which turned out to be less than nothing, or went right on repeating the "Al Gore is a pathological liar" bit, or replayed the Dean scream 24/7 or &c, &c, &c. If they have an identifiable bias, it's toward scandal and fluff, but it certainly isn't toward the Democratic Party.

it made a nice gesture

Bullshit.

Fox can try to spin or distort the debate all it wants, but it can't control the words that come out of the candidates' mouths. You can tell when someone is making good points even though someone else is trying to make them look bad.

I agree with this. If stormfront.org or freerepublic.com hadn't banned me a long time ago, I'd still be over there shutting those fools up. I sincerely believe that the left has the truth on its side. If/when some asshole at Fox fabricates a story, reply immediately with the truth, it's that simple. Bill Clinton won the presidency by doing that, Gore and Kerry lost it by not doing that.

(Yes, I'm aware of what a gross oversimplification of the last 2 presidential elections that last sentence was, but the fact remains that Fox can't hurt you if you simply fight back with the truth instead of doing nothing.)

Fox can't hurt you if you simply fight back with the truth instead of doing nothing.)

People can mitigate some of the ill effects by fighting back, but "can't hurt you" is seriously overstated, no?

Oh yes it is. It's almost meaningless to single out specific examples of how and why, because it's more of an overall pervasive ethos

"I just know they're on the Democrats' side. I can feel it!"

Bullshit.

Let me clarify this. FNC (or any of the other media outlets competing to air debates) is not making a nice gesture. They are a for-profit corporation looking to attract viewers. None of the news media are in it to be nice; they're in it to make money first and foremost (except PBS). Some of them also carry decided partisan viewpoints. Perhaps FNC will end up hosting one of the general election debates. That has yet to be hammered out. But during the party primaries, there is simply no reason to grant the profit and legitimacy to a network that is *actively hostile* to your party. There is nothing to be gained by it.

Fox can't control the words no matter what, but there's no reason to just give them the revenue (and the ideological cover) they can then use to keep attacking your party. That's fucking nuts.

For me this is tough. On the one hand, Apo's 100% right in 2: Fox News is a propoganda machine, pure and simple, and doesn't deserve to be legitimized. On the other hand, for better or worse it has somehow become the most watched news medium in our country, by a significant margin. The anti-democratic spin won't let up just because the dems don't let Fox Host their primary debate. So in a pragmatic sense the choice may be: (a) let Fox host the debate, so people hear both the candidates' messages and the network's perverted twist on them, or (b) don't let Fox host, in which case viewers are treated to unrelenting and uninterrupted bloviating about how the cowardly Democrats wouldn't even let Fox host, how they need to be coddled in their liberal-media enclaves, etc. etc. (and don't ever hear anything the candidates say on the subject). A disturbingly high percentage of our population is going to get much or all of their info on this topic from Fox, and it's not clear to me that their encountering (b) is preferable to (a). But as I said, it's a tough call.

People can mitigate some of the ill effects by fighting back, but "can't hurt you" is seriously overstated, no?

Maybe somewhat overstated, but not completely. In '92 Poppy Bush's camp made up stories about Clinton renouncing his citizenship in Moscow, impropriety with Clinton's passport etc. Clinton's team responded almost instantaneously with the truth, and stopped these lies in their tracks. I'd say Clinton not only came out unhurt, but stronger. Compare this with Kerry's response to the swift boaters.

Now I think the same approach can be used with FNC. We know they like to make shit up. When they do that, respond with the truth. I hate to bring this up as an example, but how about the Dan Rather memo fiasco? CBS wasn't even smearing and lying ala FNC, they simply made a mistake. This mistake was pounced upon by the right and the whole story, even the truthful parts, was killed. When FNC photoshops Hillary or Obama tying Dakota Fanning to railroad tracks, we can do the same.

Oh yes it is. It's almost meaningless to single out specific examples of how and why, because it's more of an overall pervasive ethos, kind of like how you said Michelle Malkin doesn't know she's silly in the same way fish don't know they're wet.

I'm not being sarcastic, but I would like a specific example, simply because I've heard this charge before, but I can't see it. I've tried looking for CNN's leftward bias, but I've never found it. Oddly, I find that it is equally despised by both the left and the right.

the most watched news medium in our country

Not true. The nightly news on the big three broadcast networks get vastly more viewers than Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. Also, while Fox gets higher cumulative ratings (by virtue of viewers watching for longer periods of time), CNN has more individual viewers on any given day.

30- Okay, well, I guess I've been suckered by the propaganda machine. I'll take your word on faith and consider myself corrected. It's still a very large and influential "news" organization, and I think my broader point stands.

I guess I've been suckered by the propaganda machine

More that TV ratings are a complicated system. CBS/ABC/NBC only have an hour of news per day, so their ratings aren't compared against CNN/Fox/MSNBC, who run nothing but. Different scales altogether.

Fox does have higher ratings than the other cable news networks, but those are determined by average number of viewers and those are largely driven by the opinion shows like O'Reilly, where people sit and watch for an entire hour. CNN's equivalent, I guess, is Larry King, but that usually isn't political in the same way that the O'Reilly Factor is (plus, Larry King sucks).

In other words, FNC viewers watch for longer periods of time, where CNN viewers often pop in for ten minutes here and there. From a $$ perspective (as well as a propaganda one), you'd *much* rather want Fox's viewing habits. It isn't a mistake to say that they're winning the cable news game; they are. But it's a tricky thing to nail down concretely.

an hour of news per day

Or is the nightly news a half-hour? I long ago stopped watching television news at all, because it just makes me want to throw things at my screen.

"Fox was not desperate to win the Dems' approval."

Of course not; but you concede that Fox certainly does NOT have Dems` approval. Do you suppose there could be reasons for that?

"Rather, it made a nice gesture, had the roses smacked out of its hand, and concluded, `The hell with this; look what it gets us.`"

A nice gesture?! What do you suppose Fox`s motivations are? Do you think that Dems are crazy to suppose that Fox might wish to sponsor a primary debate to appear even-handed even as it is not, and at the same time to play to its real audience by mocking the Dem candidates?

As to Fox`s reaction, I find it incredible that you continue to twist the situation to make it seem that Fox is the victim and an innocent suitor, even as their quick emotional response makes it clear that their motives were not pure. Their response is simply astonishingly unbecoming of a newd organization.

Fox certainly does NOT have Dems` approval. Do you suppose there could be reasons for that?

Because it's not biased in favor of them?

And while Fox does go heavy on the sex stories, it is not yet a fully newd organization.

I'm not being sarcastic, but I would like a specific example, simply because I've heard this charge before, but I can't see it. I've tried looking for CNN's leftward bias, but I've never found it.

How 'bout this?

Here's the thing, though, GB: that story has precisely nothing to do with the Democratic Party, which is as much—indeed, more—to blame for Vietnam as the GOP. It may have been shoddy journalism, but it was based on testimony from military officers involved at the time, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Turns out to have been accepted under dubious circumstances and not up to the standards of a proper news organization. And the producers were fired.

But a news organization investigating the conduct of covert operations from a 30-year-old war that spanned multiple presidencies from each party is hardly evidence of a Democratic bias.

Keep dancin' GB. Your shuck and jive is convincing only of your own inability to see out of your bubble.

A gentleman who makes a nice gesture but is spurned who then says "fuck you, bitch" has just shown he that he is no gentleman, and that his intentions were not honorable.

Except in your world.

37: I was asked for evidence of a "leftward" bias. I think leftward = anti-Vietnam war, yes?

38: I don't approve of Fox getting nasty toward the Dems. Finding the cause of an action is not the same thing as justifying it.

think leftward = anti-Vietnam war, yes?

No, anti-Vietnam War = anti-Vietnam War. You can find plenty of right wingers who will say that Vietnam was a boneheaded tragedy. And more than anybody, it was LBJ's war, the same guy who rammed through civil rights and the New Society. Moreover, the report itself isn't even unambiguously anti-Vietnam War, it's alleging that one operation used nerve gas to target defectors.

At least the media, and the federal government, get it right on the big issues.

GB, in #20 you alleged that CNN is on the side of the Dems - "Oh yes it is. It's almost meaningless to single out specific examples of how and why, because it's more of an overall pervasive ethos".

Your example shows no bias by CNN in favor of the Dems, who were in fact in power at the time and rejected CNN's allegations regarding the use of sarin gas and targetting of defectors in the 1970s.

In fact, you've chosen a great case of how quickly the corporate press caves to pressure from the military.

While CNN caved to criticism, it's interesting that (i) the two CNN producers canned by CNN, April Oliver and Jack Smith, continue to stand by their story, and (ii) the military investigation concluded solely that there was "no evidence" to support the allegations.

A little reading shows that there is in fact a lot of meat to the allegations, and alot to worry about in terms of the real independence of the media and its ability to provide critical coverage of the military. This is an issue that should concern all of us - and of which both George Washington and Eisenhower warned.

Start with the April Oliver/ Jack Smith radio interview, but take a look at the following as well:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/21/pentagon.tailwind.01/
http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.findings/index.html (Abram's report)
http://www.fair.org/extra/9808/tailwind.html
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/1998-07-13
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/PressDevoursOwn.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0342255 (April Oliver/ Jack Smith radio interview).

That this problem has continued to grow beyond all reasonable bounds can be evidenced by the fact that James Webb, ex-Republican, former Secretary of the Navy and now Democratice senator from Virginia, who wrote a column in the July 15 1998 Wall Street Journal ("The Media's War on Vietnam Vets") denouncing journalists for publishing "lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations" about the Vietnam War - has turned his back on the Bush administration for its lies and incompetence in invading Iraq.

Care to come up with some more examples?

Fox News is repulsive, as are the filthy whores who the screen on it.

I actually have quite a few views in common with right-wing kooksters. And I mean far out in Neverland kind of right-wing, not this wussified Nixonian-Rockefeller crap.

But you know what Fox news does? They are like chimpanzees, throwing their feces at everything in sight. The perfectly legitimate right-wing stances on certain things--or at least the ones that can hold their own after more than a few sentences of intellectual debate--these become soiled too. Fox News takes the same stances and then defends them in the wrong language, with the wrong rationale, in the wrong tone, at the wrong people, and in the wrong way.

They are much to blame with the downfall of this great old republic, those fuckers.

far out in Neverland kind of right-wing, not this wussified Nixonian-Rockefeller crap.

Like what?

"Neverland kind of right-wing"

My guesses for Jon:

- Dismantle our military empire in favor of pure defense

- Greater and more rapid disclosure of Government actions

- Make the government smaller, both to eliminate the corruptions of corporate influence and to empower individuals, communities and state/local governments - including eliminating much regulation at the federal level and rationalizing what's left for consistency for $ spent/health risk

- Eliminate the PATRIOT Act, government spying on citizens and efforts to require national ID cards

- Drastically pare back tax-funded social welfare programs

- Legalize drugs to eliminate the corruption, violence and urban decay produced by the war on drugs

- Put some equal protection teeth into state-level redistricting of Congressional districts, so parties cannot choose their voters while disenfranchising the rest

- Repeal finance reforms that limit free speech and protect incumbents

Some but not all of these are on my agenda as well.

What else, Jon?

More Neverland kind of right-wing stuff here at American Freedom Agenda, a recent creation of Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, David Keene and Richard Viguerie.

Good stuff, aimed at the "chronic usurpation" of legislative and judicial power by the executive branch since 9/11.

One of the interesting aspects of the American Freedom Agenda is that the pledge they've prepared - with the aim of reining in the president, the administration and the military and restoring power to Congress - seems so radical that even big government liberals won't bite.

Don't liberals care about the Constitution and civil rights, except as rhetorical sticks with which to beat Bush?

Don't liberals care about the Constitution and civil rights, except as rhetorical sticks with which to beat Bush?

Is this a serious question, Tom? Did you read the following part?

The group that's advancing this so-called "American Freedom Agenda" is chaired by Bruce Fein, a former Nixon administration aide who served as deputy attorney general under President Reagan and who helped to formulate some of the serious -- pre-blue dress -- arguments for impeaching Bill Clinton. Fein is joined by former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr, veteran conservative fund-raiser Richard Viguerie and David Keene, the former aide to Bob Dole who for many years has served as chairman of the American Conservative Union.

Do you really believe the above list of luminaries cares more about civil rights and liberties? Seriously??

Richard Viguerie

Yeah, I hope you'll forgive my skepticism about the dedication to civil liberties of the co-founder of the Moral Majority.

And while this is the first I've heard of the Liberty Coalition group, I'll note this that came up when I googled it:

The Liberty Coalition includes such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union, American Families United, Americans for Tax Reform, Amnesty International, the Arab American Institute, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Common Cause, Concerned Foreign Service Officers, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Government Accountability Project, MoveOn.org, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, People for the American Way, the Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition and many others.

I think you can find some big government liberals in that list. I still don't trust Viguerie any further than I could throw him.

M/M:

Yes, it's a serious question - show me the liberal candidates rushing to take the Freedom Pledge, much less focus on these issues, and where the liberal blogs are cheering this on.

Do you really believe the above list of luminaries cares more about civil rights and liberties? Seriously??

Um, isn't this a group of committed conservatives? If principles mean nothing to them, then why are they risking tearing up the Republican party over this rebuke of Bush?

They must be motivated by some real nefarious
purposes, right?

apo, thanks for directing me to the the truthout piece on this group.

Yes, although it's unclear how much its liberal members are even aware of it, the transpartisan Liberty Coalition has announced its support of the American Freedom Agenda - but my point stands:
the Democratic presidential candidates are pro-big government and, perhaps not surprisingly, none of them shows the slightest interest in supporting a rollback of Presidential power.

They'll bash Bush on it, but do they really care about checks and balances and eliminating the imperial Presidency? Apparently not.

I'd be curious to hear what, if anything, you disagree with that Fein said in the truthout piece - in particular, the following:

[Fein] expressed disappointment with the lack of any real pushback against presidential power by Congressional Democrats. "The Democrats in Congress have done absolutely nothing to tell the president he is not a king and we do not live in a monarchy. They are allowing him to trash the Constitution because most of them know nothing about the Constitution and are concerned only with making headlines about minor issues and getting themselves reelected."

Fein acknowledged that things were probably worse when Congress was under Republican control, "but only marginally."

"Neither party has shown the courage to assert the power of Congress as a coequal branch of government. Congress should be telling the president it's not OK to detain people without trials, to grab people off the streets and 'render' them to other countries to be tortured, to listen in to our telephone conversations, and to issue signing statements that nullify laws he doesn't like."

He added, "We elect members of Congress to lead, not to follow. If they are going to lead, they need to understand the Constitution and the vision of its framers, and then have the backbone to insist that the executive branch stop usurping the responsibilities assigned to the legislative and judicial branches of our government." …

Fein told Truthout he doubted Sen. Hillary Clinton would sign the pledge. "Like her husband, former President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton believes in a strong executive branch of government," Fein said.

He noted that he and his colleagues are criticized by conservatives almost as much as by liberals. "Too many people who call themselves conservatives have lost their way. Those who support George W. Bush's interpretation of executive power are not Democrats [sic – he obviously means conservatives], they are monarchists. And liberals don't seem to understand that people with views like ours can be conservatives," he said.

I understand your suspicion on Viguerie but hope you won't continue to look a gift horse in the mouth. Bob Barr for one has even left the Republican party. I hope you still have some tolerance for nuance.

If the Dems and their candidates do not publicly get behind this important agenda, then I'll have a difficult time figuring out which party is the worst evil come election time.

Bob Barr is okay in my book. He has had a change of heart about many things in the last few years.

Um, isn't this a group of committed conservatives?

Um, no.

What in their collective history leads you to believe that they're honestly and actually committed to the principals they're currently espousing?

Or let's put it this way: if, say, Trent Lott, George Allen, Don Imus, and the exhumed corpse of Lee Atwater came out with an Anti-Racism Pledge and asked prominent civil rights activists to sign it to prove they oppose racism, what would you think of that?

M/tch:

It`s good to be skeptical, but isn`t skepticism tied with a lack of curiosity what produced George Bush?

If the Pledge is all a deep plot, simply to hamstring a President Hillary, Obama or Edwards, why is it supported by the liberal groups that apo pointed out, receiving support on liberal media, and receiving no attention in right-wing blogs? Could it be that Fein, Barr, Viguerie etc. actually mean what they say, and the right wing is splintering?

If you`d care to look you`d see that these guys have been consistent, including writing here before the election that Republicans are cruising for - and actually need - a fall:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html

This country needs a whole lot of cleansing and mending, and you should be willing - embrace, even - to recognize that there are some who are trying to do this from the right.

As I`ve said to apo, black and white perceptions are one of the enemies we must fight.

Regards,

TT

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
Richard Feynman

#43 "I actually have quite a few views in common with right-wing kooksters. And I mean far out in Neverland kind of right-wing"

Care to share with us, Jon?

As I`ve said to apo, black and white perceptions are one of the enemies we must fight.

I agree entirely. That's why I call bullshit on sentences such as the following:

Fein acknowledged that things were probably worse when Congress was under Republican control, "but only marginally."

The Democrats in Congress have done absolutely nothing to tell the president he is not a king and we do not live in a monarchy.

the Democratic presidential candidates are pro-big government and, perhaps not surprisingly, none of them shows the slightest interest in supporting a rollback of Presidential power.

Don't liberals care about the Constitution and civil rights, except as rhetorical sticks with which to beat Bush?

For that last sentence especially, which started this whole dustup, see for example the list apo provide in 50. Yes Tom, liberals do care about the Constituion and civil rights, and have done for long before Bush became worthy of beating with a stick. Your question is either disengenuous or mindbogglingly naive/ignorant.

And yes, I think it's great that there are finally some prominent(ish) conservatives who are standing up to Bush. The fact that they didn't do it until his popularity bottomed out and Republicans lost control of Congrees and now look set to lose even more power in the next couple of years doesn't inspire in me great confidence about their actual commitment to these principals, nor does the fact that they seem to be primarily blaming Democrats for the current situation, as opposed to the people who actually, you know, put the policies they suddenly seem so keen to object to in place.

You see Tom, it's not all black and white. People can, for example, support the right policy for shitty reasons, or can refuse to sign on to some group's petition without that indicating that they don't care at all about the issue the petition addresses.

M/tch:

Good - you found some BS, where the conservatives are trying to whitewash their own responsibility. But as for my own comments, I`d like to push you a bit more.

the Democratic presidential candidates are pro-big government and, perhaps not surprisingly, none of them shows the slightest interest in supporting a rollback of Presidential power.

You call bullshit? Maybe, but can you suppoort your position?

Don't liberals care about the Constitution and civil rights, except as rhetorical sticks with which to beat Bush?

M/tch, this was a rhetorical device, and I`m glad it succeeded in getting your attention. But if you actually CARE about these issues, I hope you will abandon your reflexive defensiveness and start thinking about to address them, and realize that the same problems will be with us after 2008 - and even more insidiously if the President is a Democrat as people are likely to let their guard down.

Why shouldn`t liberals also be asking candidates and their Congresscritters to focus on the issues that this conservative group raises, if it is indeed, as you say, a shared interest? Wouldn`t it be a great way to steal some piece of the core conservative agenda and to appeal to many voters who are souring on Bush and Republicans?

And, as I care about roping in the imperial Presidency, why should I not be poking you and others to get your reaction?

I haven`t made up my own mind on Hillary, but here are three on the left who look at her and see more of Bush:
American Prospect
Nader
Ritter

And one more on the left (DailyKos) who thinks that Dems should pick up the American Freedom Agenda.

Regards,

TT
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
Richard Feynman

But if you actually CARE about these issues, I hope you will abandon your reflexive defensiveness and start thinking about to address them, and realize that the same problems will be with us after 2008

Ride that high horse often, Tom? What leads you to believe that I don't actually CARE about these issues, or that I haven't started thinking about how to address them? Did I somewhere claim that the answer to all problems is to elect Democrats, or opine that no Democrat ever infringed a civil liberty? Or are you thinking in black/white terms again, so that my opposition to Bush's human and civil rights policies can only be explained as a partisan stance, and not by my actually CARING about these issues?

and even more insidiously if the President is a Democrat as people are likely to let their guard down

Are you suggesting that we vote for the greater of two evils so that we don't let our guard down? Or that, for example, Cheney would be a better president than Edwards because at least with Cheney we'd know not to trust him? Is this some new libertarian version of "heightening the contradictions"? Honestly, Tom, I'm at a loss to figure out if you're being serious, or just trying to be contrarion, or what.

Why shouldn`t liberals also be asking candidates and their Congresscritters to focus on the issues that this conservative group raises, if it is indeed, as you say, a shared interest?

As your links clearly show, Tom, liberals are asking candidates and their Congresscritters to focus on the issues that this conservative group raises. And they're not "also" asking, they've been the primary ones asking these questions, even back when Bush was popular and those asking such questions were regularly accused of being unAmerican fifth columnists/enemy collaboraters. So excuse me if I'm not particularly impressed with the bravery or integrity of those who, like Fein, converted to the cause only after it was clear that BushCo was a sinking ship.

A principaled stand against Executive overreach? Possibly. But the far more likely answer is that Fein et al. want to cut their losses and make sure the opposition doesn't have the same leeway as the horse they until just recently backed. I'm all for vigorously holding them to their rhetoric (and pressuring Democratic candidates to support these measures too), but wondering aloud whether Democrats really care about these issues, or claiming that you'll "have a difficult time figuring out which party is the worst evil come election time" is, frankly, just being a sucker.

Yeah, this is my issue with most libertarians, being essentially Naderists with a propertarian gloss: the notion that there's no substantive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I've got plenty of criticisms for the Democratic Party and am plenty happy to lay them out, but the notion that they're only a little better than the Republicans is absurd. The modern GOP is unbelievably awful—historically so, even—and they have been for over thirty years.

Define the modern era as beginning with LBJ, when the Dixiecrats left the party over civil rights. There is no Democratic equivalent of Watergate. There is no Democratic equivalent of Iran-Contra or the rest of Reagan's Latin American bloodbaths. There is no Democratic equivalent of rolling back friggin' habeas corpus (I mean, really, 350 years we're talking here). There is no Democratic equivalent of turning social policy over to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. There just isn't any comparison; the modern GOP is run by evil people, and I don't use that word lightly. They're fucking evil and these guys are the very ones who put them in power. Good on 'em if they've realized what they did, but I. Don't. Trust. Them.

There's nothing in the AFA that I disagree with. The country needs all of that. But M/tch pegs it: where were these people in 2000? And god almighty, where were they in 2004, when it was clear that the executive branch had been taken over by authoritarians? All I remember is getting accused of suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

All I remember is getting accused of suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Well, one of the key symptoms of derangement is loss of memory, apo.

Q.E.D.

Good on 'em if they've realized what they did, but I. Don't. Trust. Them.

And seriously, Tom, do you not see how the "Democrats are to blame for not stopping us from shredding your civil liberties" stance of these guys is fucking ridiculous?

"The Democrats in Congress have done absolutely nothing to tell the president he is not a king and we do not live in a monarchy.

Oh, you mean like this?

Or this?

Yep. No Democrats have have told W he is not a king. Only brave contrarian Republicans like Bruce ("Larry") Fein do that.

shpx.ohfu, thanks for your links.

Your examples are rather new, and one is simply by a commentor on Edwards` blog. While they are quite good to see, in part they reinforce my point - they are used only to attack Bush, and I see little effort on the left to make sure that the imperial presidency is really pared back in the way that Fein, Barr and others are asking.

The problem won`t be solved merely by replacing Bush with a Democratic president - though I can`t imagine that a Dem could be as bad as Bush, Bill Clinton certainly in many ways acted unilaterally abroad (remember "Wag the Dog"?).

While I don`t accept Fein`s overstatement - it is an overly convenient partisan position - it is clear that until Bush was severely hobbled, Dems have been rather quiescent. That`s partly understandable, as they were in a minority position, lost any subpoena power and the Republicans were brutally suspressing any dissent using thge GWOT, but not entirely forgivable. After all, Hillary still defends the Iraq war and does not advocate withdrawal.

"And seriously, Tom, do you not see how the `Democrats are to blame for not stopping us from shredding your civil liberties` stance of these guys is fucking ridiculous?"

Yes, M/tch, I realize it - they`re trying to shift blame to make themselves feel better for the absolutely disgraceful and unforgivable behavior of the Congressional Republicans.

But tell me again which Dems have really been heroic in standing up to the erosion of civil liberties and of Congressional prerogatives over the past six years?

"Ride that high horse often, Tom? What leads you to believe that I don't actually CARE about these issues, or that I haven't started thinking about how to address them?"

Sorry for the high horse, M/tch.

As for your other questions, as I already noted my question "don`t liberals care?" was rhetorical and simply intended to provoke a reaction. It looks like I succeeded, and I`m happy to have a discussion as a result.

"Are you suggesting that we vote for the greater of two evils so that we don't let our guard down?"

Of course not. I`m suggesting that those who care about putting reins on the imperial presidency had better start thinking about it NOW, and this initiative by a few disgruntled conservative who convenientkly find there backbone now is a perfect starting point.

" liberals are asking candidates and their Congresscritters to focus on the issues that this conservative group raises."

Not that many are, M/tch, and I had to drag out these examples to show you that this agenda was something that lberals should continue to push, and not merely some part of a nefarious right-wing snow job.

Still, it`s great to hear that you agree with their pledge initiative, even as to Dem candidates.

"I'm not particularly impressed with the bravery or integrity of those who, like Fein,"

You don`t need to be, but I think you`re not beiong fair. Just as it has not been easy for Dems to stand up to Bush, so it has not been easy for dissenters on the right. You can imagine the shit I`ve had to put up with.

"claiming that you'll "have a difficult time figuring out which party is the worst evil come election time" is, frankly, just being a sucker."

There is a real point that I think you`re missing. Given the seductions of power and the claims and influence of special interests, I think that one of the real object lessons fo the last six years is that special interests have field day when only one party has all of the power. Just look how little self-control the Republicans had once they gained power!

The Dems may not be as intrinsically evil as Republicans, but they`ve show themselves just as capable into leading us into stupid wars, blowing through budgets, looting the Treasury and expanding the American empire. I AM worried about voting in a Dem president if the Dems also have both houses of Congress - any Dem president would be better than Bush, but will the Congress show any greater alacrity in asserting or protecting its interests and obligations?

apo, I hope you`re not surprised that I largely agree with you.

- "the notion that there's no substantive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans."

My view is that the Dems are as venal as the Republicans, but care much more about obeying the law. The Republican history of blatantly breaking the law, from the days of Nixon on, is truly appalling and unmatched by anything Dems have done.

"where were they in 2004, when it was clear that the executive branch had been taken over by authoritarians?"

This is simply your own negative experiences messing with your perceptions. There are plenty of Republicans and libertarians who have been loud dissenters, from 2004 and earlier. Buchanan, Paul Craig Robert, Raimondo and some of this group come to mind.

Regards,

TT

Interestingly, I find myself in agreement with Pat Buchanan far, far more often that I would ever have thought possible, particularly in foreign policy.

Part of my pique above was fueled by your sloppy conflation of "liberal" and "Democrat" and "Democratic Presidential Candidate" and "Democratic Member of Congress", Tom. These are distinct groups, and going from noting that no Democratic Presidential Candidate has signed Fein's pledge to apparently concluding that liberals don't care about restraining executive power is both wrong and highly annoying, particularly when it's mixed in with a liberal dose of talk about the perils of viewing the world in only black and white terms.

This is simply your own negative experiences messing with your perceptions. There are plenty of Republicans and libertarians who have been loud dissenters, from 2004 and earlier. Buchanan, Paul Craig Robert, Raimondo and some of this group come to mind.

Tom, do you think it's possible that your perceptions might be similarly flawed and that that might help explain why you seem to think that few to no liberal or left or Democratic people have been loud dissenters?

The basic end of leftists as defined in modern terms is liberty. However, they want to use forceful means to achieve that end.

The basic end of conservatives in modern terms is order--the old order. And they want to use forceful means to achieve that end.

I take issue with both ideologies, but have fewer problems with the end in mind for the leftists.

However, but left and right, while clearly not the same, are tools and pawns who have been played against each other by the Anglo-American eastern establishment mega-rich elite (i.e., the Carnegies, the Morgans, the Rockefellers, etc.) and have been since the turn of the 20th century.

72: And here all this time I thought it was the Jews.

Oh, we're pulling the strings.

going from noting that no Democratic Presidential Candidate has signed Fein's pledge to apparently concluding that liberals don't care about restraining executive power is both wrong and highly annoying

M/tch, okay, okay. But I've already apologized and made it clear that my "sloppiness" was a rhetorical device intended to elicit a response. It worked, but not as well as hoped. I understand that I've irked you, but you have not engaged on several points:

- the Democratic presidential candidates are pro-big government and, perhaps not surprisingly, none of them shows the slightest interest in supporting a rollback of Presidential power.

You call this BS, but have not troubled to support your position.

- tell me again which Dems [in Congress] have really been heroic in standing up to the erosion of civil liberties and of Congressional prerogatives over the past six years?

No response.

I know that the left DOES care about restraining executive power - at least in opposition to Bush/Cheney/right-wing evil - but if anything is going to happen it's going to require continued attention after this Administration ends.

In my view, the "American Freedom Agenda" is one way to keep a focus on this. One can understand that Dem candidates might not be eager to voluntarily limit their own potential power, but their very unwillingness should remind us that what is really needed for Congress to reassert its own prerogatives. That is something that Congress needs to do NOW, on a wide range of fronts, and not merely on funding of the Iraq war and investigation of the firing of federal prosectors.

As you concur that this is an important issue, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on how American should push it.

it's possible that your perceptions might be similarly flawed
I'm aware of the possibility and have already conceded it - see the Feynman quote? That's why I sometimes climb on a high horse - it helps my vision!

Tom

74: M/tch, stop pulling GB's string.

- tell me again which Dems [in Congress] have really been heroic in standing up to the erosion of civil liberties and of Congressional prerogatives over the past six years?

Just off the top of my head: Conyers, Feingold, Leahy, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Boxer. And I know there are others. The info is out there, Tom.

While they are quite good to see, in part they reinforce my point - they are used only to attack Bush, and I see little effort on the left to make sure that the imperial presidency is really pared back in the way that Fein, Barr and others are asking.

I seriously don't see how you can assert that pushback by Dems to executive overreach is motivated only by Bush hatred, yet blithely believe that Fein et al aren't now focussing on these issues only to distance themselves from the disaster that is the Bush presidency and to bash Democrats. Why are you only skeptical about Dem's motives?

I'm aware of the possibility and have already conceded it - see the Feynman quote?

Attaching a pithy quote and actually being aware of how it might apply to oneself are two different things. Just like appending "Fair and Balanced" to ones byline doesn't make it necessarily so.

M/tch, in general, the records of Dems on protecting civil liberties and Congressional prerogatives is decidedly mixed - starting with the PATRIOT Act (10/01) and running through the Iraq War Authorization (10/02), the "Lone Wolf" Act (5/03), the Graham-Levin Amendment to the Defense Department Authorization Act that stripped Guantanamo detainees of most of their due process protections (11/05), USA PATRIOT "Improvement and Reauthorization" (3/06), and the Military Commission Act (9/2006).

I seriously don't see how you can assert that pushback by Dems to executive overreach is motivated only by Bush hatred, yet blithely believe that Fein et al aren't now focussing on these issues only to distance themselves from the disaster that is the Bush presidency and to bash Democrats. Why are you only skeptical about Dem's motives?

Let's take these one at a time:

- I have made no assertion that "pushback by Dems to executive overreach is motivated only by Bush hatred". Rather, I have noted that this issue seems to have real play with Dems only for such purpose, with little attention being given to the fact that the end of the Bush administration is in sight.

- I have no such blithe belief. As I have noted/conceded, Fein et al. are trying to do two several things: lessen their own burden of responsibility for the disaster that is this Administration, redirect the Republican party, steal some of the thunder of the Dems, repair genuinely perceived damage to Constitutional checks and balances and civil rights, and to lay soem groundwork for advancing this agenda if the Dems gain the White House as well.

- I am not skeptical only of Dems' motives. I am an equal-opportunity skeptic, and have offered plenty of criticsim of Republicans here. I can accept that there is some venality on the part of Fein et al., but they also advocate an agenda that is important and that has caused them no small criticism from the right.

Attaching a pithy quote and actually being aware of how it might apply to oneself are two different things.

You're right, M/tch. As I think that my last comment showed, even self-awareness that we frequently deceive ourselves may provide little help, since it may simply lead to fancier self-deceptions!

But enough about self-perceptions; I am happy simply to raise the issue of waht happens post-election and to have your agreement that you "are all for vigorously holding them to their rhetoric (and pressuring Democratic candidates to support these measures too)."

Regards,

Tom

"We see the world as 'we' are, not as 'it' is; because it is the "I" behind the 'eye' that does the seeing." - Anais Nin

This is of related interest. This too. Also this and this.

Thanks forthe links, M/tch.

I am sympathetic to the views expressed in the first three, but find myself in almost complete agreement with Glenn Greenwald in the last link. This is the Glenn who says things such as:

"It goes without saying that the conduct of Democrats generally (meaning their collective behavior) was far, far short of anything noble, courageous or principled. And one could, if one were so inclined, spend every day from now until November 7 criticizing the strategic mistakes and lack of principle of Beltway Democrats and still not exhaust the list. ... There is no point in trying to glorify the conduct of Democrats. I think the larger-than-expected Senate Democratic opposition to the torture/detention bill is illusory, almost a by-product of sheer luck more than anything else. The large number of votes against the bill seems to have been driven more by Democrats' objections to the significant changes made to the bill in the last several days ... (and even then, the Democrats' anger was more about the fact that they were excluded from the negotiating process rather than anger towards the substance of the changes themselves."

But a desire to see the Democrats take over Congress -- even a strong desire for that outcome and willingness to work for it -- does not have to be, and at least for me is not, driven by a belief that Washington Democrats are commendable or praiseworthy and deserve to be put into power. Instead, a Democratic victory is an instrument -- an indispensable weapon -- in battling the growing excesses and profound abuses and indescribably destructive behavior of the Bush administration and their increasingly authoritarian followers.

The most important and overriding mandate is to end the one-party rule to which our country has been subjected for the last four years. Achieving that is necessary -- it is an absolute pre-requisite -- to begin to impose some actual limits on the authoritarian behavior and unchecked powers of this administration -- because, right now, there are no such limits.

Because of the last election, we fortunately now have some actual limits on the authoritarian behavior and unchecked powers of this administration. But if the Dems win the White House and keep control of Congress, we will be right back in a situation of "one-party rule", albeit with a more law-abiding party, but one that also loves big government and entanglements overseas. I hope that you and others see that the risks to our civil liberties and our Constitutional order will not magically end simply by replacing Republicans with Democrats. We need other action, and it is for this reason that I favor divided government and think that Fein et al. are onto something.

Tom, all of my reply emails (to your excite account) have bounced, just FYI.

73: M/M

Ha ha. Nice job to try to sarcastically imply that I could have been some slack-jawed, swastika-wearing, Jew-hating nutball for espousing such conspiratorial views.

No I happen to love and admire many Jewish people. Sorry pal. Not only that, I admire the contributions of the Jewish people to human civilization as a whole.

No but really. Politics as we know of today was pre-planned and bought out over a century ago by the megarich elite on both sides of the ATlantic: the Cecil Rhodes, the Morgans, the Hearsts, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, others. They set up institutions like the CFR, the Federal Reserve, and later, the CIA.

These Elites friggin run this country. They set it up so either way (republican or democrat) they maintain their positions at the peak of power. It's a way of playing both side of the table in a poker game.

Read Tragedy and Hope by Carol Quigly or the Creature from Jekyll Island.