They have absolutely no idea what’s going on. Bloggers are teenagers in pajamas even though we are middle aged people of tremendous means.

They seem to forget Nixon’s silent majority. We are the new silent majority only we’re not so silent anymore. But we clearly are the majority. What these bozos don’t understand is that the wingnuttosphere may be loud but it’s not very big.

We are many and we are loud-get used to it Broder-in no way do you speak for us. Memo to Timmeh…

Thank you, Mr. Out-of-Touch

On November, 13, 1969, Vice President Agnew fired what many on the right view as the first real salvo in what has become a sustained, and highly successful, drive to constrain the establishment media and to discredit its legitimacy.

“The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues of our nation….One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the power of the networks to equal that of local, state, and federal governments combined. Certainly, it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history. What do Americans know of the men who wield this power? ….We do know that, to a man, these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C. or New York City….The American people would rightly not tolerate this kind of concentration of power in government….The views of this fraternity do not represent the views of America.”
– - Vice President Agnew

The liberalism of the media is not only or even primarily the economic liberalism of Roosevelt’s New Deal — redistributive and pro-union. Instead, it is the newer social liberalism, firmly supportive of racial equality, of the women’s and other liberation movements, of sexual autonomy, of abortion, and of reproductive and sexual privacy rights. The media’s liberalism is that of a well-educated, professionally oriented elite — which makes the press susceptible to the same attacks that conservative populists have used against the Democratic Party, capitalizing on the fear of family breakdown, amorality, racial change, immigration, foreign enemies, ‘the homosexual agenda,’ an urban and inner-suburban underclass, and the coarsening of the popular culture. By the end of the 1970s, Republicans and conservatives fully recognized that they had in hand a powerful weapon – accusations of ideological and partisan bias – to weaken the influence and authority of the mainstream media.
– - “Building Red America” by Tom Edsall

washingtonpost.com > Live Discussions BOOK WORLD Thomas B. Edsall Author, “Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive for Permanent Power” Tuesday, October 10, 2006; 3:00 PM _______________________ Seattle, Wash: Why would you allow Hugh Hewitt to bait you into stupid questions about mainstream media bias and your personal loyalties? He and his ilk thrive on maintaining the illusion of a vast left-wing conspiracy in the news . . .
Thomas B. Edsall: . . . members of the press should acknowledge and discuss their leanings. If anything, that will make them better reporters. Transparency is the best policy for almost all circumstances. _______________________ New York NY: I find your response to Seattle laughable . . . It’s pretty clear to me that most of the WP reporters are center right – i.e. they cling to the establishment and the values that their current paygrade espouses. Yes, they may be “socially liberal” but even that is questionable . . . Thomas B. Edsall: I think you have a strong case to make in terms of the establishment leanings of reporters and editors. In the voting booth, however, they overwhelmingly support the Democratic establishment, not the Republican establishment. _______________________ San Francisco, Calif: Mr. Edsall, I’ve been a fan since I read “The New Politics of Inequality”. I agree with your answer to an earlier question that transparency is the best policy in reporting. Being human, reporters will inevitably have opinions about areas in which they’ve done lots of research, as you have. “Objectivity” was an honorable goal, but never realistic. It seems to me that the builders of red-state America used the theory of objectivity in reporting to advance some of the less honest parts of their agenda. What’s your take on that? Also, to what extent do you think those builders are interested in transparency with respect to their motives and their funding? Thomas B. Edsall: The conservative movement has been very effective attacking the media (broadcast and print) for its liberal biases. The refusal of the media to disclose and discuss the ideological leanings of reporters and editors, and the broader claim of objectivity, has made the press overly anxious, and inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right. In many respects, the campaign against the media has been more than a victory: it has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right. _______________________ – - online discussion at washingtonpost.com, 10/10/2006

If you do stuff like that, the next thing you know, people will be blowing up your buildings and shit. Of course, they’re already doing that in Iraq so the deterrence factor is pretty low. But they could escalate to airplanes.

To their credit, the Iraqis didn’t call the two month vacation after holding power for only a few months…

And George W. Bush doesn’t take vacations?

The new American ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, told reporters flying with Cheney that the vice president would convey American displeasure over the planned vacation. “The reality is, with the major effort we’re making, the major effort the Iraqi security forces and military are making themselves, for the Iraqi parliament to take a two-month vacation in the middle of summer is impossible to understand,” Crocker said.

Maybe they’re smarter than we think. They take a vacation, delaying the oil ownership bill forever and leave us high & dry. We eventually leave Iraq and then they get back to divvying up the oil among themselves, leaving us out. Smart!

Of course, our presence is simply illegal to begin with, so we have no leverage.

How might the Bushies try to deal with this? Bullying would seem to be out unless Dubya wants to use our troops to randomly kill until it hurts so bad the elitist Rich of Iraq actually worry about poor people dying. Na gon happen. Nope. It appears the Bush family has traded a good business partner (Saddam) for some other losers who are going to screw us out of our “war for oil money” payments.

OT

Fired attorney expects charges against top DoJ officials.

McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country’s U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.

“His first speech to us was a ‘you work for the White House’ speech,” McKay recalled. ” ‘I work for the White House, you work for the White House.’ ”

McKay said he thought at the time, “He couldn’t have meant that speech,” given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. “It turns out he did.”

He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales’ remarks. “We were stunned at what he was saying.”

Pure fuckery!!! Tomorrow, Gonzo goes up and down like a Duncan On A String (figger THAT one out you younp pups, why, I bet none of you have ever MADE, much LESS, strung and swung a TOP!, much less the item at hand) . . .

And Dawg Willin, by June 12, A*P*C goes on trial!!! Pray we don’t get eff’ed on Iran in the meantime . . . how come there’s so much good news, and it’s not on my tv? Huh?

Edited * and released by Mod