An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Another GOP Insider Slams Bush
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “Another GOP Insider Slams Bush”
Well, he still has Laura, Barney and Gone-zo! BTW, I think that’s a real insult to Dan Quayle, whose main claim to infamy was misspelling potato!
This is beginning to look like rats fleeing from a sinking ship. Maybe it’s just me, but people who write glowing accolades one year and slap downs another, according to the political winds blowing, don’t seem like much in the way of insightful heroes.
Your comment reminded me of a song titled ‘A Bunch Of Lonesome Heros’:
Leonard Cohen – Songs from a Room – 1969 (BMI).
Guess I’m showing my age.
Some of the comments in this thread and in other political blogs seem celebratory, with a tone of reveling in the misfortune of “the other side”. Unfortunately that attitude has the effect of keeping things polarized when instead we have an opportunity to find common ground. Victor Gold’s comments about the administration echo those of Matthew Dowd, who after publicly speaking out was described on the Huff Post as someone who “has managed to set a standard for duplicity unmatched thus far by even Karl Rove”.
The past six years have been ugly, but the option now is to either continue that ugliness or to finally move in a new direction by focusing on common ground, rather than what separates us. A bit less snarking and name-calling would do much to move that process forward.
Ryan H, I understand your point, but…
As we’ve seen of late with the DoJ appointments, as well as other appointments throughout the various administration bureaucracies, the current administration has been seeking to use every possible avenue of power to establish permanent one-man, one-party rule.
Such movement towards an essentially totalitarian state is, simply, unacceptable.
And until the authoritarian wing of the Republican party, currently represented by the Bush administration, is so thoroughly dicredited it can never raise its head again I’m afraid I’ll continue my partisan hammering.
But at least I’ll try to do so without using any 4 letter words.
The only time conservatives are ever referenced favorably in the MSM is when they attack Bush or other conservatives.
I would point out the infamous story about two years back about the NYT trolling conservative Washington for someone to write an Op-Ed attacking Bush. The eminent GOPer they asked was outraged, as the NYT not only asked him to write an Op-Ed, but informed him of the topic and offered editors to help him write it…when he outed the NYT’s offer, it was a revelation to some how the MSM operates with conservatives.
Look at McCain…as long as he attacked Bush, he was brilliant! the moment he mended fences with the GOP, he was scum!
I would also point out that the values Gold is trumpeting here – small government etc. – are anathema to the Washington Post. If Gold didn’t attack Bush, there would not be a snowball’s chance in Hell that any of his writing on conservatism would be reviewed or mentioned in the Post.
Thus, the Post is giving a platform to a man to attack Bush on grounds fundamentally opposed to the Post’s ideology (never hospitable territory for Goldwater conservatives).
Finally, I would point out – contra Gold – that Reagan was hardly a Goldwater conservative. Does anyone recall the budget increases under Reagan, and the expansion of the national security state? Goldwater supported Ford against Reagan, and criticized Reagan on numerous occasions.
SteveK-
Can you hum the tune for us?
Marlow- I guess that balances out all of the cable news and talk radio hosts who pandered to the white house for years, broadcasting their talking points, and defending his every move with endless spin. We saw that they even went to the WH before the midterms to help him galvanize the base.
I guess MSM bias would be an issue for me if I thought Bush was doing a good job- but if you look at it objectively -he just isn’t. The 33% that are still with him are the diehards that will be with him no matter what- –the faith-based community who refuse to question his judgement in any matter.
I have to agree with Doma about David Kuo, Matthew Dowd and Victor Gold–they may want to try to get on the right side of history now., but are speaking out way too late.
Kim
That sounds like a double standard to me. The MSM, particularly flagship newspapers like the indomitable Gray Lady, are still held up as examples of “real journalism” contrasted with the muckraking of cable news and talk radio. Yet when they stoop to the same tactics, your response is basically, “well, they have to do this because they other guys did it first, so they’re providing balance”.
Sheesh, how about some standards for a change, and holding everyone accountable? If the truth is unflattering to Bush, then the media shouldn’t have to manufacture false outrage against him. But hey, I guess if it’s “truthy” then it doesn’t matter, right?
Kritter, yes Gold might be too late but at least there is some type of revolt going on. However, the real change in the party will not occur until conservatives dump people like Limbaugh and Coulter.
CS-What publication these days can you point to that doesn’t have some bias? In Washington we have the Post which has been dubbed “liberal” by the right, but which supported the war in Iraq, and has editorial columnists like George Will , Bob Novak and Charles Krauthammer, as well as liberals like Eugene Robinson and Richard Cohen, and centrists like David Ignatious. The conservatives have mostly supported the administration, and there was no pressure there.
So I question the liberal tag. We also have the Washington Times who have a conservative editorial board. My point is that I think that some MSM bias is inherent, but its exaggerating to say that all of the media has a leftward bias, and that some papers, like WaPo are tagged that way unfairly.
One cause for concern is that few people get their news from the MSM anymore- more get it from the internet, cable and talk radio, where there is little or no attempt at fairness.
Kim,
You specifically responded to what Marlowe reported about the NYT by dismissing it as a balance of what goes on elsewhere. If you’re concerned about one group doing it, why not apply the same concern to all media outlets (and if anything, apply more stringent standards to the traditional media that is supposed to uphold journalistic integrity?)
In other words, I agree with your concern that more and more people are getting their news from sources that don’t even pretend to be unbiased, but why then should we turn a blind eye to bias in institutions that claim to be above the fray?
BTW, I agree with you that it isn’t so black and white as in NYT and WaPo are liberally biased and Wa Times is conservative. Individuals in each establishment have their own biases and agendas, and the media in general is biased toward controversy. Sometimes it aligns with a particular ideology or party, but often it’s a mixed bag. I still think we should recognize the bias wherever it occurs though and point it out without allowing excuses.
CS- I personally try to read and watch all types of media-from the fair to the blatantly biased- I would like to have all media return to previous journalistic standards- but it ain’t gonna happen- so pardon me if I’m not outraged about newspapers being interested in conservatives who are now pinpointing problems that , imo, really do exist, and which I think they should have acknowledged out of intellectual honesty a long time ago. The reality is that most people have long ago stopped caring whether something is true- they only care if it alligns with their overall opinions –and it is trending to where the line between entertainment and news is continually blurred(remember I was the one who kept calling for the Fairness Doctrine) How many who watch cable care if its true?
Did you know that at the beginning of the war, ex-generals were allowed to sit in on Pentagon briefings, so that they could comment on cable shows? If they got too critical, then the Pentagon pulled their privileges.
Well, Kim, if you think the Fairness Doctrine would remedy this, that makes no sense if there’s no accounability for either side to be truthful. If we assume you’re correct that the media is not going to return to former standards of objectivity, then the Fairness Doctrine will only turn up the volume of the shouting matches. One side instigates media coverage that is unflattering to the other side, and then the Fairness Doctrine dictates that the other side has to have it’s turn to sling the mud right back.
Not to mention that the idea behind the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional, it’s also ineffective. In a time where there were standards and Americans didn’t have an appetite for this kind of ‘journalism’, perhaps it had some positive effect. Media outlets were generally unwilling to give air time to partisans because they knew that they’d have to give equal time to the other side and they didn’t think it would be worthwhile. Now, though, clearly the media does see these verbal wrestling matches as ratings generators, so they’d be more likely to actually profit from putting two lying partisans on the air. And if the media outlet does have an agenda, all they have to do is play the Fox News game: put one strong personality in place to make the arguments for the side they favor, and put a schmuck in place for the other side (apologies to Alan Colmes for the name calling
)
And like with everything else, proving how totally incompetent the GOP is when controlled by holy-rollers and neocons.
Citizen Kang wrote:
And until the authoritarian wing of the Republican party, currently represented by the Bush administration, is so thoroughly dicredited it can never raise its head again I’m afraid I’ll continue my partisan hammering.
I don’t see any problem with calling a spade a spade – if one person or group is grabbing power in dangerous ways, point out the facts and we can all debate. However, there are those who actually do like a lot of what Bush represents, and blanket statements that paint him as evil are unlikely to go over well, just as statements that equate Clinton with the devil alienated much of the Left.
Alan wrote:
And like with everything else, proving how totally incompetent the GOP is when controlled by holy-rollers and neocons.
There are a lot of good Republicans, and on the flip side, there are many bad Democrats. In either case, there are (hopefully) more good than bad. While the fringe elements on each side paint everyone on the other side as intolerant radicals, most of us are more towards the middle, so it’s important to remember that when saying things like “the Democrats are controlled by left-wing elitists”, or “the Republicans are controlled by holy-rollers”, such rhetoric will probably not add positively to the debate, even if there is some truth to such statements.
CS- At one time the Fairness Doctrine did work, just as the limitations that the FCC puts on profanity over the air works now. Isn’t that unconstitutional to place limits on one’s right to freedom of speech? I agree that the media is largely a circus- and I would like to return to civility and accountability, because so many people can’t tell the difference. Major media outlets are owned by corporate conglomerates who are not really that interested in whether Americans learn the truth, and it has infected our political environment that the media feeds off of. Reagan worked to repeal the Fairness Doctrine in the ’80′s when Rush Limbaugh was just getting his start. The decline in standards soon followed along with the rush for ratings. So, I strongly disagree. It worked before, and could be tried again. To do nothing is to give up in defeat. Speech is already regulated. You cannot yell fire in a building or write slanderous comments without a threat of a lawsuit. I’m not trying to kill cable news, just raise their standards.
Its funny how the MSM always seems to get it wrong, is pandering or fishing for dirt. Like when Rush pointed out that the NYT never covered the whitewater scandal, when it actually broke the story on its front page. The fact the MSM has an apparent bias against the Bush Administration is because ITS FUCKING EVERYTHING UP. When I turn on the TV or read a bit I see information about our massive deficit being bought up by China, the Ira
continued from above due to user error…..
Iraq war is a total clusterf*ck, our standing in the world in freefall, as well as our claim to an honorable code of law that doesn’t utilize torture or illegal imprisonment.
Here we have a very close person to the Bush family who can’t even bring himself to support the president. I think its important that his errors be highlighted. They are massive and he has done a great disservice to this country. Especially in light of the fact the administration seems to be totally aware of that fact even as the nation slowly begins to see thru all the spin and BS layered over the last 6 years. We should have seen this coming, and I think its important that people see this guy and his words for what they are so we can try not to elect such a fool again.