Two items of note, one new, one just a little older.
First, California Hawk Duncan Hunter has entered the race for President. Rep. Hunter adds an interesting security and immigration element to the debate. We might have a long shot here, but I changed The Real Sporer beauty paegent poll on the sidebar. Vote daily.
Second, three cheers for Lynn Cheney. She does a great job of confronting the CNN propganda agenda when she through down on Wolf Blitzer. We need a whole lot more of this feistiness. If I were the Big Dogs I'd have her out barking at the Democrats every day. Let me know what you think of Mrs. VP.
26 comments:
lynn chaney really took it to wolf and i loved every second of it. wish the administration would have sent her out much earlier...
gained a lot of respect for her.
During the interview itself, Blitzer rather sadly, even pathetically, sought to assure Cheney that he was a Good American, as though she is the Arbiter of Patriotism: "The answer of course is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There's no doubt about that. Do you think we want terrorists to win?" But he presumably thought about it more overnight, returned to the subject yesterday when she wasn't there, and said this:
Still, I was frankly surprised when she came out swinging on Friday, surprised by what she said about CNN's "Broken Government" series, specifically the excellent one-hour report by our chief national correspondent, John King, one of the most precise and respected journalists in Washington, and CNN's decision to air sniper video provided to our intrepid Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware by insurgents in Iraq, which Anderson Cooper specifically branded, and I'm quoting now, "a single propaganda tape;" surprised at her sniping at my patriotism.
No sentient person could be "surprised" when Bush followers attack someone's patriotism and accuse them of wanting The Terrorists to win. That is what they do. It is who they are. They have been doing exactly that for five years now and one could quite reasonably suggest that this has been their principal political tactic.
As Lynne Cheney noted, her attack on CNN's patriotism was preceded by an identical attack from GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter. And just this week, Bill O'Reilly went on David Letterman's show to promote his book, and when Letterman expressed opposition to the war in Iraq and questioned its worth, O'Reilly demanded to know, in language almost verbatim to that used by Hunter and Lynne Cheney: "And this is a serious question. Do you want the United Sates to win in Iraq?"
But Wolf Blitzer isn't surprised and upset over Lynne Cheney's use of this "ally-of-the-terrorist" weapon. He's surprised and upset that she used it against him. He thought he was exempt, that he has proven to them through many years of obsequious and mindlessly glorifying "journalism" that he is a Good Boy, that he is one of them. It's one thing to label as "pro-terrorist" most national Democratic politicians, American citizens who oppose the war in Iraq, or anyone who criticizes the Commander-in-Chief in any meaningful way. To Blitzer, that is all fine and acceptable and to be expected.
But Blitzer is different. The Cheneys know him and know that he has shown his Loyalty. Why are they doing this to him?:
First, though, some history. I've been covering the Cheneys for many years, including on a day-to-day basis, when he was the defense secretary during the first Gulf War and I was CNN's Pentagon correspondent.
Mrs. Cheney has been a frequent guest on my programs. In recent years, I've often invited her to discuss her new children's books, but she always is open to discussing the news of the day.
The Wall St. Journal published an Op-Ed yesterday, ostensibly by a pseudonymous Iranian journalist (who claims to be prohibited from writing in Iran). The column details the way in which the Iranian upper class is perfectly tolerant of the increasing religious repression by Iranian mullahs, because they believe that their coddled, privileged status immunizes them from real repression, and that, in turn, renders them more or less indifferent to extreme abridgments of civil liberties and basic freedoms:
In other words, the well-to-do Iranian drinks and reads and watches what he wishes. He does as he pleases behind the walls of his private mansions and villas. In return for his private comforts, the affluent Iranian is happy to sacrifice freedom of speech, most of his civil rights, and his freedom of association. The upper-middle class has been bought off by this pact, which makes a virtue of hypocrisy.
The Iranian elites know that there is extreme oppression and a denial of virtually all liberties in their country, but their bloated comforts convince them that there is no real or serious threat, that things might not be perfect but there is no real reason to take any action or complain.
That dynamic, as much as anything, accounts for the neutered, mindless national media we have. Most national media figures -- like Blitzer -- are wealthy, coddled, privileged, and enjoy the material fruits of their elite status. They are a central and highly rewarded component of the country's power structure, duly admitted to the king's court and bestowed with all sorts of comforts and rewards for the role they play.
As long as that is the case, they will be the last ones to feel dissatisfaction, to be moved by a passionate sense that something is going terribly wrong with our country and its government. They are happy and satisfied with their personal situation -- and the ones who enable these rewards are the very political figures they cover -- and they thus perceive little grounds to complain or object. For the same reason, national journalists perceive those who criticize the Government too strenuously and aggressively as being shrill, radical, irresponsible, overwrought, and too mean. After all, things are good. What is there to be so upset about?
It is certainly true that journalists now have multiple incentives to avoid genuine or effective criticisms of the government, and that this incentive scheme causes them actively to downplay or even help conceal governmental deceit, corruption and abuses of power -- even when they are aware of it. But it is also the case that journalists, by virtue of their coddled and satisfied state, are likely to be the last people who even recognize true abuse, corruption and extremism. Why would they be able to see a system that bestows such lavish rewards on them as being anything other than good and just?
Of course, as noted in the post below, attacking and demonizing journalists for political gain is a staple of the Bush movement, but it's not usually as personal as Cheney made it with Blitzer. Blitzer's comfort and coddled status was disrupted -- an extremely rare event -- and it was that fact, and that fact alone, that caused him to take notice and to object.
Well said hefty fine.
The GOPs escalating attacks on free press is disturbing to say the least. Mozambique is paradise compared to neo-fascist USA it seems:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200610270754.html
What! Lynne Cheney questioned Wolfe Blitzer on his patriotism? A respected (by only his co-horts), award winning (self congratulations via a masturbatory award). How dare she disagree with Wolf Blitzer. He's respected for heaven's sake.
The two Stench and Hefty provide great examples of the mindless liberal.
The attacks on free press? Good one boys.
I have often wondered if the wrong Cheney is the VP.
I LOVE Duncan Hunter. He is one of a very few who understands what is at stake. There is a vacuum to the right of McCain (who still makes me wish the Viet Cong had better air defenses) and Hunter could fill that void.
We somehow managed to get through the 20th Century, win two world wars, and vanquish the Soviet empire without imprisoning journalists who inform Americans of the actions of their government which the government wants to keep secret. But along with the rule of law, due process, and so many other defining American principles, a free press is being thrown overboard in the name of the Administration's claimed inability to fight "The Terrorists" within the system of government we have had for more than 200 years.
So many of the principles to which our country has, by consensus, adhered for decades, through Republican and Democratic Administrations, are being attacked and destroyed by this Administration. This process is inexorably changing the kind of country we are and the system of government under which we live. That is the very definition of "radical," and that term applies to this Administration as much as it applies to anything.
Many people criticize the American media, and rightfully so. But the media still plays an irreplaceably crucial role in our country -- to serve as a watchdog over the government and to discover and expose government wrongdoing, including -- especially -- wrongdoing which the government is attempting to keep concealed. The only reason we have an NSA scandal, or know about so many of the other abuses of this Administration, is because someone in the press discovered and then reported it. As corrupted, lazy, confused, coddled, dysfunctional, and manipulated as our national media is -- and they are all of those things, in spades -- we still need them to perform their functions free of limitations and intimidation from the Government.
There is a reason this Administration is engaged in these efforts to restrict press freedom. Thomas Jefferson told us the reason long ago:
"Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."
As much as we may wish it weren't so, a free press is still the primary instrument by which citizens hold their government accountable. The Administration realizes this, too. And that's precisely why they are engaged in an all-out, truly unprecedented assault on press freedoms.
A great example is of course, the controversy regarding the exposure of the National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaeda-related conversations by the New York Times. Those criminal journalists were clearly instructed by Our Leader not to publish the story of The Leader's violations of the law, but the journalists only obeyed the Order for a year until The Leader was re-elected. After that, they defied the Leader's Order and published this story -- a story which exposed government actions which people across the ideological spectrum, and a majority of Americans, believe is illegal. Off to the federal penitentiary they go! Everyone knows that it's improper in the United States for journalists to report on actions by the President which are highly controversial and which violate the law.
So, to recap: We have to become a country where we imprison journalists who expose actions by our political officials which the politicians want to keep secret. If we don't, we may lose our freedoms. And we can't have that.
Interesting to see Jefferson talking about a free press after he funded a guy like Bache and the Aurora, whose sole purpose was to attack the Washington Administration.
The minions at the Communist News Network were not exposing the actions of our troops, they were showing the enemy shooting at our troops. Members of the criminal liberal news enemedia will not even state that they want America to win this war.
American liberals and narcicisstic egomaniacal twits like John McCain have a vested interest in the United States losing this war and that is why they absolutely CAN NOT become president.
Lynn Cheney did a great job for us. Sporer is right, we need to be far less agreeable to the liberal propoganda that passes for news at the Clinton News Network, which is better than the broadcast networks.
The FREE Press is NOT allowed to commit treason. They are NOT allowed to expose our secrets to the enemy. That has nothing to do with FREE speech. That's treason not journalism.
Sorry to say, Rep. Hunter is one of the big-spending career politicians in Washington who are part of the Pork Problem we have there. He's not the solution. He's going nowhere.
Mohammed, there is no "vacuum" to the right of McCain. Almost everyone is to the right of McCain. That said, John Cox is a social and fiscal conservative who is in the race and winning support every day in Iowa and across the nation, despite the leftwing Register's media blackout.
Why do you think the press (allmost all of it) has a liberal bias then? Why are all these clever, well-educated people who travel the world and meet people from all cultures, why are they not on your side? Maybe the WORLD has a liberal bias? Planet Earth may be a closet communist itself? And you brave, patriotic conservatives are the only people having figured the whole thing out? That's probably what it is, yeah ...
By the way, it's always nice the see Reps in their true color. Follow the link below and read about how Senator George Allen (R) had his staff beat up a man asking him questions, using his constitual rights to petition his government. Maybe you should bring home your troops from Iraq so that they can defend you from uncomfortable questions.
God damned liberally biased world. Why doesn't it agree with you GOPies instead? Yeah, it's weird alright ...
steve:
I beg to differ. Cox is a good guy and I agree with his message but he is a non starter.
The only ones to McLame's right are Hunter and Gilmore.
Stench:
Kind of like Hitlery's thug squad beating protesters at her rallys? Stuff like that happens. Look at what happened before and after the Lighfoot/Harkin senate debate. You had the RATS beating the shit out of JRLs campaign van with sticks with JRL in it.
Had they done that to Harkin's vehicle, the ATF would have set their house on fire and killed them as they tried to escape the flames.
Stench-reporters aren't particularly clever or well educated.
They are kind of like teachers, just smart and well educated enough to pose a danger to democracy.
8:57-
Journalists who can't read or write become cameramen.
So journalists threaten your democracy? That might just be the stupidest thing I've heard, ever. Free press is a pillar on which democracy is built, and you'd be surprised at how fast the whole thing will crumble without it. But if you prefer USA becomming more like, say North Korea, I think you're on to something. And as incompetently as your current leadership is, I think eradicating free press completely might be the only way to cover up.
My God, the more I think about it .. "Journalists posing a danger to democracy". That is some scary shit you're saying right there. That's the kind of mentality that turns democracies into dictatorships. Of course, Bush has already said that being a dictator would make his life a lot easier, as you might recall? But when he starts mass-murdering his critics, you might start longing for the Good Old Days Of Free Speech again my friend.
stench-i'm pretty sure that you are not just smart enough to be dangerous.
yes, journalists like the ones who promoted lennin, hitler and mussolini for example.
and let's not forget the same journalists who maligned Winston Churchill.
Did you all hear on the news about Kennedy's plot with the Soviet Union to affect the election that Reagan won 49-1? Remember the phrase "useful idiot". They used it in reference to Ted Kennedy. He wanted the Soviets to help him defeat Ronald Reagan. He was afraid Reagan might defeat communism.
How come we are only hearing that news item on Fox News?
MSM wants to cover it up.
Yea - nice family those Kennedy's.
Seems like your hate for free speech and privacy is finally paying off by the way! But whatever gives you that illusion of safety, I guess. I quoute MSNBC (radical liberal left communist media channel):
Privacy International ranked 36 nations around the globe, including all European Union nations and other major democracies, and determined that in categories such as enforcement of privacy laws, the U.S. is on par with countries like China, Russia and Malaysia.
Overall, the U.S. was determined to be an "extensive surveillance society,Â? the second-lowest rating in the study.
The survey identified Malaysia, China and Russia as the worldÂ?s lowest-ranked countries in terms of privacy. It ranked Germany and Canada as those that best protect the privacy of their citizens.
Please read all of it: http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/11/us_near_the_bot.html
Again, I rarely resond to other's posts, but Stench, I fear you are an example of the simply illusionary left.
Like many leftists, you seem to love the SSP nations. Canada is experiencing birth dearth so perhaps you should emigrate before the Taliban wing of the Republican party closes the borders and makes you go to church with a chip implanted so that we can monitor you through GPS technology.
By the way, how'd North Korea slip throughthe privacy cracks.
Oh, you've got us Liberals all wrong Sporer. See we're'm not illusionary, we're disillusioned. I don't think Stench is even from USA by the way. The reason you rarely respond seems to be that you have nothing to say? No free press and no privacy, that's what you're going for, albeit step by step and not in a giant leap. Regarding brain implants, I'm guessing most GOPies have enough room up there to fit a transmission radio and flatscreen TV as well. Or you could rent all that space out as storage while you got to church to get molested and surf for some porn ...
And by the way, aren't you already closing your borders?
Mohammed, I'm sorry, but the media and the party elites don't get to say who the "non-starters" are, and John's moving forward and doing it faster than anyone imagined. And no, I'm not calling you the media or a party elite, just someone jumping onto nonexistent bandwagons.
As for McCain, he's someone who's voted with Ted Kennedy far too often to be anything BUT a "non-starter" for this election cycle, despite the media's hype.
No, Shallow Hal.
You're not disillusioned.
You're hallucinatory.
And huzzah to Lynn for telling it like it is!
Post a Comment