Something important to me has come up in the wake of yet another all out character asassination attempt on Rush Limbaugh this week. And I've been puzzled by this my whole life - starting at a very early age.

Can America be civil?

I was a kid in the late 60's and early 70's watching the so-called "hippies" on  TV every night raging against the Viet Nam war. They had such anger and hostility. And spit on our soldiers when they came home. And my Archie Bunker father just about had a stroke every night screaming at the TV. I couldn't understand all the hostility myself...

40 years later I still can't. The political discourse in this country has been bitter my whole life. Probably everywhere on planet earth since the dawn of time, I suppose...

But in this day and age I have this ridiculous notion that the "world's sole superpower" can actually have highly educated citizens who practice respect for each other and our institutions as we debate disapproval and disagreements.

It is pretty obvious how most folk on this site feel about abortion. Most feel that it truly is not Pro choice because the baby does not have a say it the decision.

A topic I have not seen come up since the Teri Shiavo fiasco is "euthanasia". In the case of Terri Shiavo, it was rather ambiguous because she never specified on paper what she would have wanted if she became brain dead or a vegetable. That being said I feel if a person makes perfectly clear in their will, living trust or statement to their doctor, there is nothing wrong with it. This truly is pro choice because it is what the individual wants.

Wikapedia says:

Again exploiting children and mothers to advance the goal of expanding federal spending and dependency, ABC's World News led Wednesday night by giving voice to the media-political establishment's astonishment that President Bush would veto a bill to provide health insurance “for children.” Anchor Charles Gibson led his newscast: “Most politicians like to kiss babies, pet dogs and support programs for children. Not often you'll see one take a stand against a proposal providing health insurance for children. But that's what President Bush did today, vetoing the so-called S-CHIP program that would have expanded health insurance for children by $35 billion.”

Reporter Martha Raddatz highlighted how “the country seems to disagree” with Bush since “72 percent of Americans support expanding the program,” which the media have promoted, “including majorities of Republicans and conservatives.” Indeed, ABC's poll (PDF) found self-identified conservatives favor the expansion by 61 to 36 percent. Raddatz, who two weeks ago used a crying mother to push increased spending, warned Wednesday that “the veto could have a profound impact.” To back her assumption, Raddatz featured an unlabeled left-wing activist from Families USA followed a mother who pleaded: “Having it taken away would be devastating. You can't do that to children. It's not right.”

Cat fight on the left? On today's "Tucker," a "Media Matters" representative denied Hillary's claim that she "helped start" the organization.

Welcome back, Tucker. Really.

While Carlson was away, guest host David Shuster sullied Tucker's name-sake show with the tasteless "gotcha" game he sprang on Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), then compounded matters by leading a liberal love-in.

Tucker's been back in the saddle for a couple days, and this evening took on Wesley Clark and later a representative of Media Matters.

Speaking with Paul Waldman, Senior Fellow and Director of Special Projects of "Media Matters," Carlson displayed the graphic shown here, in which Hillary Clinton stated that she had "helped start" Media Matters. Under close questioning by Carlson, Waldman wound up contradicting Hillary's claim.

View video here.

Binxly stated:

As far as facts go, the stories of the bible are often contradictory

I figure that in a book as long as the Bible using "often" would lead to at least 100 contradictions (about 1 every 8 pages?).  I figure 10 should be a slam dunk.

You're up Binxly, what are your top ten contradictions?

It looks like a comedy skit about a shallow network anchorman who emphasizes form to the total exclusion of substance. However, if you look closely at the featured player in this video, you will see that he is not portrayed by a comedy actor. Instead it is the real life Dan Rather playing himself as a CBS News anchorman completely obsessed by his on-camera appearance. This piece, introduced by Harry Shearer with exactly the proper amount of suppressed jocularity, presents an episode from Rather's past when he was about to anchor the news from a Seattle rooftop on a cold, windy day. Rather is presented with a crucial choice: should he wear a trenchcoat or not? And if he does wear a trenchcoat, should the collar be turned up?

It was getting ever closer to broadcast time, and after 20 minutes of pondering his choices, Rather expounds on one the crucial issues of our time:

We need to make a decision---Coat or no coat?

CNN’s Jack Cafferty, in a "Question of the Hour" segment on Wednesday’s "The Situation Room," offered a loaded question involving President Bush’s veto of a proposed expansion of the SCHIP program. "President Bush has increased the national debt by trillions of dollars. Why would he veto a bill providing health insurance for children?"

Cafferty’s question came 10 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour of "The Situation Room." Before he asked that question, Cafferty detailed that President Bush’s veto of SCHIP "was cast very quietly this morning behind closed doors. No fanfare, no news coverage," and the reasons the President listed for his veto. He then added that "this is the same man who will soon go to Congress and ask for another $190 billion to continue that glorious war in Iraq." Cafferty also outlined how under President Bush’s leadership, the ceiling for the national debt has been increased for the fifth time in seven years to $9.8 trillion, and how apparently, President Bush "has borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks since taking office than this country's first 42 presidents combined."

Video (0:36): Real (0.98 MB) or Windows (1.11 MB), plus MP3 (278 KB)

Despite the fact that the print media have mostly backed off the "phoney soldiers" smear against Rush Limbaugh, on Wednesday's "Hardball," host Chris Matthews refused to correct the record, instead choosing to toss a softball to anti-war Congressman Jack Murtha as he asked him on Wednesday's "Hardball":

"What do you think of Rush Limbaugh's comment the other day that somebody was a phony soldier because they opposed the war? He also said they were a phony Republican, by the way, because he said Republicans couldn't possibly, a Republican couldn't possibly be against the war? What do you make of that?"

Rep. Jack Murtha: "I don't watch Rush Limbaugh."

Matthews: "Ha! You don't have to watch him, you gotta hear about him. I don't either, I hear about him."

This contest was an unprecendented initiative that empowers supporters to create the campaign's newest television advertisement by remixing or "mashing up" a large variety of the campaign's photos, videos and audio clips, as well as their own multimedia content.

The winner will become the first amateur ever to have his work used as an official television advertisement for a presidential campaign. Created using the online video editing tools of Yahoo! and Jumpcut.com, Whitaker's ad was the clear favorite in the contest, receiving the most views and the most "love" of all 129 submissions, and receiving 47% of the votes cast among the nine finalists highlighted

Click here to see it

Associated Press reporter Jennifer Loven practically blew kisses to the Left with her biased coverage of President Bush's veto of the Democratic proposal to boost SCHIP by a whopping $35 billion over five years.:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Ah yes, the old paint-the-conservatives-as-the-bad-guy trick. Bush's veto is [cue ominous music] a "sharp confrontation" that prevents kids from getting health care and is sure to doom the GOP to wander the electoral desert.

Those are all nice partisan talking points, but you'll notice no quote marks. It's all Loven's spin.

It was hard enough for Blackwater USA to get a fair shake from the media alone, but when the evening news got star-struck by the Democratic personalities on a congressional committee, that task was monumental.

Erik Prince, CEO of Blackwater USA, testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform making the lead story on “World News,” “NBC Nightly News” and “CBS Evening News.”

“Glad to come here and correct some facts,” Prince said to the committee.

But, out of the 13 comments on the three broadcasts from members of the 41-person committee, only one was a Republican. Rep. Christopher Shays was also the only member to say something positive about the company.

Is Whoopi Goldberg becoming the Rosie O’Donnell type bully? It appeared that way on the October 3 edition of “The View.” A discussion about Hillary Clinton’s $5,000 a baby entitlement plan quickly descended into a heated exchange between Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Whoopi Goldberg about abortion.

When Hasselbeck noted that $5,000 a baby could lead to fewer abortions in the world, Whoopi told Hasselbeck to “back off” because Hasselbeck has never “been in a position” where she “had to make that decision.”

Whoopi, who claimed to march in a NARAL rally with Katie Couric, also added Elisabeth should have “a little bit of reverence” to the women who had abortions and then spread propaganda about women “found bleeding dead with hangers in their bodies.”

Full transcript below the jump. Watch the video over at Ian Schwartz's blog.

In an uncommon bout of journalistic self-control, the New York Times had thus far ignored the phony controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment on his radio show last Wednesday, remarks wrenched out of context by the far-left Media Matters.

But on Wednesday, congressional reporter Carl Hulse used an action by some liberals in Congress yesterday as an excuse to bring it into the Times news pages in his "Congressional Memo," "Limbaugh Latest Target In War of Condemnation."

"Having abandoned for now their effort to force President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrats are not giving ground against a lesser nemesis: Rush Limbaugh.

"With the help of liberal advocacy groups, the Democrats in Congress are turning Mr. Limbaugh's insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are 'phony soldiers' into the latest war of words over the war."

According to the media's parade of children who need government assistance for insurance, President Bush must really just hate children. After all, he vetoed a bill today that would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Leading up to the October 3 veto, the media couldn’t resist scripting it as a vote against children.

The Christian Science Monitor called it “a vote against health care for poor children” on October 1. CBS's Thalia Assuras worried about the "kids caught in the middle" on August 1 "Evening News."

What’s at stake, though, included a proposed $35-billion expansion of taxpayer-funded insurance made possible by a huge tax increase on tobacco users many of whom are poor -- burdening the same families the program is designed to help.

On the Wednesday "Today" show, Ted Koppel joined NBC's Matt Lauer in refusing to expose the lie behind the Media Matters and Democratic attack on Rush Limbaugh over "phony soldiers", choosing instead to write the controversy off as just another "foolish" thing the talk show host had said. However when asked about Dan Rather's lawsuit of CBS, the former longtime host of ABC's "Nightline" expressed sympathy: "I feel great pain for Dan."

Koppel's compassion wasn't just reserved for Rather but he extended it to criminals too, as he was invited on "Today" to promote his latest Discovery Channel documentary on overcrowded prisons. During the segment, Koppel criticized "three strikes" laws and griped about the state of prisons in this country:

Memories:

"In 2000, Americans were reminded that electoral votes select presidents. In 2004, Democrats were reminded that Bruce Springsteen does not."

I guess the Boss doesn't read George Will.

His concert at the Hartford (Conn.) Civic Center last night wasn't just an evening of classic tunes mixed with an introduction to his new album. He must have memorized some kind of script, because the following (from the Hartford Courant's review) was similar to the screed he gave when he performed live for the "Today" show last week:

Hey gang,

Just thought I would take time out for a little distraction from the daily leftist grind. Are there any other MMA fans here?

If so, who's your favorite fighter? Who's your favorite fight organization?

Well, you get the idea.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) took to a popular conservative blog today to issue a defense of radio host Rush Limbaugh against left-wing smear attacks. As NewsBusters has reported, Blackburn herself was the target of a "gotcha" game by MSNBC's David Shuster.

In "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story," Blackburn expressed to Red State readers her support for Limbaugh and noted her resolution before the House of Representatives to commend Rush for this dedication to America's men and women in uniform:

On Wednesday’s "Good Morning America," co-host Robin Roberts, for the second day in a row, intimated that Clarence Thomas was guilty of sexually harassing Anita Hill. Interviewing Anucha Brown-Sanders about her successful harassment lawsuit against New York Knicks coach Isiah Thomas, Roberts gratuitously segued, "Yesterday, sitting where you are right now, Anita Hill, who was here to talk about what happened 16 years ago when she was brought before the Judiciary Committee, with Clarence Thomas being a nominee for the Supreme Court..." Roberts then asked Browne-Sanders, "Do you think your decision in your court case can have a similar impact?"

Implicit in this question is the idea that Hill’s claims against the now-Supreme Court justice are true. Would Roberts use Clinton-accuser Paula Jones as a similar comparison to a modern case? On Tuesday’s GMA, the ABC host employed the same tactic in the interview with Anita Hill. Roberts sympathetically questioned, "Is it better now in the workplace for women?" Again, this leaves the assumption that for things to be "better," Thomas must have been guilty of making them worse for Hill.