One last tidbit from State of the Union Night: On Tuesday night’s Charlie Rose talk show on PBS, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham and ABC political director Mark Halperin and White House correspondent Martha Raddatz took turns sticking forks into President Bush and saying he was done. Meacham said Bush attempted to show he’s "actually involved with reality, that he’s a reality-based figure." Halperin agreed that the president "wanted to show that he had a reality-based presidency, but I don’t think he did. I think the war is over politically." Halperin even suggested that if Congress could vote by secret ballot, both Republicans and Democrats would vote to end the war – and vote for Bush’s presidency "to end today."
Halperin also helpfully explained how Democrats don't want to take responsibility for anything, and expect Bush to solve all their problems: "I think they want President Bush to cry uncle and take ownership for ending the war and solve their substantive problem -- they want the war to end -- and also to solve their political problem. They don`t want to make a political mistake now when things are going so well by being blamed, as Martha suggested, if they do end the war and force his hand and things go badly."
For her part, former NPR reporter Raddatz said Bush is up for two rough years, "if anyone’s paying attention." She claimed the American people are much smarter than Bush thinks, and "aren’t fooled" when he claimed that the media didn’t report the good news. She was stunned at the most obvious apparent sign of being reality-challenged: "He’s still talking about victory."
If conservatives thought it was amazing that the president called for victory and the Democrats all sat on their hands, liberal journalists thought it was amazing that he was so delusional that he would even use the V-word at this point. In addition to Meacham, Halperin, and Raddatz, Rose "balanced" the show with former Bush Uno aide Kenneth Duberstein (who did nothing for Bush Two but recycle the CW about how desperate Republicans want to get out), political analyst Charlie Cook, and Patricia Williams of the radical magazine The Nation.
After Duberstein began the doom-and-gloom parade, Meacham batted second with speech analysis:
"I think he was attempting to establish that he`s actually involved with reality, that he`s a reality-based figure. I think he said several times, this is where things stand. This is not the war we started, this is the war we`re in. And was at least attempting, as Ken said, to signal that he gets it to some extent, that this is not the way things should have gone. Now, with George W. Bush, just to have gotten to "give it a chance" is for him, like Henry II going to Thomas of Becket`s tomb...(laughter)...This is as humble as it's going to get. This is his 'mistakes were made.' This is his -- he`s completely -- and I think we`re in a tragic moment at the moment, genuinely, because no one has a particularly better answer."
Meacham is mocking Bush’s admission of mistakes by comparing it to the story of the English king held responsible for the murder of Becket when four knights murdered him after hearing the king say "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" The king was so penitent he walked the streets in sackcloths while eighty monks flogged him. Meacham no doubt would relish the chance to administer that sentence to Bush. Then it was Halperin's turn:
"I think Jon`s right that the president wanted to show that he had a reality-based presidency, but I don`t think he did. I think war is over politically. I think the president thinks the Democrats will work with him on other issues, even as there`s bitterness over the war. I think the president thinks the Republicans still would like to find common ground with him.I think all of those assumptions are still wrong, and it`s going to keep the president from going forward, and I think keep the speech from having any impact whatsoever in Washington."
Charlie Cook added to the Bush-is-toast theme: "the fact is that people just aren't listening to him anymore. I mean, they're done." Then Raddatz jumped in.
"I think he`s going to have a very rough couple of years here, Charlie, if anyone`s paying attention to him."
"I think in this instance, what they failed to realize, that the American people are a lot smarter than he may have thought.This was a very simplistic approach to this war. It was very simplistic for him to get up there last year at the State of the Union and talk about being on the road to victory.Americans aren`t fooled by the fact that things are going very badly in Iraq. For a long time, the administration blamed the media -- oh, you`re not covering the good stories, you`re not covering the good in Iraq. But the American people saw through that, as well. There wasn`t a whole lot of good to see.Yes, the troops are performing magnificently, but they are not making a whole lot of progress over there. And I think they heard the president say over and over and over that things were going well. They just knew in the end things weren`t going well. And I think it took a long time for the president to see that."
"I think the president still believes he is right, that you have to achieve victory. You heard him use the word victory again tonight. They could have backed away from that word. They could have said "success," they could have said the Iraqis have to take this on on their own. But the president is still talking about victory."
Halperin then added his theory that the entire Congress would like to kick Bush and his belongings out of the White House and withdraw from Iraq:
"I`m not that into fantasy games, but if you think about three votes in Congress, if they do secret ballot as Ken suggested, bipartisan support, I think the vote would be almost unanimous if the vote was up or down, would you like George Bush`s presidency to end today. I think Republicans and Democrats would be for that in Congress.Second vote, would you like the troops out in three months? Some way that wouldn`t be embarrassing to the United States? I think there would be an overwhelmingly bipartisan support for that."
Meacham then turned to a tried-and-true staple of the liberal media oeuvre, that a Republican president denies reality by replaying movies in his head. In other words, Bush is very Reaganesque in refusing to acknowledge "reality." In retrospect, does the liberal media look wise for saying Reagan wasn't engaged with the reality of the Soviet Union's long history to come?
Meacham: "I think one of the reasons historically that this resolve and this stubbornness is there is I think the movie playing in the president`s head for a long time has been 'The Gathering Storm.' The idea that he is..."
Rose: "Churchill?"
Meacham: "... he is Churchill, and all the naysayers were Chamberlain. And when he received the bronze bust of Churchill -- it sits to the right of the fireplace in the Oval Office -- he said, you know, Churchill always reminded me of a Texan. He did what he thought was right, and he kept after it and he kept after it. And I think that for a long time, that has been what he wants to be."
This inspired the Nation writer to drag out the old Katrina bashing:
Patricia Williams: "I was going to say, 'The Gathering Storm,' this response actually reminds me of it`s more like Katrina. I mean, the incompetence must be some part of why he cannot disconnect, being able to hear what advisers are saying. I keep being reminded of when New Orleans was literally sinking under the sea, under the incoming storm, and there was no response. There was some denial, in fact, from heck of a job Brownie, saying that this was not happening. And I wonder how just sheer incompetence or denial comes into this response."
This is when Halperin explained the political state of play, and how Democrats want to prolong it:
"I have never seen Democrats feel in the Bush era this confident, this certain that the political realities are moving inexorably towards their position, and I have never seen Republicans in the Bush era so unconfident, so concerned that they`re going to keep slipping downward.It is now considered by most people I talk to in both parties conventional wisdom that Senator McCain was just a few months ago not just the Republican front-runner, but the most likely next president. Very few people I talk to think that now. They think whoever the Republican nominee is, is going to be at a disadvantage because President Bush seems determined to keep Iraq as the dominant issue for the presidential campaign."
"So I think it helps the three Democratic front-runners -- Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I think it hurts all the Republican candidates. And within the Democratic Party, you ask what they want, I think they want President Bush to cry uncle and take ownership for ending the war and solve their substantive problem -- they want the war to end -- and also to solve their political problem. They don`t want to make a political mistake now when things are going so well by being blamed, as Martha suggested, if they do end the war and force his hand and things go badly."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center





"I think Jon`s right that the president wanted to show that he had a reality-based presidency, but I don`t think he did. I think war is over politically. I think the president thinks the Democrats will work with him on other issues, even as there`s bitterness over the war. I think the president thinks the Republicans still would like to find common ground with him.I think all of those assumptions are still wrong, and it`s going to keep the president from going forward, and I think keep the speech from having any impact whatsoever in Washington."









Editor at Large

Comments Policy
State of Politics
January 27, 2007 - 14:40 ET by pbthinkerMurtha's comment sums up the Democrats thought process. They want to force the President into a political decision, brought on by public opinion polls, to take the heat off of them, just in case what they're trying to achieve is wrong. Things haven't changed much in 4 years. They voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq and now, rather than accept that reality, they're looking for a do-over with their non-binding resolutions.
I fail to understand how, such a morally bankrupt party, could win an election.
Birds of a Feather Gruel
January 27, 2007 - 15:43 ET by acumen"I fail to understand how, such a morally bankrupt party, could win an election."
Understanding your question is rhetorical pb, I offer the following recipe for Birds of a Feather Gruel - Add one large portion of morally bankrupt media (which one could definitively make the argument is one and the same as the morally bankrupt party) with one equally large portion of morally bankrupt audience....bwahlah - one elected morally bankrupt party!
The real question remains the perpetual age old question of 'what came first' - the morally bankrupt media or the morally bankrupt audience?
My money is on the morally bankrupt media that built their house of horrors on the proverbial morally slippery slope enabling a substantial number of Americans to more conveniently follow the helpful force of gravity (force of gravity being as history shows; it is easier to sink in mud than rise above).
My personal solution is to follow the money but don't invest. Reworded - determine the sponsors (commercials/donors) of morally bankrupt media (party) and don't buy their product. Take away the money, take away the power. One personal example - W Ketchup on the table rather than Heinz.
Wow, Tim. That is quite alo
January 27, 2007 - 14:51 ET by BlondeWow, Tim. That is quite alot to digest in one reading.
And this....from publicly funded PBS.
No media bias here.
Unbelievable.
Great post.
Thanks. It's just sad that I'
January 27, 2007 - 19:56 ET by Tim GrahamThanks. It's just sad that I'm posting it on Saturday when I saw it on Tuesday night. It was so massive a transcription job, I was thrilled to find it on Nexis.
But Saturday's a little sparse with posts, so looong ones might be better here.
we all know and understand wh
January 27, 2007 - 14:53 ET by buddycwe all know and understand where raddatz is coming from. that meacham is at newsweek tells you what his views are. halperin is interesting. his father is the halperin who was involved in the pentagon papers issue and works for george soros. he is anti nuke a reagan hater and a longtime radical. he is not just a liberal but an extreme far left liberal. anything halperin says about bush is based on his political agenda and not reality. of the 3 only meacham has any credibility with me. i would not believe ANYTHING the other two said.
Raddatz: "I think he's g
January 27, 2007 - 15:26 ET by aeroI wish they would stop paying attention to Bush. Maybe he could get something done without all their constant harping and throwing up road blocks at every opportunity. But they're going to keep paying attention to him, all the while claiming that "no one is listening to him anymore." They'll listen, and they'll fight. They'll do all they can to ensure he sees not one more success before he leaves office.
As for Bush being outside reality--he is outside their perception of reality, which is a good thing! Their heads are so firmly planted in the sand about the threat of Islamic extremism that they won't even admit there's a problem until they wake up to a mushroom cloud one day.
Talk about "outside real
January 27, 2007 - 15:26 ET by mattmTalk about "outside reality"! "The war is over, politically"??? These sanity-challenged people are making their own reality by speaking it into existence!
The real reality is that the war is not over, politically or otherwise. We have boots on the ground all over the world. Even if congress passed a war de-funding bill, that still wouldn't end the war, because the REALITY is that Bush is still Commander in Chief and he can veto their attempts to defund the war. The only thing they might be able to do is override a veto, or try to pass a constitutional amendment giving military authority to Congress, neither of which they wouldn't have the guts to do.
"Insanity has a well-known Liberal bias" - Publius
secret
January 27, 2007 - 16:35 ET by iveseenitallThat's right, Halperin. Have a "secret" ballot so you cowards won't have to defend what you've done. Typical sneaky liberal suggestion. That shows it all about the liberal thought process. In their boldness, they actually have the nerve to tell us they'd vote differently behind closed doors. How disgusting. These creeps are sickening.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Well, that clinches it. I am
January 27, 2007 - 18:06 ET by Roger the ShrubberWell, that clinches it. I am definitely NOT voting for Bush in '08!
Meacham said Bush attempted t
January 27, 2007 - 18:17 ET by GalvanicMeacham said Bush attempted to show he’s "actually involved with reality, that he’s a reality-based figure."
A reality-based figure? What a stupid term
Halperin agreed that the president "wanted to show that he had a reality-based presidency, but I don’t think he did. I think the war is over politically."
As usual, MSM analysis assesses the war purely on casualties on the ground and political sentiments at home. The only time they consider outside factors is when they want to convince us that the war in Iraq is only making the world -- particularly the Muslim world -- hate us (I guess the war in Afghanistan didn't).
Halperin even suggested that if Congress could vote by secret ballot, both Republicans and Democrats would vote to end the war – and vote for Bush’s presidency "to end today."
If the Congress could've had a secret ballot, the Clinton Presidency would've ended in 1995 after the Reps took the Congress and the Dems were angry at Clinton for causing the loss.
But fortunately, our politics are more stable than that.
Halperin also helpfully explained how Democrats don't want to take responsibility for anything, and expect Bush to solve all their problems: "I think they want President Bush to cry uncle and take ownership for ending the war and solve their substantive problem -- they want the war to end -- and also to solve their political problem. They don`t want to make a political mistake now when things are going so well by being blamed, as Martha suggested, if they do end the war and force his hand and things go badly."
I think that's pretty accurate. In fact, didn't Emmanuel reportedly advise the Dems that very thing?
For her part, former NPR reporter Raddatz said Bush is up for two rough years, "if anyone’s paying attention."
He's definitely a lame duck, but it'll be hard to pay attention to what he does since the MSM has lured the '08 Presidential campaigns to begin a year early in order to have something to report about..
She claimed the American people are much smarter than Bush thinks, and "aren’t fooled" when he claimed that the media didn’t report the good news.
And as the decreasing viewership suggests, they aren't fooled by the bias in the MSM anymore.
She was stunned at the most obvious apparent sign of being reality-challenged: "He’s still talking about victory."
Hey, Martha, the troops are still speaking of victory, too. But dear Martha has made a gaff by acknowledging the MSM sees only a defeat. She and her peers have lived under the shadow of their Vietnam/Watergate-experienced editors and bosses for years, praying that they could have a Vietnam of their own. So, they've scripted the coverage of this war to fit the bill nearly from the beginning.
Galvinic - very very good poi
January 27, 2007 - 20:46 ET by Chicago RepublicanGalvinic - very very good points. It is refreshing to hear someone make the same comment that I've made for years now - that this generation of journalists so salivates to have "a Vietnam of their own", that nothing is off the table. I've hesitated saying this, because it is purely a hunch - I have long suspected that this people go to J School and hear their profs wax nostalgic about the media's impact on the Vietnam War, tell stories (if they have them, which I'm sure many do) about their own involvement in the late 60's early 70's. This no doubt creates a bunch of ravenous wolves that burn for the experience themselves. Do I know this is happening? No I have to be clear about that, this is purely speculation. But wouldn't you say given the similarities of the media's handling of the two conflicts that its a very safe bet?
I also like how you are drawing attention to the fact that the casualties on the ground and the political sentiments at home seem to be the only thing driving debate about this topic. On many levels, GW Bush is a pretty bad Domestic President (it pains me to say this, he has squandered so much opportunity for greatness on the domestic front, save his tax cuts). It disappoints me to say that because I think, unlike Slick Willy, the man is very genuine. But, he is still a big disappointment - save one characteristic. In this war and in the larger WOT, he keeps casualties and political blowback in full perspective. Give him that.
Nice job, Galvanic.
Thanks, Chi Rep.
January 28, 2007 - 05:46 ET by GalvanicThanks, Chi Rep. And I agree with your assessments of both Bush and Clinton. Bush is steadfast, but he failed to mobilize the nation behind the war in Iraq. I think he also put too much trust in Cheney and Rumsfeld and their buddy Chalabi, and was misled into believing that the war would be short and sweet.
Domestically, I don't think Bush had a strong agenda going into his Presidency, but whatever it was became OBE (overcome-by-events) with 9/11. I think Bush would argue that his highest domestic policy agenda item since 9/11 is homeland security, and so far, he's been successful.
You do have a point about Bus
January 28, 2007 - 11:26 ET by Chicago RepublicanYou do have a point about Bush failing to mobilize the nation. Usually when he sees approval for the war dip, rather than abandon the mission or give in to the call of his critics, he makes a speech to the nation. I feel that the speeches are pointed and usually agree with most of the substance. Maybe he thinks that most people in the nation have historical perspective and that's why he goes that route. Problem is, sadly, many (most? Am I too cynical?) people in America have no idea what it takes to preserve the comfort we live in, just take it for granted. Many in this nation feel that reality is that life should never be more difficult that having to cope with American Idol being off the air.
Too Cynical??
January 28, 2007 - 11:37 ET by JimboYou are not being too cynical. You are right on the mark. The majority of this country is more interested with American Idol than keeping up with the progress in Iraq, even though the latter will dictate the level of saftey of their very lives. They are kept abreast of current events through sound bites generated by the main stream media, and in some cases, (gulp), by the likes of commedians like David Letterman. The country will wake up only when it is too late and major cities are rendered uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
You know, Jimbo, I joked with
January 28, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Chicago RepublicanYou know, Jimbo, I joked with a friend a little while back that the Islamists would cut their own throats in the WOT by taking out the Direct TV satellite. Talk about a wake up call. Can you imagine the WWII-esque posters? "Avenge Direct TV!" I picture a beer bellied 20-something jumping the barriers of the Green Zone with a dagger in his mouth.
Another tactic we could use is to do a gigantic airdrop of Xboxes and flat panel tv's over Al Qaeda strongholds around the world. They'd suddenly lose interest in the fight, I'm sure.
XBox
January 28, 2007 - 12:40 ET by JimboI have a mental image of Bin Laden in his cave playing on an Xbox anyway. What else can he be doing? He knows if he comes out, our fine men and women will be waiting.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Bin Laden: "You know, in
January 28, 2007 - 12:45 ET by Chicago RepublicanBin Laden: "You know, in this version, you can make their heads bleed."
Mullah Omar: "Make someone's head bleed"
Zawahiri: "Brother, its the playoffs!"
Bin Laden: "Im going to make Gretzky's head bleed for super fan number 99 here."
Bin Laden: "Look, Omar, Little Wayne's head is bleeding, his legs are shaking"
Usually when he sees approval
January 28, 2007 - 21:21 ET by GalvanicUsually when he sees approval for the war dip, rather than abandon the mission or give in to the call of his critics, he makes a speech to the nation. I feel that the speeches are pointed and usually agree with most of the substance.
But until the November '06 elections, Bush's speehes all sounded alike, capped with the "Stay The Course" rhetoric that just wore thin over the many months. The Nation needed more than that, since we couldn't measure progress on the ground by printing maps in newspapers and magazines. The public needed reasurance that the WH was certai nof what it was doing, and Bush's speeches couldn't satisfy them.
Maybe he thinks that most people in the nation have historical perspective and that's why he goes that route. Problem is, sadly, many (most? Am I too cynical?) people in America have no idea what it takes to preserve the comfort we live in, just take it for granted.
I agree with you that most Americans have a shallow or no grasp of history, but I think Bush' s problem runs deeper. The President, in calling the Nation to wage the global war on terror (GWOT), reached too far because he left the definitions too ambiguous and the objective --- homeland security --- as something the public thinks we can achieve and be done with. Unfortunately, we will be fighting terrorist groups for the indefinite future, and that calls for mobilizing the country in an unpredented way. Instead, his advisors convinced him that OIF would be short and sweet, and when it wasn't, they had neither an alternate plan, nor prepared the Nation for it. We've been fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with very little impact on Americans, with the exception of military members and their families.
Because he never spelled out the details of a broader "clash of civilizations' type conflict, the Nation sees the one-sided coverage and analysis of the Iraq war on TV, are increasingly convinced that we can't win, and have no understanding of the dire consequences if we abandon an Iraqi government incapable of defending itself. Had he done so, clowns like Kerry would be ridden out of Washington on a rail for his "pariah" comment.
Many in this nation feel that reality is that life should never be more difficult that having to cope with American Idol being off the air.
You quite right, C-R. The public's fascination with absolutely trivial people, quotes, and events while we fight this war, is embarassing. But it's a reality we have to deal with.
Just curious... is this Meach
January 27, 2007 - 20:11 ET by Clear thinkerJust curious... is this Meacham turd an American citizen?
Another 9/11
January 27, 2007 - 20:41 ET by usinkorea"I think the war is over politically." Halperin even suggested
that if Congress could vote by secret ballot, both Republicans and Democrats
would vote to end the war – and vote for Bush’s presidency "to end
today."
I'd have to say he is correct here...
It seems clear since the last election tally rolled in that ------ the
media, Hollywood
(including TV), higher education, and dems have produced success in their joint
effort.
They have won politically.
Seeing the number of reps since the election who have been jumping ship - or
at least the impression you get about the rep party "as a whole"
turning on Bush - the impression created by the constant harping on reps who do
voice opposition (whatever their true numbers are) ---- has clearly given the
mood in the nation that the dems have won the day and the rep have lost the
political battle.
And I also believe much of this has to do with the loss of a sense of threat
just as much as it has been caused by the constant bombardment of the viewing
public on the dems behalf that began with a drive to prevent a war in Iraq,
call the war hopelessly bogged down as it was in the main fighting days, then
quickly to pummel the masses with the message it was a hopeless situation in
rebuilding when the bog turned out to be fictitious....
There has not been another attack on the US since 9/11. I believe to
the dems that we see out their in public, all this "Iraq stuff" ---
including Iran - is just a big huge distraction from things they care about,
and if they had the choice --- if they could do it without suffering
politically fall out among the masses, they would pull the troops out of Iraq
tomorrow.
On the rep side, it isn't that odd to see some of them turn after the
election. Bush himself explained why way back when this path began after
9/11 in that sound bite where he said the US wouldn't get into nation
building. He reversed course immediately afterward, but such nation
building is not something that naturally sits warm and cozy with that section
of the political spectrum.
In the end, it will be the military and the people who suffer.
Long term, whether we muddle around ineffectual in Iraq for some years or
pull out sooner, things are going to slide without enough focus and expenditure
in resources until the growth in real resistance to the US reaches a point of
confidence (with things like NK keeping its nukes and Iran getting some and
Iraq and Afghanistan staying at least as bad as they are) ---- until there is
enough confidence among certain groups to strike at the US again --- or to
strike with some major blow in Europe if breeching the US is too difficult.
Though the media seems to call it fear-mongering, it could very well be a
nuclear device set up in some major Western city....
And then the other half of the political spectrum will again be willing to
get serious about doing something about it ---- and if it goes off in Europe,
our "allies" will come screaming calling for us to do
something.
PBS/Rose/Meacham/Cook/Halperi
January 27, 2007 - 23:18 ET by bigtimerPBS/Rose/Meacham/Cook/Halperin/Raddatz/Duberstein.
Enemy.
Enough said.
lol- this comming from an 'ou
January 27, 2007 - 23:58 ET by Nazarethlol- this comming from an 'outside reality hog-wash T.V station PBS' Yep- so how's that funding going anyways PBS? Still got enough braindead dolts giving you their hard earned money so's you can bilk em out of their dope money?
http://sacredscoop.com
What A Bunch Of Pinheads
January 28, 2007 - 00:47 ET by emjem24As usual, I'm overwhelmed by the unbiased perspective that all these "analysts" show on PBS. Not. I wonder who exactly watches PBS anymore and why it's federally supported by our tax dollars. I mean Charlie Rose isn't that good and either is Sesame Street. Their whole attitude is load the panel with liberals and then let's see who can make fun of the President the most as well as who can mischaracterize everything he does. I particularly love how they devalue the troops by saying how they're performing "magnificently" but aren't making any progress. You'd have to be a zombie to watch this show it's so full of partisan vitriole. Where's the journalistic integrity? The analysis? Oh, my mistake...it's an opinion oriented show posing as journalistic analysis.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Thank God for GW
January 28, 2007 - 06:36 ET by JimboIt’s clear to me that the MSM view “reality” to be whatever 51% of the people says it should be and/or what the MSM says it should be. Any action taken to achieve an end outside those things puts you “out of touch with reality”. What a dangerous, childish and naïve point of view.
Thank God for President Bush.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Martha Raddatz Reporter, Journalist, Correspondent???
January 28, 2007 - 08:56 ET by CTMartha Raddatz claims to be a reporter and is paid to be a journalist correspondent yet she is anything but a reporter. All her words written or spoken are opinions without reference to facts real or imagined. Her credibility as a reporter should be challenged at every venue until she concedes she is a commentator.
This example of the Liberal Lie Factory needs to be confronted every time it belches out Anti-American vitriol.
War?
January 28, 2007 - 09:24 ET by allanfWe lost 821 servicemen in Iraq last year. Of 3,019 deaths since March 2003, 585 have been from non-hostile action. There were 34,000 civilian deaths in Iraq.
I hardly think that is an unsustainable situation. The only thing unsustainable is the withering press criticism egged on by defeatist Democrats.
The press and Democrats are right in one way. If you think we cannot win, you are correct YOU can't win. Get out of the way and let President Bush do the job.
correct
January 28, 2007 - 15:13 ET by usinkoreaThe line about the number of deaths is what should be a key focus to opposition to the press.
It might be portrayed as distasteful - because every human life counts - but I believe the public will understand the common sense of it - when, as some post here or elsewhere I read pointed out, certain cities in the US in a certain recent year have had a higher violent crimes (murder) rate than combat deaths in Iraq.....
....there is something completely wrong with the way the media is using each soldier's death -- and the running tally.
But, the media is winning with this false setup. It has taken them years to do it. It has taken them years to whittle down the viewing public, but they have sucessfully done so by RELENTLESSLY pounding them with each death and the total toll.
On PBS, Newsweek Editor, ABC
January 28, 2007 - 11:37 ET by pocomocoOn PBS, Newsweek Editor, ABC Reporters Say Bush Is Finished, And Outside 'Reality'
Now wait a minute here, isn’t this a case of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’? After all, isn’t NEWSWEAK losing subscribers, advertisers, and laying off staff?
It seems to me that Meacham’s ‘reality’ should be taking care of his own business rather pontificating on how bad Bush and the country are. (editor heal thyself)
As for the other panelists, just chalk them up to a “wishful-thinking MSM”. They add nothing to the discussion but hot air. (sorry Michele)
Excellent article Tim.
At least they have someone of
January 28, 2007 - 11:39 ET by ucAt least they have someone of "Beef"/substance for such a test. Hillary still seems all sprouts.
What liberal bias?
January 28, 2007 - 11:56 ET by JLS Las VegasWhat liberal bias?
I think they may be onto some
January 28, 2007 - 12:03 ET by ucI think they may be onto something: It is time to elect another actor President >> whom else can keep the media in their seats and silent long enough to hear whole story and follow plot development and twists. Maybe using Reagan's steadfastness with focus on end goal and staying the course the hope he used can never work again. Mr. President, thank you for respecting us by trying and keeping us respected more than most of liberal media sources.
Hmmm. Another actor president
January 28, 2007 - 15:08 ET by aeroHmmm. Another actor president. How 'bout Clint Eastwood? Patricia Heaton? Bo Derek? Charlton Heston? Are there any other Republican actors, or is that it? Eastwood/Heaton in '08! ;-)
In a similar vein, how about Tony Snow?
January 28, 2007 - 15:14 ET by nkviking75He's not an actor, but I've thought Tony Snow might be a good candidate in a similar vein. He's conservative, smart, telegenic, has an appealing personality, and his radio and TV experience would go a long way in swaying public opinion. His journalism background would serve him well in combatting the MSM. The media seems to have all but abandoned any pretense of objectivity. It would certainly help to have a president who knows their game inside and out.
Ooh, I agree! A journalist mi
January 28, 2007 - 15:31 ET by aeroOoh, I agree! A journalist might make a very interesting president. We certainly do need someone who can outmaneuver a hostile media and charm the public. I love Tony Snow, though he hasn't had much positive effect on getting the message out since he became Press Sec. I think it's mostly because he's limited to what the administration lets him communicate, though. I wonder if Tony would be interested in running?
I'm still rooting for Newt, but I'm certainly open to fresh faces and new ideas since Newt is nowhere near committed to running. I know I'm sadly disappointed in the choices so far, and I'm hoping some miracle candidate will appear out of the blue and be our Winston Churchill.