Hah! I think this headline ought to go down as one of the greats:

“Poll: Nation split on Bush as uniter or divider”:http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/poll/index.html

As often as Bush has played the “culture war,” “class war,” and “us vs. them” card it’s surprising to me that there is anyone who can seriously believe Bush brings people together. Then again, there are people who believe increasing attacks and violence against American troops in Iraq are a demonstration of how well the flypaper strategy is going there, so I guess I shouldn’t be all that surprised.

In other news, Bush takes the Washington Post to task for using the newly-politically incorrect term “privitization” when refering to, well, privitization. I have suspected for some time now that when the Republicans say “the media is biased” what they really mean is “the media doesn’t always stick to our talking points.”

The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?
The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been –
THE PRESIDENT: We don’t want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.
The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we’re in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this.

As TPM points out in the link above, the RNC used the word “privitization” a great deal — until they found out that it didn’t poll well on this issue.

Headline story seen at TPM

The response from the right to allegations that Armstrong Williams was paid for his opinions (which comes after discovery that the Federal government has been distributing propaganda disguised as news) has been a round of “but Democrats do it, too” and finger-pointing at a few bloggers, as though there was some sort of equivalency.

Of course the two issues are not equivalent. On one hand you have suspicions that some folks were being paid by Democratic campaigns to blog in their favor without “full disclosure” (I put “full disclosure” in quotes because apparently only instant telepathic knowledge transfer would have satisfied some people.) If true, that’s probably not being upfront with readers.

On the other hand you have the Federal Government, which has clearly participated in covert propaganda aimed at its own citizenry and in contravention of Federal law. It is the kind of thing totalitarian governments do, and it shouldn’t be tolerated from any administration.

But this is just common distraction nonsense. Find something similar on the Left then point-scream-and-holler. The Left will abandon the opposition to destructive policies in order to oppose the smear, and the folks in the middle will have the confirmation they need that both sides are evil to absolve them of taking any stand whatsover. With the Left distracted and the unengaged given an excuse to turn back to whatever reality program is hot at the moment, the Right can continue to legislate our freedoms and security away.

What we need to learn to do is respond to bullshit accordingly:

We’ve raised Ann Coulter to new heights by trying to counter her. She doesn’t care. Michael Moore is delegitimized by the Right by means of sarcasm and humor. Dean was destroyed by jokes about the scream. If Crossfire opened every show with “and look what that crazy bitch said today,” followed by a shot of Paul and James laughing their asses off, Ann Coulter would be the leggiest assistant corporate attorney in Accounts Recieving right now. [ The Kos Thing ]

Kerry’s picked up an awful lot of newspaper endorsements, but that’s no big deal — right? Because newspapers are all so liberal.

Despite having worked for two conservative-leaning newspapers and a conservative-leaning news magazine, I would have thought Ed Gillespie was right on that score. I would have thought wrong:

Since 1940 when the industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher began tracking newspapers during presidential elections, only two Democratic candidates — Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 — have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent. That’s because newspaper publishers, who usually sign off on endorsements, tend to vote Republican (like lots of senior, corporate executives), which means GOP candidates pick up more endorsements. [ from Salon ]

So 1) the endorsement tally does turn out to be a significant slap against Bush and 2) the RNC is once again caught making things up about the SCLM.

I have joined a blogger group called the “Progressive Blogger Alliance” because it’s always nice to meet new people and make new friends. Here’s what the PBA is about:

We are an emergent self-organized network of independent citizens and activists whose broad agenda includes world peace, human rights, sustainable development, environmentalism, and social justice. We do not identify with a singular nation, but rather our world society as a whole. We recognize that on a fundamental level we are all one. Blogging is our medium; our message will be the story of a new world. Join Us.

According to Atrios (I know he has a real name now, I just can’t remember it), Bush/Cheney 04 is accusing the Philly Inquirer of abandoning its “journalistic integrity” by running a series of editorials criticizing the Bush administration.

Editorials.

I am assuming the Bush/Cheney campaign is unaware of the current media-ethics issue related to Sinclair Broadcasting Group which is airing something blatantly editorial but insisting it is straight news.

I am also assuming they are unware of the Wall Street Journal’s twelve-year editorial-page campaign to assasinate the character of prominant liberals, most especially Bill Clinton — who they repeatedly accused of murder and, I believe, dealing drugs out of the White House.

I am also also assuming that the Bush/Cheney campaign has never turned on Fox News, Bill “Phone Sex” O’Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, or any number of other right-wing editorial programs.

Because if they were aware of any of these things, they wouldn’t be so shocked at the current lack of journalistic integrity. And they might indeed be appreciative, nay — even thankful — that they have so often benefited from it.

Ken was right to be suspicious of the Spanish interview — the translation was accurate, but it turns out that the Spanish interviewer was paraphrasing, something (to my mind) unacceptable in an interview.

According to Norquist, a commenter claiming to be the interviewer and posting as “Zimba” (but unresponsive to my email) and El Mundo , Norquist did not actually say World War II vets were anti-American. He said they were "un-American.".

How much of a difference that actually represents, I don’t know.

Despite all the buzz about weblogs professional and personal, it still looks like the best way to get the country’s attention is a 60 Minutes segment and a Kitty Kelly book. This is what I saw at the Washington Post upon waking up at 4:00 this morning:

I know a lot of people, especially people on my side who were sick of hearing about John Kerry’s Purple Hearts, think this election should be about today’s issues, not the time when “Stairway to Heaven” was fresh and new. But let’s look at what this says:

1. Bush lied about his honerable performance in the National Guard.
2. Bush lied about completing his service.
3. Bush lied about releasing all his records.
4. Bush lied about fulfilling a FOIA request.

The fourth item is a serious, serious crime. The FOIA is the primary organ through which the citizens of this Republic get to find out what their government is doing. If a dress could impeach Clinton, then this kind of duplicity — which shows a complete and total disregard for the oath of office — should do the trick. (_Should_, I say, not will.)

I’m not sure, but I think the mainstream media still hasn’t picked up that Bush also lied about the nature of his service in his “auto”biography — where he claims to have flown F-102s until the completion of his service, and never mentions being grounded (or, for that matter, absent).

This is the same man who says we should forgo legal rights and trust him to make the right decisions for us.  This is the man who wants us to trust him with the lives of our military and our civilians: a man who disobeys orders, exaggerates his record, and over thirty years later breaks Federal law to cover it up.

So, how does the whole Republican convention compare to THK telling a reporter to “shove it”? We had days of commentary over THK saying “shove it.” What about Zell’s “get out of my face”?

I’ve been kind of surprised that some people on the left have been hesitant to criticize the Bush daughters. (You know, the twins who were worse than going to war, according to their father who rarely showed up for his national guard duty.)

I can certainly see how it might be inappropriate to pick on, say, their college indiscresions. But the “oh no we shouldn’t make fun of them” reactions over their speeches last night seems misplaced. They were, after all, speaking in a public setting for political ends. It seems to me like they’re just as open to criticism as any of the rest of them. At least, in that situation.

We should also remember that behavior and diction aside, the Bushsie Twins are adults. At least in a technical sense. Whereas for much of Clinton’s term, Chelsea was a minor. I’ve heard a lot about not picking on children. Barbara and Jenna are not children, they are adults. And we’re entitled to treat them as such, even if their father was never treated as an adult.

There are a lot of people who like to pretend that “both sides are just as bad.” Michael Moore, for example, is the left-wing Ann Coulter. Right? Well, consider these excerpts. One is from Ann Coulter’s Rejected USA Today Democratic convention coverage, the other is from Michael Moore’s published USA Today Republican convention coverage.

It’s also worth pointing out that Michael Moore was denounced from the podium, pointed at, and booed last night.

That, people, is what we call a “false equivalency.”