Yay! Blockquote!

That was easier than I thought it would be.

No bad news - just good. The tipping point in Iraq is when the Iraqi's get fuckin' tired of the terrorists offing the civilians and start offing the terrorists; or better yet giving good solid intel to the Coalition. This seems to be happening now.

We certainly cannot keep troops there indefinitely. The sooner the Iraqi's take over security the sooner we can exit. Since the terrorists cannot produce large number of US casualties, the only way to make headlines is to kill large number of civilians - thus turning the civilian populace against the terrorists.

Good news indeed!!

Not to hijack the thread, but yesterday we had quite the moonbat flood on Ace's 300+ Sheehan post. The flood was the result of the Salon Daou Report - a phenomenon that has occurred at least once before. While it is obviously stimulating to discussion, I am discouraged by how little actual reasoned debate occurs.

The problem, of course, is that the positions of the left and right are so divided that there is too much ground to cover in a single comment thread. Rather than making a little progress towards mutual understanding, the discussion ends with a shouting match.

I don't know how to improve the dialogue, when we're starting so far apart.

The left believes the war in Iraq cannot be won, and so they refuse to even help. The right believes that we must win, and that there are signs that we are winning.

The left believes the violation of Iraq's sovereignty was completely inexcusable, while the right will accept any excuse to see a fundamental, long-lasting change in the Middle East.

The left believes the appropriate response to terrorism is police action. The right believes that a billion+ Muslims are watching the conflict closely, trying to decide whether to live in peace or join Jihad.

With such disparate foundations to our worldviews, I'm baffled as to how we might ever unite the country and turn a single face toward the enemy. But I think it's something we should be trying to do. Any ideas?

Reasoned debate of any length is precluded by Bush Derangement Syndrome.

What shattering event is required to snap these people out of it, I'd rather not see come to pass.

With such disparate foundations to our worldviews, I'm baffled as to how we might ever unite the country and turn a single face toward the enemy.

With a population of almost 300 million there are bound to be numerous, disparate views. I feel it is unrealistic to hope for a single viewpoint.

However this country is a democratic republic. And as such, the majority rules. We, as a country, seem to have forgotten this basic civic lesson. If your voice is in the minority -- it is in the minority. You must willfully (and hopefully gracefully) abide by the voice of the majority until you can politically and peacefully change the public mood.

The Left seems to have thrown any acknowledgement of their minority status out the window. They know what is right and they are damn well not going to sit around and let the majority of the country decide the country's path.

my 2 cents

Yes, it's difficult to have a conversation without ending up back at "Bush stole the election!" When you're fighting resentments that go back to the 2000 election, there's a huge shadow over every conversation.

But it's important to try to do something about the Iraq debate, because we spend so much time defending the administration, we don't get to criticize it ourselves. If the administration felt more pressure on the budget, immigration, etc., we might see a more consistent set of policies.

The left has made a conscious decision to regain political power at all costs, including military defeat if thats the way it has to be. Their rational is when they regain power they'll pursue the war on terror in their own manner and then everything will be ok. Don't you see; one step back (maybe) but two progessive steps forward! How can rational people do this? Well, their ideology is grounded in secular humanism which provides no moral base or foundation. The end justifies the means especially when you've convinced yourself of the purity of your convictions.

TheShadow, did the right willfully and gracefully accept the majority's opinion and votes for Bill Clinton in the '90s? Did Republicans help Clinton fight terrorists, or were they more interested in fighting Clinton? When Clinton tried to kill bin Laden, didn't conservatives cry "wagging the dog!"? It would be refreasing, at least once, to hear a conservative admit that none of you supported the President, no matter what he was doing, when the President was a Democrat.

On the other hand, I would also point out that our system was designed to protect the rights of the minority against what some of the Founders called the "tyranny of the majority." So, I personally always felt that conservatives had a right to complain, as they did even when there were "boots on the ground."

Brewfan, your take on secular humanism as a philosophy with no moral foundation is uninformed at best. Most of the Founders of our country would have described themselves as secular humanists since their inspiration for our system came largely from the "Enlightenment." There is no "ends justify the means" in secular humanism.

Tell me. Is a fundamentalist Christian convinced of the "purity of his convictions?" Are not religious people convinced that they are right? When Pat Robertson prays for God to strike down Supreme Court Justices, is this not an example of "the ends justify the means?"

Flame on.

I know others have mentioned doing this before, but I spent a couple of hours last night reading the complete Comments section of a leftist blog.

"Those people are unhinged from reality" is the kindest observation I came away with. And I am NOT talking about a difference in "worldview".

I'm saying that what I saw during that disturbing episode is a complete and thorough inability to rationally define ANY coherent position [of the Left] that doesn't correspond and conform to an obviously pre-existing vapid conspiratorialist delusion of what dealing with differences by argumentative debate implies to [them as] cognitive adults.

Er ...to simplify by analogy. I used to be called a "mind-numbed robot" for listening to Rush Limbaugh (I'm another "reformed Leftie" who was attracted to Rush's talk-radio show because I thought he was funny and clever, though merely facile ...and then realized after awhile that "crap, this guy makes sense sometimes" ...and had to deal with the contrast of my awakening recognition of a more cohesive and internally consistent worldview with what all my [old] buddies still thought and said). But "mind-numbed robot" is EXACTLY the description that best fits most observations of the reflexive Left in these kinds of non-debates.

Look, parrots can mimic and repeat human phrases quite well indeed, and sometimes get "situationally lucky" in their "choice of phrase" (it would be more correct to say their choice of song, but only another "bird-person" is going to understand what I just said) ...but that doesn't mean the frickin' birds are being responsive conversationally.

Or, in the case of the Left, argumentatively ("argument" in the formal sense of "reasoned rational debate").

These people are irrational conspiratorialist kooks ...is what I'm left with. And I think trying to practice "debate" with parrots is a wee bit of an oxymoron.

So ...the best approach is ...just frickin' ignore 'em. They're just frickin' songbirds making patterned noises that resemble actual cognitive human speech patterns.

Or make fun of 'em if you tend to cruelty in your frustration; that at least yields fruitful emotionally satisfying results ...cuz yer sure as hell not going to get intellectually satisfying conversation with frickin' parrots.

Am I the only one, or does anyone else think "Wahabbi!" sounds like what you should yell when you cannonball into the pool?

Oh. Reasoned discourse.

Bill, I absolutely loathed Bill Clinton and all his works. Well, most of his works. Almost as much as I loathed Jimmy Carter. And that's almost as much as the left hated Ronald Reagan! (I'm not going to go near Dick Nixon). The guy at the top is the lightning rod, especially if he has a lightning rod sort of personality.

But the Republicans were out of power for a lot of years, and they weren't pulling this parliamentary, obstructionist shit at every turn. The Democrats had the reigns for so long, they got to thinking they owned the reigns.

Any ideas?

A 50-50 solution is in order.

50% of the left get reeducation camp.

50% of the left get a cigarette and blindfold.

Bill:

Re your statement about the founders being secular humanists - from Wikipedia: "The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government."

But waht abou tteh other 50%????

Maybe I'm reaching too far. Let us say, rather, that we want to reach only the moderate left, since the far left cannot be communicated with. Do we have a hope there?

Did Republicans help Clinton fight terrorists, or were they more interested in fighting Clinton? When Clinton tried to kill bin Laden, didn't conservatives cry "wagging the dog!"?

I'll be totally honest Bill, I don't know if the Republicans tried to work with Clinton. I have only recently become politcally aware. I used to be one of the typical, apathetic masses. I suppose that I could do some research online regarding the interaction between Clinton and Congress. But, I really don't have the time right now. I do intend to do some reading regarding Clinton though. So, if you have a recommendation...I'll gladly take it. (Of course, I intend to read both sides of the debate)

It is probable that there was some obstructionist activity going on back then. It seems to me that both the Left and Right, for far too long, have been more interested in scoring political points than in working together to solve problems.

I was/am no fan of Clinton. But, I am sure there are things he did right. Also, things he did wrong. The honest on this board will admit the same for Bush. Are we to expect perfection from imperfect humans?

TheShadow, did the right willfully and gracefully accept the majority's opinion and votes for Bill Clinton in the '90s? Did Republicans help Clinton fight terrorists, or were they more interested in fighting Clinton? When Clinton tried to kill bin Laden, didn't conservatives cry "wagging the dog!"? It would be refreasing, at least once, to hear a conservative admit that none of you supported the President, no matter what he was doing, when the President was a Democrat.

Bill, in your attempt to play 'neener neener, the Republicans did it too" you're focusing on a few suspects - namely, the Tom DeLay wing of the party.

What you're ignoring is that the majority of those in Congress went along with the Bosnia campaign, the Somalia campaign and the attacks on Afghanistan.

These days, every damn Democrat is going along with the obstructionist tactics of the left.

Hi Bill,

I guess during Clinton you could say I was apolitical, but trending Democrat. Pro-environment, pro-choice, anti-big corporation.

At the time I was one of the few people living on my street (in Hartford) who actually worked for a living and was pursuing an education as well.

Frankly, I was sick of all these A-hole layabouts who thought the rest of society owed them a living. Not even the most coddled trust fund kid has such a sense of entitlement as these neighbors of mine did.

And in fact the public teat was their slavery, and they had no reason to encourage their children to do well at school. They had their kids dealing drugs.

Within months of Clinton's welfare reform, many if not most of those people were employed. It was a wonderful thing to behold.
Sometimes the two parties can work together; and I was thrilled with Clinton at that point in time.

I would say that the last couple years of the Clinton admin took the scales from my eyes; the pardons especially were a low blow. And finally the 1st lady's looting of the White House and the staff's pre-Dubya vandalism sealed it.
They may seem like poor reasons to you, but I believe the fish rots from the head. Disreputable people engage in that kind of behavior. Third world despots, stealing the silverware on their way out of the palace.
My mom liked Clinton but if you just mention his name she looks like there's a bad taste in her mouth.

"Most of the Founders of our country would have described themselves as secular humanists since their inspiration for our system came largely from the "Enlightenment." "

This is just crap. Most of the founding fathers are what you would call fundamentalist Christians. If you want to have a discussion please don't try and bullsh*t anybody here. Here's the definition of secular humanism from Wiki

Secular humanism became prominent in the 1970s and was coined to describe a branch of humanism strongly influenced by secularism that attempts to avoid the dogma encouraged by faith-based initiatives, such as traditional religion, through a conviction that dogmas and ideologies whether religious, political or social, must be analyzed and tested by each individual and not simply believed.

Is a fundamentalist Christian convinced of the "purity of his convictions?" Are not religious people convinced that they are right?

Of course, why do you ask? Oh I see...

When Pat Robertson prays for God to strike down Supreme Court Justices, is this not an example of "the ends justify the means?"

...you want to indict all of Christianity as nutjobs because of one incident you are taking completely out of context. Very intellectual.

So Geoff, do you see the difficulty here?

The above is mine; more loose sh*t ;)

For the record, I consider the Clinton administration eight years of some good policy, but quite a few missed opportunities.

Clinton could have done something about Social Security, but he didn't. He could have reformed Medicare, but he didn't. He had the personal charm and political skills to get bills through a Republican Congress, but spent more time building up and maintaining political capital than actually spending it.

"did the right willfully and gracefully accept the majority's opinion and votes for Bill Clinton in the '90s?"
Good lord, no. Does anybody either want or expect the opposition to fold their tent? What a travesty that would be. You did not, however, hear prominent politicians use the vitriol on Clinton in anywhere near the volume and frequency that prominent politicos on the left use on Bush.

Clinton got a pass on most of his foreign policy, especially the Middle east, because the thought of most in that day was there was no good solution.

Clinton was attacked for his personal failings, just as Bush is getting now.

Consider Ruth Bader Ginsburg. How much greif did she get, as compared to John Roberts now. It is pretty clear that she was much more activist than Roberts, but there you go.

Consider Ruth Bader Ginsburg. How much greif did she get, as compared to John Roberts now. It is pretty clear that she was much more activist than Roberts, but there you go.

Excellent example. Here is the roll call vote on Ginsberg.

Yea - 96
Nea - 3
NV - 1

Lauraw

Monica voted Republican last time. She also said Clinton left a bad taste in her mouth.

"Most of the Founders of our country would have described themselves as secular humanists since their inspiration for our system came largely from the "Enlightenment."

I, also, must question this assertion. References please.

You might convincingly argue that they were Christians or perhaps Deists. But, secular humanists? That sounds like wishful thinking and revisionist history.

There are tons of links available to support the Christian or Deist argument. Please provide some material to support your secular humainst argument. You know, actual quotes and stuff from the founders...

If Clinton had wanted to do more than lob a tomahawk at empty sand to get Bin Laden he might have had some support.

Even brain dead republicans understood that OBL was running amok bombing US assets in Africa and that wasn't a good thing. Not that some probably didn't snigger to themselves when some of Clinton's foggy bottom aparatchicks crapped their pants, but allowing one's embassy to get blown up just looks bad.

Curiously, IMO if OBL had stuck to embassy bombings, I don't think the American public would have much cared. Half probably would have been cheering him on...

lauraw,
Your experiences in Hartford (CT, I assume?) mirrored mine pretty well. I lived in the Mark Twain appartments in the mid eighties, and it did more to get me leaning right than anything I was subjected to at "Husky High", then later at Storrs.

Tom M

How many Democrats are going to vote against Roberts out of pure partisan spite, do you think? I'm thinking close to 30.

Guys like Kerry and Kennedy won't care that Roberts is qualified. They just hate the president more than they care about the fact that it's their role to advise and consent, not oppose the president at every turn.

Brewfan:

I may be overly optimistic, but I was hoping for more careful thinkers than Bill has turned out to be. And certainly more open-minded. I think we can immediately discard anyone who regards C. Sheehan as the flower of unassailable motherhood.

Geoff,

There's always vonKreedon. He's a lefty but is willing to debate; with intelligence and without the vitriol. He hasn't been around for a few days though. Probably in Crawford painting Cindy's toenails :)

I think that some Sunni tribal leaders are realizing that if Zarqawi gets his way and starts an actual civil war, they're gonna be on the losing side. They were perfectly happy to watch Americans and Shiites die, of course, but now that it's their turn to be cannon fodder in Zarqawi's plan, they're having second thoughts.

Also, there really are a good number of secular-minded Sunnis who would just as soon live in a democracy and get along with their neighbors, all things considered. It's high time they started to play a role and take some responsibility for the future of their country.

How many Democrats are going to vote against Roberts out of pure partisan spite, do you think? I'm thinking close to 30.

The "moonbat factor" is running around 25-30% these days among the general public, so that sounds about right.

Geoff, I can't name any moderate Dems in Congress now that aren't openly vilified by the Dem core.

It looks for all the world like they've been purging themselves of anybody to the right of Castro over the last 20 years.

Remember, following their glorious losses in the 2002 midterm elections, their strategy was to pull further left.

For crying out loud, a large portion of their core constituency thinks the American flag is a symbol of oppression! When they see a flag decal on someone's car, they sneer.

When you want to rule a nation that you openly revile, is it any wonder the democratic process becomes a losing arena for you?

I don't think there's any reconciliation between us...because as you said, we are talking at each other from utterly irreconcilable ideologies.

And honestly, the Republican party has gained much moderate ground. You know. Neocons.
Pat Buchanan is as much a cipher to me as your average marxist.

Most of the Founders of our country would have described themselves as secular humanists since their inspiration for our system came largely from the "Enlightenment."

That is an idiotic statement. Too many examples to draw upon, but my first: The author of the First Amendment was Fisher Ames.

A Congregationalist minister.

The Left seems to have thrown any acknowledgement of their minority status out the window. They know what is right and they are damn well not going to sit around and let the majority of the country decide the country's path.

Good point.

Am I the only one who kinda misses being the oppressed minority? I mean, 20 or 30 years ago it was fun to be the reviled and ridiculed right-wing Neanderthals who raged against the liberal machine. I never thought I would live long enough to see a Republican Congress. Ah, the good old days.

The lefties seem not to be enjoying their minority status at all. Lighten up, guys. You can have a good time when you don't have all the responsibility of being the governing party.

When they see a flag decal on someone's car, they sneer.

The more strident moonbats will just vandalize the car...

...all in the name of tolerance, diversity, and inclusivness of course.

Brewfan: I agree with your assessment of vonKreedon, but I'm not looking for a debating foil, I'm looking at the larger picture of how we can ever come to a national reconciliation, or at least reduce the gulf, or the vitriol, or something.

LauraW: So the sense I'm getting is that the commentors here feel that meaningful discussions with the left are never going to be possible. That reduces the interplay in the blogosphere to a "gotcha" game, where each side jumps on the latest news or scandal and the other side responds defensively.

I would think that the repetitive sense of that scenario, played out over WMD, the plastic turkey, the flight suit, the AWOL story and the Rather memo, the Downing Street memos, the Ganning story (hah!), etc., would give bloggers a sense of futility. Only the story changes - the usual suspects say the usual things and we move on to the next story.

I find that a little depressing.

I find it more than a little depressing, Geoff. And not particularly healthy for our republic. A viable opposition is important. Otherwise, the ruling party gets stupid and mean, and/or the proles vote in the other side from time to time out of boredom and we get stuck with it.

It's pointless going to each other's hotbeds. Where I have found somewhat neutral ground, I've tried to go and debate politely. Even that has been a pretty useless exercise.

One of the best attempts at an arena was Left2Right, which launched last Winter. It started as a forum for lefty academics to try to get through to righties but, due to some unexpected publicity I-forget-where, they got some heavy conservative/libertarian traffic at the onset. There were several very interesting participants in the comments threads, and the owners were surprisingly willing to host a debate. The quality stayed high for as long as I followed it, but it eventually became more a series of isolated essays rather than a dialogue. Nobody be getting through to anybody.

Last I checked, they shut down comments for the Summer on account of blog-roaches or spams or something, and the main articles also slowed to a trickle.

Geoff,

I have long felt that the disintegration of political discourse is a serious problem: particuarly as we are in the midst of an ideological war that is likely to last generations. Indulging in spite about Florida (or, to be fair, Monica) is a luxury we cannot afford. If we cannot come to some sort of consensus on our ideology, how can we hope to persuade anyone else in the world?

I am willing to talk, calmly and rationally, about these issues. But with whom would I speak? With my co-workers, who believe that George W. Bush planned the 9/11 attacks, or at least permitted them to happen? With my brothers, who think Michael Moore is a serious political thinker? With my sister, who met her husband in a MoveOn.org chat room? With my senators, Dick Durbin and Barak Obama? With my representative, Rahm Emmanuel? With the editors of the Chicago Tribune, who in today's edition published five letters on Iraq, each a paen to Cindy Sheehan? With the editors of the New York Times or CBS News, who have reduced those once-proud institutions to the level of a political broadside? With the foam-flecked-lips leftists who haunt Kos and MoveOn and the rest of those concatenations of empty passion?

Give me a name, Geoff. Who on the left does not dismiss someone of my political persuasion our of hand? Who on the left does not regard me as deranged, stupid, duped, or evil because I happened to vote for George W. Bush? Who on the left wants to talk?

At least I live in Colorado, where the politics are more mixed.

At the risk of seeming trite, it seems like political debate in the blogosphere is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The blogosphere's utility is more as a rallying point for the faithful.

Guess I'll try to wean myself off the sites and move on. Thanks for the comments.

Thanks to all here who offered thoughtful responses to my questions earlier in the day. Yes, "secular huminist" is a '70s term. I only meant to say that their views were very much in line with what that term seems to mean today. I would guess that most of them would be Unitarians today if we don't allow for politics. Most were Deists and not even close to what we would call a Fundamentalist Christian. God is mentioned only twice in all of the Federalist Papers and, even then, is mentioned in a "God only knows" kind of way. There is no mention of God or Jesus in the Constitution. The Declaration makes a characteristic deist statement with "their creator." Most of the founders had a healthy distrust in organized religion but a faith that there was a God.

"I'm looking at the larger picture of how we can ever come to a national reconciliation, or at least reduce the gulf, or the vitriol, or something."

I'm of the opinion the sharp divide is because there are finally sources of information beyond the MSM. I was a teenager/young adult in the Vietnam era and there was NO place to turn for a conservative viewpoint. I may be wrong but I believe the college anti-war movement has gone nowhere because the radical left isn't the predominent source of information on the college campus anymore.

So, bottom line, I feel no need to compromise my principles to make some lefty feel better. If they want to have a discussion, good. We'll do that and both of us will learn something but that doesn't change the fact that there are good ideas and bad ideas and there is no value in giving up the good ones.

Brown Line, I've been a Democrat and a proud liberal all my life and I have many friends of all political persuasions, but I have never heard anyone voice the opinion that those who voted for Bush were evil or deranged. The reason some people make the argument that some who voted for Bush were duped is because of the PIPA study, which investigated a large amount of polling data and concluded that a majority of voters who cast their ballot for Bush in 2004 did so while believing things that were demonstratably not true. That doesn't mean they were stupid. To me, it means they were misinformed, which is much different. I don't think Americans are stupid.

Bill, you couldn't be more wrong and really need to read up on the subject a little. Here's a starting point for you

Geoff, I notice that you and many conservatives can rattle of a pretty large list of potential scandals which you seem to be saying haven't amounted to much of anything. At the same time, many of you still complain about a liberal bias in our media. Do any of you see a contradiction here. If there were liberal bias in our mass media, I would have thought that some of these things you can list would be blown up into full-blown scandals, with their own "gates" and media saturation. For example, if during the Clinton administration, FBI and Secret Service records had shown that a male prostitute visited the Whitehouse a number of times where there was no record of him checking out, I would think the mass media would have been interested enough to assign the story a "gate" and just pound on it. And, if the media didn't do this, I'm betting you would have thought this was another example of liberal media bias. So, with this in mind, how would a conservative who believes there is liberal bias explain why there is no interest in the Gannon case?

Bill,

You stated that:

God is mentioned only twice in all of the Federalist Papers and, even then, is mentioned in a "God only knows" kind of way. There is no mention of God or Jesus in the Constitution.

This is true enough, however these documents were meant for public consumption. If you read the personal writings (journals, correspondence) of the founders their Christian leanings become much more apparent. I am not implying they were all Christians, but a great many professed a devotion to the Christian faith in their personal correspondence.

Funny, my pappy always said don't discuss politics or religion in polite company. What does that say about the company I find here? :)

Honestly, Bill, you may not run into people in person who say such things, but if you haven't run across blisteringly rude caricatures of Bush voters online, you can't explore much.

Oh, and The Shadow, thank you for your earlier response. You asked about books regarding the Clinton administration with respect to what I was posting. I'm sure people will disagree with me here, but most current historians believe that, in the long run, the most historically accurate account will be "The Clinton Wars" by Sidney Blumenthal. He is biased for Clinton, but gives that side's account of the neverending attacks on Clinton in a very well-researched and accurate way. Also, "The Hunting of the President," by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason is a tremendous indictment of the big money men behind the sluring and their conspiracy to make life miserable for Clinton.

Bill,

Thanks for the recommendations. They are offically on my Amazon wishlist. (It's a long queue though)

Bill, when you say "Sid Blumenthal" most righties experience exactly the same reaction you would have to the words "Karl Rove." Notwithstanding "most current historians," we don't call him "Sid Vicious" for his excellent academic cred.

Ok. I'm done with Bill. When he starts with the "MSM doesn't have a liberal bias" meme, well that makes him a troll. Even the MSM doesn't argue this point (confer with the recent NYT article linked to elsewhere on this blog).

TheShadow, no offence intended on the religion thing. I was raised as a Christian and have nothing against Christians. The founders came from a different era, when suspicion of organized religion was born out of a response to intolerant theocracies of midieval Europe and our own experiences in Salem, Mass.

S.Weasel, I'm pretty sure you're right. This is the first time I've ever gone to one of these things - I noticed it through Salon's blog thing. So, if you say so, I'm sure you have more experience. I will say though that people in business noticed a long time ago that people were less civil communicating through email than they were in face-to-face meetings. That's probably part of it. People will rush to type things to somebody that they'd probably never say. And, I don't necessarily think it's because people are cowardly. It's just a different way of communicating. I've been here and there on this site for a few days off and on now, and I have already been called dirty names many, many times. I'm not taking it personally. They're just words.

Brewfan, you can dismiss any question you want, but the question is are you dismissing it because you have no response to the question or because you think the question is absurd. If you're so sure it's absurd, I ask again. What would the media have done if FBI and Secret Service records showed that there had been a male prostitute visiting the Clinton Whitehouse? Records show that a male prostitute working under an assumed name visited the Bush Whitehouse over 200 times. The records show that on over 50 of these occasions, there was no press conference called on that day. Records show that a number of times, this male prostitute didn't check out. Now, understand, on my list of problems I have with this administration, this one is way, way down there if it's on it at all. I'm just asking for an explanation on why a liberal biased media, intent on hurting Bush, would not jump on this.

when you say "Sid Blumenthal"most righties experience exactly the same reaction you would have to the words "Karl Rove."

Is that true? Cause, when I hear the name "Sid Blumenthal", I can actually taste vomit.

Bill,

No offense taken. I was not raised a Christian. I do however consider myself one now (Lutheran).

I think my initial agnostic upbringing may allow me to be more dispassionate about religion than some people. As such, I cannot in good conscience dismissively wave away a large body of evidence. I read their writings, and I feel many had a devotion to the Christian faith.

What exactly are you getting at, Bill? Poor old Dan Rather threw away his whole career running with clearly bogus documents that, if true, would merely have proved George Bush got treated better than the average guardsman because he came from an important family. But multiple unexplained visits to the White Hose of a gay male prostitute wasn't newsworthy?

Seriously, spell out what you THINK Gannon was all about. If we're going to understand each other, we've got to take baby steps together.

You gotta remember that faith without reason and reason without faith have lead to some very nasty world events. They compliment one another.

Many libs don't apprecaite this. Because their worldview presupposes that reason trumps faith, (and in fact that faith is bad) they feel that anyone who allows faith to have input n their lives is less than rational. You see it on their boards with terms like Jesus freaks, Kristian Konservative Kooks, Christers, etc. Since their opponents by definition are not rational, there is no reason to have a reasoned discourse, hence straight to vitriol.

Ironically, in not subscribing to a particular faith, their political beliefs become dogma, in effect making the political an article of faith.
Believers, already possesing a faith, tend to approach their politics a bit more dispassionately, and tend to seek reason and logic in their politics, in my experience anyway.

Its been my experience that a lib who is religious is easier to converse with than one who is not precisely because of this.

Bill,

Could you please provide proof of your assertion that Jeff Gannon is a male prostitute? Also, I'd like proof of these White House visits. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like some verfication so that we aren't assuming facts not in evidence.

Warden: Guckert was definitely listed on several escort service websites, under the handle Seargent Munchy Buns. Okay, I made up the Sgt Munchy Buns part. Certainly, he attended a bunch of pressers and briefings under the false name Gannon.

The rest is a puzzle.

Ok. Pretty good circumstantial evidence that the guy was a male prostitute here.

Proof of his White House visits here.

So, he was a biased right-wing reporter who advocated for the Bush administration through his stories and questions. Ok. No scandal yet, as this just makes him the right-wing version of most White House reporters.

Yes, it looks like he was into some unsavory stuff, possibly even prostitution. How that reflects poorly on the Bush White House is beyond me. Should all WH reporters have their backgrounds investigated for illegal activities? (We could start with drug use.)

The visits to the White House may or may not be suspicious. I'd like a comparison with other White House reporters.

When John Conyers and Louise Slaughter claimed something untoward was going on with Gannon's clearance, the Secret Service stated the following,

"Please be advised that our Office of Protective Operations has looked into this matter and has determined that there was no deviation from Secret Service standards and procedures as your letter suggests,"

So, let's not get bogged down with exactly what we know about Jeff Gannon and lose Bill's larger point. We know enough to speculate that someone who works in the White House might have been boinking a male prostitute, and yet the story was not really pursued. Bill asks a reasonable question -- if the MSM are all foaming-at-the-mouth Bush-haters, why did the story die so quickly?

I personally believe that the MSM has an obvious liberal bias. Dan Rather is living proof of that. But I also think Bill correctly points out that the bias may not be as pervasive or irrational as we sometimes want to believe.

Either that, Michael, or they looked into it, and there wasn't any there there. There're only so many non-stories you can run when you have to sell adspace to pay the rent.

I don't get the whole conspiracy theory regarding Gannon.

His birth name is not Gannon. So what? Really, so what. What does that prove?

Many people use pseudonyms, for various reasons. For example (From junkyardblog):

Any day now, [Chris] Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner -- aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews' former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze'ev Blitzer and Ze'ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is "TRB" of The New Republic.

Air America radio host and "Nanny" impersonator "Randi Rhodes" goes by a fake name, and she won't even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for "privacy reasons." That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses "to withhold anything from her listeners" and says conservatives "are less likely to share such things." How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh.

Is it simply sufficient to imply some misdeed without any basis in fact?

A Related Link

Not to beat a dead horse, but...I still don't understand the scandal surrounding Gannon:

1) pseudonym.
--- Nothing unusual.
2) gay 'prostitute' or escort.
--- Being a gay escort might be objectionable to some, illegal perhaps. But, allowing someone who used to be gay escort into the WH pressroom just doesn't strike me as scandalous or conspiratorial. For example, in the last election we had a porn star openly running for the CA. governorship. People snickered...but there was no call for a congressional hearing into how this was allowed to happen.

Really, I just don't get it.

The same goes for the manufactured "scandal" surrounding DeLay. What law, exactly, was broken? AND... if a law was indeed broken...how many Democrats broke the same law or procedure?

if the MSM are all foaming-at-the-mouth Bush-haters, why did the story die so quickly?

Should all WH reporters have their backgrounds investigated for illegal activities?

Moonbat Bill,

...which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

...WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

This document is NOT APPROVED for scholastic use by the ACLU.

"I've been a Democrat and a proud liberal all my life and I have many friends of all political persuasions, but I have never heard anyone voice the opinion that those who voted for Bush were evil or deranged."

Oh. You have not been paying attention.
We have been called neanderthals, ignorant rubes, misinformed farmers, war-mongering mouth-breathers, crusaders, Christer hicks, Guy-with-a-coon-tail-hanging-from-the rear-view-mirror-of his-primer-grey-Chevy-Suburban, racist brown-people-hating BASTARDS since forever.

I'm really surprised you haven't caught all that.

"...but I have never heard anyone voice the opinion that those who voted for Bush were evil or deranged."

Well then pay attention Bill. People might take you seriously.

At least you're polite.

Man, if Jeff Gannon was providing services to the white house and there was even the tiniest shred of evidence supporting it you can bet your bottom dollar Chris Matthews would be doing Hardball on location in the rose garden right outside the oval office.

Man, if Jeff Gannon was providing services to the white house and there was even the tiniest shred of evidence supporting it you can bet your bottom dollar Chris Matthews would be doing Hardball on location in the rose garden right outside the oval office.

Not if Gannon was "servicing" Matthews too...

...after all, politics aside - business IS business, and Gannon is a practical kinda guy.

While Shia and Sunni have been killing each other over the 5% of Islam they disagree with, they agree on 95%.

Wait on Monday, rumors are flying that Iraq's Constitution will organize the country as an Islamic state with Islam being the highest and final authority. But seek to finess the 5% area of disagreement.

Neocons thatassured Bush a secular Western democracy was coming will be wrong about yet another thing.

C, who asserted there could be a 'secular Western democracy' in Iraq?
Please provide a cite.

The people get to pick their constitution and government. That's democracy. The opportunity for freedom is all we ever asserted. You're wrong again cedarford, but keep commenting because it reminds us what happens here in this country if we're not faithful to the conservative cause. Allowing the things you stand for to become reality is the worst fate imaginable.

There are probably a few better examples of the point I'm tring to make than the one about the male prostitute's sleepovers at the Whitehouse. I only use it to provide stark contrast to the media's fascination with who stayed over and why during the Clinton administration. No more games on this issue for me. What I believe is that the mass media is a fully-owned subsidiary of a number of large, multi-national corporate conglomerates and that if you can find bias, it's there. There are numerous examples of parent corporations exerting pressure on television news, the latest being when ABC corporate executives axed an already completed on-screen interview with Robert Kennedy Jr. about the relationship between a pharmecutical product and autism. The piece was axed because of the pharmecutical ad revenue ABC was collecting. This was reported last month in Editor and Publisher. And, for the last ten years, these corporations have had important, revenue-enhancing legislation before congress. Republicans have been more amenable to deregulation, which has led to more short-term profits. This was the publicaly stated reason why the CEO of Viacom, a lifelong Democrat, supported Bush in the 2004 election. He said his first duty was to Viacom. The corporations which control mass media will help whomever gives them higher profits, and right now, republican policies do that in a way that I think is detrimental to the freedom of the press.

The thing I want Americans to think about is that we still do have a free press, but the question really is what gets discussed over and over again in a mass society. Stories come and go. The media decides what "has legs," not us. We don't tell them what to report. In 2003, the Washington Post reported that a Pentagon report showed that the Bush administration was offered at least three opportunities to kill Zarkawi (spelling?), who has become the most dangerous man in Iraq. The Pentagon report even stated that the reason the administration didn't allow them to attempt a kill was that killing Zarqawi would undercut their argument that there were terrorists in Iraq. This was the only one the Pentagon could find and he holed up in the North in Kurdish territory. So, for political reasons, the Bush administration didn't allow the killing of a man who went on to personally cut Americans' heads off on video. Why didn't this news story "have legs?" Why didn't it become a story Americans discussed, especially after Zarqawi began inflicting pain on Americans in Iraq? You tell me. My opinion is that the corporations who run mass media don't want to embarass a political party that is providing such a rich environment for increased profits.

For example, if during the Clinton administration, FBI and Secret Service records had shown that a male prostitute visited the Whitehouse a number of times where there was no record of him checking out, I would think the mass media would have been interested enough to assign the story a "gate" and just pound on it.

Much worse than was covered up/ignored during the Clinton administration.

The gross ineptness that led to some FBI laptop's with classified info on them disapearing leaps to mind.

The Clinton installation of an oval office phone line that bypassed the normal whitehouse switchboard (and its attendent call logging)

The list of genuine problems is almost endless...

An ordinary male prostitute scandal would have been a breath of fresh air by comparason.

Tony, let me get this straight. You think that a Republican Congress, a Republican RTC, Republican special prosecutors, a Republican dominated federal court, a republican head of the FBI and a press hungry for every manner of "gate" ignored or covered up some crime by Clinton??!! Sorry, but that's an amazing assertion. Almost everything you think was a scandal was a hoax. The Republican-run Resolution Trust Corp. found in 1994 that the Clintons had done absolutely nothing wrong with respect to Whitewater, and the New York Times and Washington Post buried this story. Kenneth Star himself threatened to charge Kathleen Willey with purgery and this story was buried. People still believe her testimony against Clinton.

I was talking about the press and the current administration. The story I mentioned showed that the Bush administration wouldn't allow the military to kill a terrorist before the Iraq invasion for political reasons. That terrorist has gone on to saw off the heads of American hostages... and you talk to me about laptops during the Clinton administration?? Please try to gain some perspective here.

Tony, let me get this straight. You think that a Republican Congress, a Republican RTC, Republican special prosecutors, a Republican dominated federal court, a republican head of the FBI and a press hungry for every manner of "gate" ignored or covered up some crime by Clinton??!!

"Crime"? I don't believe I ever used that word.

There are things politicians can do to a country that are far worse than what might be a prosecutable crime.

You would do well to read what people actually write rather than what you WISH they has written.