I agree with ktwdawg. There's more to the story than the Repubs simply wearing down the media, though I find it hard to fully explain what's going on. I've read many commentators who trace the media's problems back to the 90's, but the same bullshit we see today goes back at least to the Reagan era. I first became radicalized watching the way the media miscovered the Iran-Contra scandal. All the same bullshit we see now was already in full flower in the mid-80's.

In the case of the Republicans during Clinton's presidency you have a real example of a Congress that was out of control with investigations and it actually did hurt them in the 1998 midterms.

But did anyone in the MSM in the 6 years between 1992 and 1998 ever suggest that the Republicans needed to quit their investigations? We've had about 3 months of Democratic oversight and they're already saying its too much. Did they ever say that in the first 6 years of Republican oversight?

Not that I recall. In fact I recall the Washington Post insisting on an independent counsel for Clinton at the same time they argued that they didn't think he had actually done anything.

So Democrats who the MSM thinks are innocent need to be investigated. But Republicans who look guilty as hell shouldn't be.

Fuck off media whores.

Hmmmmm.

Option 1: On the one hand we have the "risk" of alienating voters by doing what 71% of them say they want the Democrats to do.

Option 2: On the other hand we have the evident risk of allowing the country to continue its descent into rank authoritarian anti-democracy.

Gosh, you know, its a tough call but I think I'll go with Option 1.

On a side note. Whatever Daschle says, do the opposite. That boy is an iredeemable pussy.

Since the trail begins with Broder, you have not traced the spread of Republican talking points. What you have here is a case of tracing media whore talking points. Its easy to get them mixed up.

Does the fact that we occupy Iraq have any effect on these death squads? Did we intervene and put a stop to the killings? Were they less able to kill because of American patrols?

I don't really know the answers to these questions, although I suspect they are no, no, and no. If that is true, then I don't see how the argument that we can't leave Iraq or it will turn into a bloodbath holds up.

Conservatism has never really been much of an ideology. As a prominent conservative once said, it is more of an attitude than a consistent ideology, which befits conservatives' anti-rational, anti-intellectual beliefs. As a prominent liberal once said, conservatism is all about dressing up naked self-interest in a more appealing disguise.

What kind of broad, consistent ideology could completely reverse its most fundamental principles based on 10 or 20 years of changes in low level political circumstances? No real ideology could. But self-interested liars can easily turn on that dime.

However, I have to disagree with Glenn on one point. I don't think there ever was a real good-faith Goldwater/Reagan ideology in the first place. Historically, many conservatives were quite favorable toward the idea of enhancing national power. It was only since the 1950's when the government started fighting racism and poverty that they decided they liked limited government.

Its always been about the money and the power and pushing their irrational beliefs on everyone else.

Glenn makes some astute observations about journalists' need to suck up to the right wing. Its still inexcusable, however. All that access makes for a lot of largely insignificant detail about things that don't really matter.

Its far more important for readers to know that Bush is lying about his tax program, for example, than to have inside scoops on what his economic advisers had for lunch while they hammered that program out.

So Harris' explanation for why Drudge links to him so excessively is the obviously high quality of Politico's work and, I suppose, that Drudge is always attracted to quality. Yeah, right.

I have no particular beef against Harris, but I really have to wonder about him since he chose to coauthor a book with Mark Halperin who is on the record kissing right wing ass. Mike Allen's coverage at the Washington Post was frequently biased in favor of the right wing, starting with his very first stories on the beat.

I'd go hungry before I'd work with jerks like Halperin and Allen. Until proven otherwise, Harris is guilty by association in my mind.

"Someone linking to us does not represent an endorsement of Politico generally."

It doesn't necessarily mean that but it sure as hell might mean that. The Drudge Report is an extremely ideological web site. If they are linking to you at a suspiciously high rate, it has to be because they think your coverage serves their ideological purposes. There doesn't have to be any explicit coordination.

Its as simple as this. You hire right wing suck-ups like Halperin and Allen. Drudge knows that people like Halperin and Allen will kiss his ideological ass, so Drudge links to them.