That prevailing, left-leaning media had the hardest time promoting/advancing their bias for Gore and Kerry. In spite of their liberal newspapers, universities, talk shows and churches--GWB triumphed as the right man to lead us into a depth of integrity unheard of in the realm of socialized, weak, America-haters.

To think what may have become if all the retired generals, corporate ads and Scarborough's were to be swept from the media stage--the liberals in the media would have their way with us all and the rape of minds would be complete.

That's as scary as anti-military veterans getting to speak out against the wars at every opportunity afforded them by CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.

I'm not confused; I'm flabbergasted.

If we could only clone Glenn just to have more thoughtful, well-rounded people acquainted with the spectrum of America's troubles. As usual this morning he did not disappoint.

What has become more apparent to me (moreso since the financial crisis and public disgust with plundering of the last of our revenue) is C-span's outright preference given to the conservative side.

I'll just give one example from this morning's Washington Journal--after Glenn finished his pointed observations on all the issues to which we here at UT Salon are familiar.

After he left there was a not uncommon period for open discussion and then the next scheduled guest, who was David Brooks (the audience had been reminded frequently about his upcoming appearance all morning by the moderator-Steve Scully).

Of all the familiar mods on WJ, he is my least favorite because of his slight bias right of center. Though he tries to hide his comfort with the conservative guests, he's not always successful.

I could go on about Mr. Scully's moderating, but that is for another discussion.

After D. Brooks favored the audience with his non-descriptive viewpoints, Mr. Scully informed the audience that after there was a short interlude Mr. Brooks had agreed to stay another half hour (something that C-span rarely announces that they do).

Immediately, I recalled the excellent analysis from Glenn on telecom immunity we just heard a few minutes earlier and how Comcast, Verizon, Viacom, Time Warner and the rest would be crying for his head or at least find a way to pull the broadcast cord on his indictment of their surveillance lawbreaking.

Well, we'll never know what conversations transpired after the too-rare appearance of Glenn (and other guests like him), those not afraid to address the hypocrisy and flagrant disregard of laws by lobbyists, Presidents, telecoms, CEO's and Congress in the production studio.

In this particular instance the counterbalance to the scathing beating that the usual suspects had to endure for thirty minutes was to allow Brooks who we were told was glad to stay and give his answer to the liberals.

I can imagine S. Scully saying to David Brooks--"Boy that Glenn Greenwald really called you out on the air--we'll give you the extra time to defend yourself or reply to his points".

There's something that doesn't smell right here and there's more than ample examples from years of viewing to make one less than confident that C-span, which is beholding to telecoms for the millions they receive, will accommodate the side that stays clear of criticizing them.

Notice how 99 out 100 times the left-leaning guests most usually are seated with the cheap, red, less stately, motel look background with the distracting milling around of persons smoking, drinking coffee and generally mollifying anything that's said by the person speaking. I've wondered when there are too opposing guests why the conservative guest gets the calm, serene, relaxed scene behind them. In the digital age of video chromatics any studio can create the background they want. This is not beyond the production crew's ability, so it must be intentional.

If I was a guest on the show with Newt Gingrich, I'd insist on siting in his seat and see if he'd take the bait.

"Ultimately, though, motives don't matter."--GG

Though I agree with the tenor of your "An emerging progressive consensus on Obama's executive power and secrecy abuses" and conclusions, but for one exception.

When one ponders why we are observing so many descents by Obama into the realm of Bush's lawless ways-- justified because "we are at war", the motive question must follow.

For example, I want to know why someone intelligent, with a constitutional law degree who promised changes and reforms back to some pre-9-11 status would trash those ideals so quickly into his historic first term.

Is the President coerced, intimidated, or compromised by agencies and forces who benefit from the GWOT and all its manifestations to date?

Though we here at UT saw troubling backpedalling on issues even before Obama was elected, is it logical to ignore or minimize what is motivating him to sell out what progressives thought was rudimentary to his character?

His continued secrecy and intent to hide behind dire circumstances (war trumps law) as a reason for abandoning the principles Glenn has enumerated are apparent and makes us all wonder what motivations are at work.

"The President would be opposing the corrective that is favored by prominent Senate Dems and once enjoyed the support of his Vice President and Secretary of State."--Glenn

Good supposition.

and

It's easier to oppose those nasty, abusive powers of a war-monger like Bush/Cheney when they have the Exectutive.

and

Relinquishing any former, cherished war-on-terror, supra illegal instruments would advantage the right-- when they will inevitably return to favor because Democrats are shown to be the spineless, opportunists that that they are since Nov. 06.