When a segment of the population has the chutzpah to set standards of what it perceives to be moral and proper conduct and life style for others, it's plenty wrong. When many of the most vocal and shrill spokespeople for that morality police habitually and cynically violate the same moral conduct they preach to others, it's absurdly wrong and hypocritical. We were supposed to be a nation of 'live and let live'. What we have now is one political party that is really a modern version of the Spanish inquisition. The Republicans want to control what individuals do in their bedroom, while many of them do it in public toilets. Conservatives who preach against gay rights are gay themselves. Conservatives who preach about family values and the sanctity of marriage engage in serial adultery. Predictably, child abuse, incest and divorce are higher in the red states than in the more progressive blue states. How did we allow those hypocritical sanctimonious fuck ups to obtain so much power?

Vitter and Sherwood were nailed for what Republicans used to categorize as natural practices, and so the Republican leadership didn't try to force Vitter out. But many of the Republican fallen are closet cases, repressed and desperate, battling Sodom by day in the halls of Congress, by night trolling for rough trade in Gomorrah. They gave the liberating Seventies a wide birth, hammered faggotry at a thousand prayer breakfasts, fought to protect Family Values. What does them down is usually some high-odds piece of risk-taking, sexually exciting until the moment the object of desire flashes his Police ID and the jig is up.

"That is a completely different matter from claiming that media executives have secret meetings where they dictate to reporters and editors what they should say, and then they go and say it. If there is evidence to support that claim, what is it?"

MSN employees like Borger are perfectly aware that their corporate executives are philosophically supportive of Republicans. This creates a certain mindset in which, if they want to survive and prosper in the MSN environment, and they do, since the financial and social rewards are far too great and seductive, they just can't be perceived as opponents of any Republican administration. Nor can they become the kind of "pests" that keep asking administration officials tough questions and refuse to accept evasive and untrue answers and explanations. If they did what they were supposed to do as journalists, they would have to look for a real job that would entail a dramatic reduction in their standard of living and an expulsion from the Beltway serious Club and that is precisely their worst nightmare. Chris Matthews knows very well that unless he criticizes the Democrats immediately after questioning the Iraq war, he would be out of a job.

Broder is a perfect example of how the MSN has lost it's way and stopped functioning as a government watchdog. His belief is that the Beltway, government and Beltway media alike, is an exclusive club with decorum and tradition. The most important thing is to maintain the decorum and no member of the club should ever make waves or question the integrity or intentions of other club members. To Broder, the club should accept into its ranks only true insiders-that's why he rejected the Clintons even before the 1993 inauguration. To him they were outsiders who didn't belong. Club members should get along and never attack each other, even when some commit crimes, like Bush/Cheney/Rove and their cronies obviously have, because the club and its selective membership is above everything else.

MSNBC clearly perceives the Keith Olberman segment as a comedy show. They would've pulled the plug on it today if wasn't for the high ratings-nobody said they don't like money. Generally, when you look across the MSM spectrum, you see a very clear trend of attacking the "Left" after any criticism, no matter how slight, of the "Right". Anything that can be perceived as anti-Bush is pretty soft and wimpy. The MSM has put Petraeuos on a pedestal and already portrays his September report as the final and absolute truth about the surge, regardless of his past very poor record of reporting war progress. You can see the bias very clearly.

Exactly. In the US, CNN is considered to be a moderate, slightly left of center network, but this is pure fantasy. CNN is extremely conformist and generally supportive of Bush. They may be more subtle and sophisticated about it than FOX, but in essence they support the war, oppose impeachment and go out of their way not to offend the conservatives. In other countries they are considered pretty right wing and pro-war, but in the US, because the MSM is so biased in Bush's favor, they are "moderates".

They know perfectly well that their corporate bosses are a 100 percent pro Bush and pro Republican. Even a Democratic voter like Brokow can never forget it. They all love their 6 and 7 figures paychecks. They know damn well what would happen to those paycheck if they don't do what is expected of them by the top brass. They don't need to be told anything anymore. They know what is expected of them and they obey.

I know a conservative who was an enthusiastic supporter for Clinton's impeachment. He went into a depression when the Senate didn't convict Clinton. I bumped into him recently and he was all upset about the talk of a Bush impeachment. This is what he had to say:'The president is elected by the voters and it's not up to the politicians to remove him. Impeachment of a president is a reversal of the voters choice. Impeachment is nothing but a coup.'