Like others here who have made similar statements, I elected to join Salon because it provided something that was missing in the coverage of current events by the corporate-owned media. Having suffered repeated episodes of cognitive dissonance whenever I would read the latest "Our brilliant Commander In Chief swam across the Yangtse this morning, and just look at that package!" hagiographic hogwash that was prevalent among the networks, magazines and major newspapers, I was looking, nay, starving for a media site that would deliver news and opinions relatively untainted by Republican Party talking points. Salon, and its wonderful Internet community, Table Talk, provided that haven of sanity for a long time.

Table Talk remains a great place to discuss current events, but Salon itself has gone downhill. A case in point is this current article by Farhad Manjoo, which is something I'd expect to read over at National Review Online or Townhall.com. Manjoo is a known quantity at Salon, and his apparent biases on this particular issue make him more suited to, say, Fox News than Salon. Assigning him a high-profile piece with the objective of examining Robert Kennedy Jr.'s article in Rolling Stone, then, was an editorial mistake, and that mistake rests squarely on the shoulders of Salon's editor, Joan Walsh.

Will Walsh do the right thing here? How soon can we expect a well-researched article on this issue from a writer not named Farhad Manjoo? I for one don't expect to see it, just as I for one don't expect to see myself continuing to subscribe to a website that seems to be morphing into another hollow neocon-validating parody, yet another formerly liberal voice now echoing the latest Karl Rove-approved talking points. You may find your takers for such a product, Ms. Walsh, but don't ask me to continue to pay for it.

Was the 2004 election stolen? Farhad Manjoo says no, even though there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Is Farhad Manjoo a Republican Party hack masquerading as a journalist? I'd say, based on the evidence at Salon.com, that he may very well be. And I really wish Salon would stop hiring GOP hacks like Manjoo and, before him, Jake Tapper, and hire some journalists with real investigative skills, not the ability to rewrite Karl Rove's latest talking points.

These days with Republicans, the anomaly is when they're not openly whoring for the robber barons who greased their path. I mean, isn't "quid pro quo" the official Republican motto? And why would you think this crooked lawyer who got foisted into multiple judicial benches would behave ethically in the first place? If Hello Kitty Frist had any part in putting this guy up, you pretty much know he's someone the Right People can rely on when they need that fix to be in.

The only ones who are losers are those of us outside the gates to St. Reagan's shining gated community on the hill.

My problem with this piece is similar to what I've found in other pieces by writer Michelle Goldberg. Midway through the second page, Goldberg quotes Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general during Ronald Reagan's presidency. Fein is quoted (it is unclear if this is from an opinion piece in the not-leftist Washington Times or from an interview with Goldberg) thus:

Fein says Congress should probe Bush on whether he plans to keep "skating the edge" of federal law by trying to concentrate power in the executive branch. "That's the key. It's that probing that's essential to knowing whether we're dealing with somebody who's really a dangerous guy. If he maintains this disregard or contempt for the coordinate branches of government, it's that conception of an omnipotent presidency that makes the occupant a dangerous person. We just can't sacrifice our liberties for ourselves and our posterity by permitting someone who thinks the state is him, and nobody else, to continue in office."

Immediately, Goldberg follows with this statement:

In fact, though, that may be exactly what America is permitting Bush to do. "Politically, I see no possibility that impeachment will succeed," says Jonathan Entin, a professor of political science and law at Case Western Reserve University.

Goldberg continues with Entin opining on whether or not the Democratic minority can recruit enough Constitution-defending Republicans to the cause of impeachment (Entin doesn't think so).

How does ms. Goldberg know that Americans lack the political will to impeach George W. Bush? Does she have a crystal ball? Or is it that she buys into the mainstream media's conventional wisdom (which may or may not be rooted in fact) that it was OK to impeach President Clinton over lying about a consensual sex act, but it's not OK to impeach George W. Bush for crapping in the Constitution and behaving like some tinhorn despot in a banana republic? Which one is it?

Simply put, we're pretty early in the timeframe for how this is going to play out. My guess is that a core group of Constitution-loving Republicans understand that Bush is a threat to the survival of our republic, and will do the right thing by cooperating with Democrats in getting rid of this dictator-wannabe, along with the rest of his Constitution-shredding neocon team, and will replace them with someone a little more in keeping with American democratic tradition. Perhaps that's more a wish than a guess.

Anyway, whenever I see Michelle Goldberg's byline in Salon, I know I'm reading the work of someone who might be better off moving to a venue more consistent with her quality and style of journalism, like Fox News or National Review Online.