Anyone who has seen Outfoxed and listened to former CNN and MSNBC producers discuss the memos they’ve received knows that part of the “collectively self-reinforcing” actions by the media are a reaction to the success of Fox News; it may not be a conspiracy, but the top-down decisions are obvious and have been documented.

What’s interesting is that Rove (and the GOP generally) does not function well outside of “top-down” management of the message. As Frank Rich put it after Rove resigned:

The rise of YouTube certifies the passing of Mr. Rove's era, a cultural changing of the guard in the digital age. Mr. Rove made his name in direct-mail fund-raising and with fierce top-down message management. As the Internet erodes snail mail, so it upends direct mail. As YouTube threatens a politician's ability to rigidly control a message, so it threatens the Rove ethos that led Mr. Bush to campaign at "town hall" meetings attended only by hand-picked supporters.

It's no coincidence that this new culture is also threatening the Beltway journalistic establishment that celebrated Mr. Rove's invincibility well past its expiration date…

The Beltway establishment likes the “top-down” style because it assures their status. That’s why they don’t like these digital changes one bit – the message can no longer be controlled so effectively and the rabble (e.g. Glenn Greenwald) is receiving an ever-louder voice.

No doubt some of the elite view it as, gasp, a conspiracy!

…but I cannot help being endlessly amazed by the capacity of right-wing authoritarians so blatantly to hold and espouse completely contradictory thoughts at once without realizing they are doing it.

I don’t know whether Sowell realizes he’s doing this or not – maybe he does and just doesn’t care because it serves his “movement” and its attacks on the enemy.

I’m not disputing Altmeyer’s thesis (with which I agree), but just pointing out that in some cases the contradiction is so blatant, their position so untenable to their previous rhetoric, that they have to be conscious of it.

The Republican’s stance on the “filibuster” comes to mind. When they were in the majority they demanded an “up or down” vote and were so upset by the “obstructionist” rights of the minority that they almost eliminated the filibuster completely.

Yet, without a moment’s hesitation, the second they became the minority they began filibustering and preventing up or down votes. Doing exactly what just weeks before they proclaimed with certainty was “unconstitutional.”

This is one case, and I’m sure there are others, where they realize they are holding contradictory positions, but just don’t give a damn, since it now serves their purpose.

If I’m not mistaken, Glenn will have something to say about this article soon:

“We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court,” Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004.

It's a bit long, but there's lots in there about Jesus and his disiples - particularly Addington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html

Yoo was a “godsend” to a White House nervous about war-crimes prosecutions, Goldsmith writes in his book, because his opinions reassured the White House that no official who relied on them could be prosecuted after the fact.

This demonstrates that they knew full well that what they were doing were war crimes. They weren’t bothered by that, they were only concerned with not being prosecuted for them – making sure they had “legal” cover to commit such crimes.

While Goldsmith did reject some policies he wanted to give other policies (expanding presidential power) a firm legal foundation, Addington just wanted to hide what they were doing.

Goldsmith has been gone a long time, and so have Comey, Ashcroft and others who attempted to thwart the policies Cheney wanted to hide – which is very troubling.

Because of that, the part of this article that I’m sure about is the conclusion that Addington’s efforts to expand presidential power ultimately weakened it.

Is that really the case, or is it too soon to tell? Did they really overplay “a winning hand” or are we still just one bomb away from everything Addington and Cheney want?

Goldsmith says that this entire controversy (in Ashcroft’s hospital room) was unnecessary because “the program” at least partially was eventually returned to the FISA Court.

This would seem to indicate that at least part of “the program” is still not under FISA supervision. This is what Congress needs to ask him: what part isn’t under FISA’s jurisdiction?

Goldsmith was sure that the government was going to “meltdown” because no one anticipated that the administration would back down, but they did. We still don’t know what, exactly, the administration backed down on. That’s quite a secret.

Is the administration actually capable of keeping this “secret” from the public indefinitely? Comey, Ashcroft, Goldmith, Mueller and others know it, but won’t say a word about it.

I know Bush is invoking “executive privilege” but it also seems that it is a “secret” so awful that no one will even think about leaking it. When someone such as Goldsmith (who dismisses “civil liberties” in a rather cavalier manner) is so appalled that even he had to resign, I’m at a lost to imagine just what Cheney and Addington were up to.

How long can they realistically keep this secret?