By definition, our Beltway establishment does not believe in the rule of law -- at least not for them. They are creating a completely segregated, two-track system where high Beltway officials and their corporate enablers arrogate unto themselves the power to decide when they can break the law. ~GG

When Glenn described this two-track system where our “high Beltway officials” decide who can break the law and who can’t, I couldn’t help but think of the article I’d just read about what Putin was doing in Russia:

“This is the first time in post-Soviet history when only the Kremlin decides who can participate and who can’t,” Mr. Ryzhkov said. “The Kremlin decides which party can exist and which party cannot. For the first time in post-Soviet history, a wide specter of political forces cannot participate in this election. I call it selection before election.”

Here in the US we now have an elite who decides who is subject to the law and who is not. Let’s call it “selection before prosecution”: where the bedrock principle that the “rule of law” should be applied equally is abandoned.

When this sort of power grab is being done by Putin it sets off all kinds of warnings about old Soviet system, and even Condi Rice warns about the “concentration of power” in the Kremlin.

But when it happens here in the US, those not embracing our new “concentration of power” and the new “selective” rule of law are dismissed as “soft on terrorism.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/world/europe/14russia.html?hp

This is why people who get their news primarily from Fox will inevitably be misled about most issues and, far more significantly, why reporters who recite GOP talking points on these issues equally mislead their own readers and viewers. ~GG

But isn’t this why people tune into Fox News? Don’t they want to be misled?

In my experience, people who watch Fox do so to reinforce their worldview. They tune in not to find out about an “issue” but to learn what the GOP talking points on that “issue” are. And, in those terms, Fox News delivers.

They wanted “proof” that getting warrants is dangerous and only helps the terrorists. Fox provides the narrative for their distorted world, and it doesn’t confuse them with reality or facts.

These fantasies are exactly what they want.

The job of Howard Kurtz as the "media critic" for The Washington Post and CNN is to shed light on how our media functions.

Well, no. That’s how Kurtz should view his job.

His job, as he views it, is to appear “moderate” and balanced while defending and promoting neo-con and Republican talking points – a “job” best done under the cover of “bi-partisanship.”

There is no equivalence here. Only one side completely makes stuff up. This is the distinction that Kurtz ignores, and by doing so, demonstrates his political loyalties.

Drudge, Limbaugh, Malkin and Fox News routinely make up “smears” out of absolutely nothing (like the recent “Nascar smear”) and Howard Kurtz response is to ignore them.

He only weighs in on a “smear” when he can find some sort of (false) equivalence and say, “see, the Democrats do the same thing.” It’s the journalistic equivalent of “Clinton did it too” – a rather reflexive support of the GOP under the cover of a Broderesque Bi-Partisan Beltway mentality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/new-republican-nascar-s_b_68320.html

The far right has a new term “neo-McGovernites” to describe the anti-war net roots of the Democratic Party, a term that is used as an insult.

McGovern wanted to end the Vietnam War, but Nixon promised to “win” - he promised “victory” just like Glenn Reynolds and Hugh Hewitt do today in Iraq.

Our pro-war “serious” journalists don’t want to remember that Nixon didn’t “win” the war at all and that his election just resulted in more Americans dying before Nixon finally withdrew under great popular pressure.

In short, McGovern was right, and Nixon was wrong.

Did we learn nothing from that mistake? The strong anti-war sentiment expressed in all polls (for a very long time now) is that yes, the public did in fact learn something, and they don’t want to repeat that mistake.

This popular sentiment has escaped our serious political journalists who only seem to remember that McGovern lost the election, and they can’t seem to believe that an “anti-war” position could ever possibly mean anything other than a loss at the polls. They are stuck in 1972.

McGovern was right in 1972 and if we’d listened to him, fewer Americans would have died. If that is the lesson Americans have really learned, then being a “neo-McGovernite” is high praise indeed.

Maybe the neo-Nixonites should worry about that.

Regarding item #3 the new CNN poll where about 70% of Americans oppose military action in Iran:

It looks like David Horowitz’s “Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week” has its work cut out for it.

Good thing Glenn is taking the week off. Poor David could use a break.