Seeing that cowardly, pulled-from-ass lie about Scott Ritter taking money from Saddam by "anonymous" (right-wingers are always as cowardly as they are ethically devoid) reminded me of that period of intense lying in late 2002-2003 when the media would run with any outrageous smear against Ritter because of what he was saying that exposed the bogus rationale for attacking and occupying Iraq.

The apex of outrageous garbage spewed by military "experts", and bought-and-sold ex-generals & ex-colonels on MSNBC and CNN (clowns that are today called upon for their “objective analysis” on Iran) regarding Ritter was when they created their sick pedophilia story about him. I remember getting a cold chill the morning that story broke. It was like living in a B movie where a lawless regime could so blatantly and pathetically try to discredit an opponent, and having the media diligently repeat it without question. That was one of the many clues I had early on that the war was being sold 100% on lies. While the media quickly shied away from that particular rightwing lie, I never heard them apologize for it... But apologizing for lying changed after 9/11.

A great post as always, Glenn!

One thing you didn't mention, when media figures like Matthews are showering Tony Perkins with praise for being a "great man" and a respectable advocate for "family values", they seem to intentionally overlook the fact that in 1996, while Perkins was running the campaign of longtime conservative Woodie Jenkins, the right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana, he paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. On another occasion, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South.

Along with marital infidelity, the "Family Values" coalition never seems to have a problem with racism among their pious members either.

Can I suggest something that I rarely (if ever) hear spoken about in the discussion of the rightwing spinning of reality? I may be wrong, but the rightwing narrative that dominates ALL of the national media seemed to have come to fruition almost singularly by the onslaught of FOX News - a network that set out to redefine the national discourse and spin reality in favor of rightwing ideology while smearing all the views they disagreed with (from science, to equal rights, to religion, to national interests,etc.). And ALL the other networks followed suit for fear of being labeled liberal (or because they agree with the righwing agenda).

That being the case, and it not showing any signs of ebbing, even after the clusterf*ck of Iraq and the Bush presidency, wouldn't it make enormous sense for the leftwing powers that be to initiate a NEW NEWS STATION to counter FOX? A 24 hour network that dispensed TRUTH, and exposed the outrageous lies that pass for "news" in the 21st century? The material is ripe (as Glenn aptly points out every day) to be coverd around the clock.

Programs that covered the news without a rightwing bias. Programs that skewered the lies (as Glenn, Jon Stewart, and Media Matters are doing so well). Programs that had experts (ie. people whose point of view has proved valid such as Scott Ritter, Wm Rivers Pitt, Robert Scheer, etc.) instead of the current status quo of "only the wrong need apply" of network broadcasting.

Supposedly, the left has "rich, liberal Hollywood" on it's side. It has uber-rich folks like George Soros. It has creative geniuses like Michael Moore whose films and TV work are ALL enormously popular. It has HUMOR (something the right is completely devoid of) to make the programming interesting.

While I agree with Glenn 100% on the horrible hypocrisy, and the endless holding up of congenitally wrong "experts" to discuss every issue, isn't it time to have at least ONE powerful, state-of-the-art, alternative to the correct this situation? If that's how the rightwing perverted the national discourse, shouldn't it be used in reverse to cleanup the mess they've created?

That being said, Glenn is doing an AMAZING job in shaking things up and challenging conventional wisdom!

Reece0 said: "Their foreign policy views aren't the only thing disqualifying them from being credible candidates. Dennis Kucinich is pretty far left"

Can you offer something more substantive than the tired and predictable, cardboard, stereotype, propaganda of the beltway crowd? What exactly is so "far left" about Kucinich? As with the "George-Soros-is-horrible" meme, I'd like to read something substantial to back up the accepted conventional media wisdom. Especially, when that "wisdom" comes with a self-serving agenda.

Everything in American consumerism, from what we eat to who we elect, is all done by packaging. The same media that took an Ivy league New England elitist who skated through life as a blue-blooded, alcoholic, draftdodging, drug addict was miraculously turned into a "rough n' tough, regular, good ole boy from Texas" that (they told Americans) "you'd want to have a drink with"!

Similarly, taking a man like Kucinich whose views are CLEARLY in the mainstream, and are shared by more Americans than EVER shared Bush's dark, self-serving, elitist entitlement views, is exactly how one becomes "pretty far left" among the champagne and caviar set in Washington. If Bush was EVER acceptable to Americans, and Kucinich was ever out of the mainstream, it has EVERYTHING to do with packaging and propaganda, and very little, if anything, to do with reality.