Letters to the Editor
rollotomasi
Published Letters: 187
-
Bush/Cheney regard and tactics for Congress and establishment media are no different
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt defends the administration's mild, restrained secrecy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]zack astutely notes the parallels between Glenn’s pieces yesterday and today, the only major difference being the recipient of Bush/Cheney’s “rollback” policy, the goal of which is to render a particular group or body powerless and irrelevant as an effective enforcer of checks and balances.
Jay Rosen explained this in an article he wrote almost exactly two years ago, around the time Bush/Cheney, in the name of their front man Scott McClellan, was fending off accusations from the press that the administration had lied about Karl Rove’s involvement in the Valerie Plame case. One only needs to change the references to the “press”/”journalism”/”fourth estate” to “Congress”, in Rosen’s piece at
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/07/16/rll_back.html
to see what the administration’s attitude and policy has been and will be toward Congressional investigations and other actions:
This White House doesn’t settle for managing the news—what used to be called “feeding the beast”—because it has a larger aim: to roll back the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country, but also less of a wild card in fighting enemies of the state in the permanent war on terror …
Back ‘em up, starve ‘em down, and drive up their negatives: this policy toward the press has many strengths as a working piece of politics, and supporters of it abound within the Bush coalition. I believe the ultimate goal is to enhance executive power and maximize the president’s freedom of maneuver— not only in policy-making, and warfare, but on the terrain of fact itself …
Press rollback, the policy for which McClellan signed on, means not feeding but starving the beast, downgrading journalism where possible, and reducing its effectiveness as an interlocutor with the President. This goes for Bush theory, as well as Bush practice. The President and his advisors have declared invalid the “fourth estate” and watchdog press model. (See my earlier posts here and here on it.) They have moved on, and take it for granted that adversaries will not be as bold. {Emphasis added here.}
Hiatt’s disappointing editorial only illustrates the advanced degree to which the established media has surrendered to the extremist will of Bush/Cheney. The next month or two will likely tell whether Congress similarly surrenders. Although several commentors yesterday were confidant that the Democrats were exercising due deliberation and care in assembling the vast malfeasances Bush/Cheney has wrought, one finds a handy parallel in Congress’s current political standoffs the lack of a unified front that Rosen notes the administration easily exploited in “rolling back” the press. Although the Constitution provided many tools for Congress to assert its role as a check on the Executive branch, it must still fight through the politics and a party ranging from recalcitrant to lockstep in order to use them as intended. Another quote from Rosen applicable to Congress:
When “no unified front” meets “roll back the press” and the discipline of the Bush White House, it really is no contest.
As Bruce Fein noted in the inspiring roundtable discussion regarding impeachment on Bill Moyers that several commentors yesterday recommended, it’s going to take the bold leadership of legislators who put statesmanship and statecraft before politics and realize that this is not just about the “Bush/Cheney” regime; what is at stake is nothing less than Congress’s survival as a co-equal branch of government going forward.
-
If Gen. Petraeus can't handle the Glenn Greenwalds of the world, how is he going to handle the insurgents?
[Read the article: Further politicization of the U.S. military's public statements]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A pathetic line of reasoning, but it is fun to throw one of the right-wing's idiotic talking points back at them once in a while.
Gen. Petraeus fits the Bush/Cheney pattern of filling leadership positions inside and outside the military based first and foremost on sales and marketing talents and/or willingness to take one for the party, with qualifications, experience, previous successes and ethics being largely irrelevant.
-
Trying to help Bob Gordon's 20-25%'ers
[Read the article: Michelle Malkin's hate sites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What Glenn's post does is hold a mirror up to the right-wingers who are trying to hold others to a certain standard. Period. How else could he have made this point? If he did not provide examples of right-wing hatred, the 20-25%'ers would have demanded them.
It's one thing to be ignorant, we all have trouble connecting the dots at times. It's quite another to self-congratulate for that ignorance.