I think you're on to something here. In trying to understand the cognitive dissonance, it's been infuriating over the years to have just this discussion with Republican relatives of mine, who elevate this personal lie to a much greater level of offense than BushCo's "professional" lies.

But I've come to understand that it's been a necessary psychological defense for them. Clinton's personal lie fits into their dearly cherished meme of liberal hypocrisy and moral rot. It was validation and confirmation. BushCo's lies, on the other hand, threaten all the myths and constructs upon which their worldview rests. It's evidence that undermines them.

And so it becomes necessary to create a differentiation that allows them to avoid the re-evaluation of their worldview, because that is simply too disorienting. No matter how contorted, the reasoning reaffirms the consistency of the narrative.

Regarding Broder, and the pundit class in general, I've struggled mightily to develop a framework that explains their nonchalance, their casual dismissals, and ultimately their complicity. So many of the reasons we hear tossed out seem too easy.

It's not a very full theory, but it seems to me that in the wake of 30yrs of accusations regarding their "liberal bias," the aftermath of Nixon and Watergate, the Iran-Contra hearings, etc., that they have simply become frightened of the responsibility they carry, and in the face of the cynical and vengeful BushCo team, scared of the repercussions, personal and political. A generation of reporters and news execs have been browbeaten into submission, scared to face the gantlet and recriminations they would have to endure were they to do their jobs with the single-minded devotion required.

And so they, too, create a narrative that absolves and comforts them, which narrative requires categorizing the crimes they failed to investigate as "policy disputes." To face their role would be to acknowledge their professional failures and destroy their life's work. In other words, it's cowardice, and they've constructed a language of detachment and rationalization that distances them from the implications, and consequences, of their actions by rationalizing and minimizing the events they failed to investigate. They bought the fear, and are scared to face what's been revealed to them in BushCo, because they're scared of the consequences in terms of their own credibility and careers in light of the shit-storm that would inevitably follow. They don't want to be responsible.

And given that, it becomes impossible for them to fairly consider any so-called 'truth tellers', because taking them seriously would obviously expose their failings.

It's basically the same self-validating kind of rationalization that keeps Republicans from giving government a good-faith shot at succeeding. If government did live up to liberal ideals, and did consequently deliver, it would put the lie to their entire raison d'etre. And so the "liberal agenda" must never be given a fair chance, because it cannot be allowed to succeed.

And the truth must not be taken for what it is and embraced by the talking heads, because it would similarly demolish the preconditions upon which their credibility, their entire raison d'etre, rests.

As many have already noted, players in all sports do whatever they can to gain an advantage. Corked bats, spitballs, flopping, doping, pushing off, crackback blocks, cut blocks (while a lineman is engaged), what have you. Diving, lamentable as it is, is the same sort of thing. Watch the reaction of most NFL players when they get pushed or shoved after the play, looking to draw the ref's attention and a flag.

What's hard about refereeing soccer is that oftentimes serious fouls look innocuous, and rather innocuous contact can look serious. I grew up in England playing the game, and am often fooled watching on TV. I'll scream out "That was never a foul!" only to be proved wrong on replay many times more often than not.

Thus, there's an opportunity to gain an advantage. Personally, I'd like a board of players and coaches to review incidents after games and levy stiff fines to the obvious dives.

But if there's a real crime in big-time sports that renders the game unwatchable, it's the fouling at the end of basketball games, devolving the contest into a free-throw shooting war of attrition in which the entire game's reasonable outcome can be turned on its head. Can't win playing the game in the first 58 minutes? Put them on the line and pray they miss for the final two minutes. All those reach-in fouls, etc., are clearly intentional, and the ruling should be to give the fouled player his free throws and his team the ball back.

...say hi, ask them why they bother calling themselves Democrats and, most likely, Christians if they're going to have such a hard time concealing evidence to the contrary.

http://www.tndp.org/

These are the small, timid and terrified minds that ever stood in the way of America realizing its own dreams.