To me, all politics is local and local is where I stand a chance of making an impact. For those who say there are so many corrupt politicians or that when a new legislator gets to Washington, they will get corrupted, I say, you make valid points. If I want to begin a process of getting my representative’s attention, I have better odds of doing that if I’m a player and supporter in the election process and if I help elect local politicians who hold my beliefs. I would like to see major system changes like publicly funded elections. To reach that extremely difficult goal, I have to use my same local approach.

Glenn believes that to get a politician’s attention under the current system, you hit them where it hurts, telling the truth about them and getting them defeated. The economic advantage of this approach is that when other politicians see it could happen to them, they pay attention.

---RMP

RMP, I do applaud your efforts and wish you the greatest success in what you're doing on a local level. I am currently in the early stages of trying to get my own radio talk show on one of the lesser AM stations here in town that has a progressive format (a rare thing, indeed!). And if I get such a gig, look out, baby!

But again, while I see the wisdom in going after "misguided" politicians, it would seem that it will take a very large chunk of whatever we raise to get that single defeat, if we can get it at all. My argument is that taking that same amount of money and justifiably attacking major media stars and entities will garner much MUCH more attention amongst the citizenry, generating tons of free publicity.

Let's say Brian Williams is the target for his dereliction of duty as it relates to the Military Analyst story. Can you imagine how much of the rest of the media will come flying to his defense? They would be drooling for the chance to carve up this group's arguments, giving us the chance to show even more people what they do and how they do it.

It just seems like, with a really good PR strategy and people who know how to use that PR, the attention generated and potential to have a beneficial effect would be exponentially greater than by focusing on only a few incumbent politicians.

Don't get me wrong, Glenn's idea is a really good one, and I haven't studied my own enough to know all of the implications. I'm just arguing 1) There may be significant benefits in taking a tack not before tried on a large-scale level, and 2) Such an effort may garner the attention of much more of the viewing/reading public, which could very well 3) lead to better reporting, more coverage of corruption, civil rights abuses, etc, and better policies, regulations, and leadership moving forward.

It just seems like so much of the reason why crimes by BushCo, and malfeasance by gov't agencies and corporations lays directly in the laps of the media lapdogs.

Just watch how the MSM gets all up in the grille of anyone and everyone having anything at all to do with the breaking John Edwards affair story. Can you even imagine what they could do if they were all over the Bruce Ivins/Anthrax story like that?

Come on! You are seeing the core of the rotten apple in action.

This is the EXACT kind of putrid reporting that causes me to time-and-again call on an all-out attack on the media for their complicity and outright support of government propaganda.

Here is a link to email Carrie Johnson and ask her why her reporting is so unbelievably incompetent:

http://tinyurl.com/5jy3fb

Please email her and express your opinion of her reporting. I'm including my email to her, which is far and away too kind given her utter dereliction of duty. (Not that it will change the way these "hardened" flatfoots choose to do their work, but a flood of critical emails might make her a little more hesitant to send such horseshit to her editor the next time.)

Ms. Johnson,

I'm writing to ask for your thoughts about some very disturbing (and legitimate) questions being raised by the media's (and yours in particular) lack of thoughtful investigation and reporting of the Bruce Ivins case.

Some very detailed analysis on this case is being done by Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and others, and it appears he is raising very important questions about the veracity of the case that you are not. I would like to understand why you, as a reporter on this case, are not asking these kinds of questions or following up on very apparent inconsistencies in this case.

It appears there is ample room for questioning the information that is being passed on to you by your sources, especially as it relates to the timeline/location of Ivins and the mailings of the Anthrax. I'm very skeptical about the FBI's case, their selective release of information, and their changing storyline. Yet you do not seem to be as interested in exploring these avenues? Can you help me understand why that is?

Here is an excerpt from Greenwald's post this morning regarding this case. The entire article can be found here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and respond.