Is track, on a night by night basis, the content and topics of Hume's GRAPEVINE segment on his evening report.

And the intentional, relentless bias is impossible to deny.

is that there aren't any "great conservatives voices" at all, let alone on NPR. If you weren't so narrow-minded and partisan, you would understand that very simple fact. Your leading light, Bill Kristol once scolded liberals for warning that Shiites and Sunnis wouldn't get along very well after the invasion. He called it "pop-psychology." He's an idiot.

Lastly, regarding Juan Williams vs. Britt Hume. Hume is widely respected on the right, not the left. Williams is respected on neither side.

Sure, Heffalump Goosestepper, fuxxsnoosze, Sunday or any other day, is just a fair and balanced fascist front. Shit Broom is the perfect hostess, now that Tony Blowjob has moved on to the fuxxsnooze annex, also known as the Whore House press room. Your talking points are pointless. Stay downwind, please.

"Still waiting for a list of the names of the great conservative voices at NPR"

Still waiting to hear a great conservative voice. I mean a living one. Recordings of dead conservatives do not count.

In all honesty, elephantman--this is not a gotcha question--who do you feel is a great conservative voice, today. I'd really like to know.

The Claremont Institute ( http://claremont.org ) promotes and subsidizes neocon bloggers and other neocon commentators. See, for instance, the "About Us" page ( http://www.powerlineblog.com/aboutus.php ) at the "Power Line" blog.

The Claremont Institute hosts two annual awards dinners, a "Churchill Dinner" in Los Angeles, and a "Constitution Day Dinner" in Washington, D.C.

At these dinners, recent honorees have included Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, Larry Kudlow, Bill Bennett, and Rush Limbaugh.

It should be clear that the business and purpose of the Claremont Institute is the evangelical promotion of neocon beliefs.

There's nothing unethical or immoral about being a player on Claremont Institute's team, but lets be clear about it: their team roster doesn't have a position for a fair and balanced journalist.

In 2003, the Claremont Institute's Constitution Day Dinner honored Brit Hume, who was awarded the Claremont Institute's annual "Salvatori Prize". I don't know whether Brit Hume, as keynote speaker that night, invoiced the Claremont Institute for his standard fee (reportedly about $40,000.00 per speech, plus expenses).

I was in error. It wasn't a Republican led congress which forced the end of the Somalia mission, it was still a Democratic congress.

However, as Glenn previously documented:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/republicans-and-congress-war-powers.html

Republicans were fully on board with the move.

Nonetheless, I apologize for the error.

is brit hume on fox "news"?

I won't pretend to try to assemble a "counter-NPR" for you all, as much as I might like to. But let me offer just a few simple ideas for our friends at NPR News.

Step One: A program for Laura Ingram that would follow, or precede, "Democracy Now."

Step Two: A third host for "On the Media" -- John Stossel.

Step Three: Upon the death or retirement of Daniel Schorr, name as his replacment Bernard Goldberg. Like Schorr, Goldberg had a solid career at CBS-TV News. Like Schorr, Goldberg has cut his ties with network news for that slightly 'outsider' perspective. Like Schorr (although abviously much younger), Goldberg is now an "elder statesman" among television news personalitites.

Face it; NPR's "News Analysts" fulfill the network's left-tilt mission. Cokie Roberts is the daughter of Democrats Hale and Lindy Boggs and the sister of super-lobbyist for the trial lawyers, Tommy Boggs. Juan Williams is the designated hitter for the left at Fox. Dan Schorr is slightly to the left of Julius Rosenberg.

Who else is there at NPR who hasn't declared open hostility toward the Bush Administration/

Glenn:

In your reply at 8:29:56, suggesting that I snipped at you when I said that the story is old and that "the rest of the world figured . . . out" Hume's agenda a few years back, you implied that there is no proof that the rest of the world had done any such thing--that it is the responsibility of any person claiming such a thing to back it up with the facts.

(In fact, you wrote: "Isn't so fun and esay to come and make assertions and not have to provide a single link or piece of proof for it?" I hope that I am not misunderstanding what you intended to say in that unedited sentence.)

Please go to your favorite search engine and enter these terms: "Brit Hume Fox" and then alternate "Media Matters," "FAIR," and "Counterspin" with any other lefty sites you can think of. You'll find that Media Matters has 170 entries, the first in Spring 2004, and that FAIR has been taking on Hume since at least 2001.

Try:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

or

http://www.therationalradical.com/dsep/1201/brit-hume.htm

Now, FAIR and the others are not exactly "everyone in the world," but then again I was speaking, as you know, hyperbolically.

Elephant man, thanks for your answer. Am I right in this? Are you saying that John Stossel, Laura Ingram, and Bernard Goldberg are, in your opinion, the great conservative voices of the current day?

Oooh, Julius Rosenberg. You McCarthyesque toady, both PBS and NPR have been cowed into centrist submission, their teeth pulled long ago, by the fascist congress. Bush tries to defund them every year, including this one. CBS stopped doing actual investigative journalism twenty years ago. What you want is reich wing pravda. You're almost there.

I only mention this to make it easier to google. Otherwise your points are correct. As far as I know, she is still under a gag order and cannot be interviewed by the press.

Brit Hume lives off his earlier reputation. Having cut his teeth as a good

investigative reporter for the Jack Anderson team, he moved to ABC with

this appraisal of how investigative reporting fits in television news.

"An investigative report requires that the viewer concentrate on what he's being told. It's usually complicated stuff, and sophisticated in the sense that it requires

judgments about what should and shouldn't be. But TV makes you lazy mentally.

It may be in the nature of the medium. We are not used to thinking while

watching TV -- so we won 't and don't."

(Source: TV Guide: The First 25 Years," Simon and Schuster, New York, 1978,

page 253)

Comment: Hume's attack on Murtha depends on mentally lazy viewers'

not knowing or thinking about the representative's motives. Murtha,

with knowledge based on deep-background briefings from military

officers, is heroic in his championing of the troops. In a sense, he is

an investigative reporter, presenting -- as Brit Hume might have put

it a generation ago -- "complicated stuff, and sophisticated in the

sense that it requires judgments about what should and shouldn't be."

Initially worried about TV watchers' intellectual limitations, Brit Hume

now takes advantage of them. It's good business for him and

for Fox, if unprincipled.

Jerry Elsea