I should note for the record that I'm not a mind-reader, but I can't help but visualise the internal turmoil I imagine Kurtz and his ilk must go through when they see the phrase "Republican operative." Like the chamberlains in Hans Christian Andersen's tale, they know their job is to carry the invisible train with great dignity.

It's gotta sting, though...

GlennGreenwald:

Could someone identify any specific views that Keith Olbermann has that demonstrates he is a "liberal" in the sense that it's meant (i.e., in the left-wing Democratic Party sense, rather than the classical 18th Century sense Paul Rosenberg described earlier)? I'm not saying he has none, but I honestly don't know of any.

This is a serious stretch, but it doesn't seem to take much stretching to qualify as "liberal" these days, so...

Keith made fun of the fact that most of the Republican presidential candidates don't believe in evolution. Though he did not come out and state, "I believe in evolution," the implication was fairly obvious. It's in his Countdown blog. If you need a URL, just ping.

(It's painful beyond imagining to wonder whether belief in evolution now qualifies as a liberal view in our country...)

Glenn:

Valentinian

The questioner said nothing about the staff of thePolitico.com, but about its ownership.

Amazing, isn't it? In his defense, maybe he doesn't know about the Politico ownership piece I wrote, so I am going to send it to him and ask that he clarify what he said in response to that questioner.

But note--he is so conditioned by the rightwing focus on journalists, rather than owners and management, that he doesn't even notice what the actual question is.

The journalistically optimal response in such a situtation would be saying something like, "What do you know about the ownership? And where did you learn it?"

But you have to actually hear the question first, in order to realize it assumes evidence you're not familiar with.

Instead: "Aark! Aark!"

...a liberal enterprise--in the 18th Century/Enlightenment/free speech/consent of the governed sense of the term...

I.e., Conservatism would/could not have given us the American Revolution, nor our version of Democracy, but just more of King George (the earlier one).

Only a liberal mindset could have created the conditions for our form of government... the same one that neo-conservatives say Democrats and liberals love to hate.

Howard Kurtz: If John Harris, Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen and Roger Simon are longtime Republican operatives, somehow it's escaped my notice.

-- GlennGreenwald

I have to wonder if it also somehow escaped Howie's notice that he's married to a longtime Republican operative.

When Brit Hume played tennis with the Bushes during the time he was also the White House correspondent for a major network, was he wearing his "White House correspondent" hat or his "tennis player" hat?

And hat hat is Roger Ailes wearing right now?

Sounds like good ole GWB to me... given his complete refusal to consider the opinion of the 70%-plus of the American public who disagree with his war-- whether with its origins or its execution-- and who wish him to cease and desist.

paraphrasing...

You're either with us (read "me) or with the terrorists.

I'll stand my ground on the war even if only Laura and Barney are on my side. (Has anyone asked either Laura or Barney where they stand?)

and so forth...

Environmental damage. We've introduced numerous invasive species (such as the fire ant) that are wreaking havoc with our ecosystem. Corporate agriculture also tends toward crop monocultures, which result in bolstering diseases and harmful insects; indeed, the boll weevil epidemic of the 1910s caused one of the largest demographic changes in American history, bringing Blacks from the rural South to the urban North. Agribusiness corporations also use extremely destructive practices in order to grow their crops and end up forcing these practices on others, not to mention their rapacious "intellectual property" abuses in GMO crops. Imagine, being sued for having a hybrid strain growing because nature takes it course!

So please, consider the intent behind what may be properly referred to as social engineering, and avoid the knee-jerk libertarian aversion to collective actions which -- despite their potential for abuse -- are sometimes the only defense an individual has against the predations of those who have more power.

William T--

The trouble with libertarians is that they claim to an aversion to collective actions, but would not actual want to live in a state that is not organized in a collectivist fashion. You can't get capitalism without collectivism, and they really luvs their capitalisms.

The only truly libertarian societies are usufruct societies, where there is no collective determining and enforcing property ownership rules. Once you introduce real property, you've introduced a very large and intrusive government.

Glenn:

(3) Claiming that Hume wears an "anchor" hat sometimes and a "commentator" hat other times does not distinguish his situation from Olbermann's. That is exactly the argument MSNBC is making about Olbermann:

Olbermann knows to leave his opinions at home when he anchors events, said Phil Griffin, NBC News senior vice president.

Keith's an adult," Griffin said. "He can tell when it's appropriate to express himself in a commentary and when to be a journalist. That's one of his strengths. He knows exactly the tone and his role when he's doing anything."

You were under the impression that you were rebutting MSNBC's argument to defend and distinguish Hume, but you were actually mimicking it. You're confused about what the issues are about which you're commenting and you think you're supporting an argument which is actually the opposite of the one you're making.

BTW, this is precisely what Rush Limbaugh failed to do, when he tried invading Olbermann's home turf of sports commentary.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/02/limbaugh/

Conservatives almost always have a problem with being role-appropriate. They just don't get it. And why should they? They are right, and it's their job to tell us that, in no uncertain terms. Everything else is secondary.

They also assume that everyone else is just like them, which is why they think it's enough to prove "liberal bias" in the media just to point out that working journalists (thought not their bosses!) are predominantly Democrats, or that they say things off the air, or in opinion venues, that show a liberal attitude toward things.

What they just can't get through their heads is that journalism has standards, and that if you adhere to those standards, then there are constraints on bias. Ideally, truth is one of those constraints. When folks lie, you don't give them a free pass. That's part of the journalists' job. Not the Versailles "journalists" of course. But the real ones.

And that's because journalism is fundamentally a liberal enterprise--in the 18th Century/Enlightenment/free speech/consent of the governed sense of the term. It is liberalism in this broad historical sense that has become the core defining public value structure of the West. It has roots in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as the Bible, but it is also something historically unique, which at the same time has enormous universal appeal, precisely because it allows for a wide range of latitude at the personal level, which makes it compatible with diverse cultural traditions as they transition into modern industrial and post-modern post-industrial stages of development.

This is what fundamentalists of all stripes--from Bushies to bin Laden wannabes--absolutely cannot stand: a universalist outlook that transcends and relativizes their own. It's not enough that it lets them be, because they demand that others must conform to their vision--or else suffer the consequences. "Live and let live" is anathema to them.

This is why media issues cut to the very core--not just because media controls how we see the world day-to-day, but because they also reflect fundamental assumptions about the very core of who and what we are, both as individuals and as a culture.