Don't let me break down your resistance, but ...

Over at Williams' blog there is an entry, some months back, acknowledging the death of Gen. William A. Downing ('The Wad', as he was sometimes known to us).

http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/19/278621.aspx

There is much here to further illustrate Williams' sense of himself, such as it is, as he attempts to conflate his character with Downing's by way of the 'experiences' they shared. It also illustrates why nobody at the outlets did their job w/r/t the 'military analysts'.

The sycophancy with which military officers (esp officers, because they are the educated alter-egos, the alleged leaders of brave men and strategists who win the crucial battles, and not NCOs or enlisted) are treated by the journos is in proportion to how vacuous and insubstantive the journos themselves are. It's plain when you see them meet in person: even in very mediocre officers, military bearing, command voice, the confidence that comes from command, are unmisteakeable. Whether it means anything ... it usually does not ... about their actual competence, their expertise in the areas they are supposed to comment on, is irrelevant.

In TV especially, a medium which selects and encourages a level of ADD as reporters, producers and everyone is always half-listening, reactive, thinking ahead to the next question, thinking about how it looks, how to make the source keep talking, how not to make them look bad and screw up your piece, the relative calm and centeredness of the officer, who has had to make decisions the journo cannot even fathom, it's bound to be unsettling.

The journos may have anticipated this in advance, when they read the bios, about what the officers may have done or where they'd been. The gulf between how the journos regard and market themselves, and their actual achievements, is a secret they can keep to themselves ... in imposter syndrome that might well inspire sympathy, in other circumstances ... except when they are confronted with the evidence, in the form of someone who is not the blow-dried empty suit they are. In the face of this, they project their fantasy image of themselves onto the military 'hero'. By sucking up, by making the general his buddy, he reassures himself that they are not so different, that they are of a kind, men among men, warriors who will make the hard calls, who will fight the good fights.

I see this dynamic play itself out not only with military officers, but with politicians who possess a certain demeanor. McCain is an obvious example. But he's not the only one who has cowed reporters by playing a kind of alpha-dog dominance game that works much like this one does. Its the mirror image of the right-wing war cheerleaders, the 'chairborne rangers' who imagine that it is they who are actually doing the fighting. They bask in reflected glory.

If only they understood that by simply doing the jobs we expect them to do, they would gain and deserve an even greater share of all that glory.

Thank you for including the link to the full Noonan WSJ article. It gives me quite a different sense than your article suggests.

I agree with you that the "what kind of patriot is Barack Obama" section is ridiculous. It's not even good writing, much less good thinking. Who cares, and how would we know, if Obama or McCain or Clinton dwells on the Wright brothers? And wasn't Obama raised by a woman from the very heart and center of our country? Why assume that she neglected to instill the proper patriotism in her son?

But sections one and three, in my mind, reflect a sympathy for all of us regular folks out here who do feel herded by the insane rules our government subjects us to, who do feel dispirited by the sense that we have no voice, who are sick of Wolf Blitzer mouthing the manufactured media line about the primaries. We'd rather hear about something that matters to us in the political process, and that's not to be had at Gate 14. I feel encouraged by the assurance of such a Republican as Noonan that even her fellow party members are "over" Bush. That's the best note to be found in her article.

So, all in all, thanks for your viewpoint, even I don't wholeheartedly agree with all of it. Cheers!

My cousin Vinny made $$$Millions$$$ out of his tiny, small, one bedroom Apt. with high-quality patriotic Flag Pins. You, too, can make $$$MIllions out of your tiny one bedrooom Apt. Send: $19.95 to Vinny, Del Ray Cal.

tutu in toto,

bah.

ps. That's right ya'all. I've found The Source.

Perhaps the world would be a whole lot better off if everyone had double-checked Dubya for flag pins in 2000.

The fact that he has lied the country into war, lied about torture, lied about pretty flipping much everything, would surely have been reflected in the lack of that dang little pin.

You won't get any argument from me on that. Let me repeat: the presence or absence of a flag pin is not the issue. As Peggy Noonan says, plenty of cynics wear flag pins, something Dubya does well.

No, if Obama had kept silent about it, I wouldn't give a fig. It's the fact that he felt the need to lecture us on what he's better than having to wear a flag pin is what sets so many teeth on edge. It fits perfectly into the whole San Francisco-bitter thing; it merely confirms the type of person Obama is.

When Glenn Greenwald dissects the Patriot Act and goes into great detail about the surveillance state and the erosion of Fourth Amendment rights is when he's at his best and when I cheer him on. But when he mindlessly attacks journalists and, face it, "common folk," is when he's at his whiniest worst. Frankly, who cares what Brian Williams says?

It reeks of resentment and childish pique.

Gate 14 Brigade

Sign me up, WT.

"Well, you're a liberal, so that makes sense that you'd bring THAT up. Next, we have the regular American point of view."

Y'know, this is a weird dynamic:

The Republicans want to establish the party line as normative... at the same time as they exclude any actual American's opinions from the definition of that norm.

After all, how many Republicans do you talk to that josh about their support of this or that "librul" policy... "after all it's good for me!" So even party loyalists are never entirely in the purest clique, but their excursions are excused because they at least "know better."

The "average American" in this propaganda construct is a bit like Achilles' finish line... always in sight, never reached!