Posted on 07/13/2005 5:58:03 PM PDT by wagglebee
Michael Goodwin, writing in the New York Daily News today, perfectly describes the mainstream media in Washington today. They are an opposition party. They are not in any stretch of the imagination about fairness or anything else. He further theorizes that maybe the press is acting the way they are because the Democrats aren't, and so the press has to pick up the slack that the Democrats are leaving around by not being vociferous and demanding Rove resign. I don't know where he's getting this, but he is right about the fact that what we're witnessing here -- and as Howard Fineman has said -- is the mainstream press as an opposition party hectoring and hounding Scott McClellan, the president today. We got audio sound bites to back all this up. There's also another angle on this, folks. I want to get into it here in just a second after I do a setup of what's happened since we last spoke. There's an angle of this that needs to be broadcast or explained for the purposes of reminding everybody just why this is all a story in the first place. Many of you will remember it once I go down that road, but I'm going to have some shocking attitudes and opinions for you on all this, and so let's just get going where we are here. Let's take a look first at the Wall Street Journal editorial today in case you missed it: "Karl Rove, Whistle-Blower -- Democrats in most of the Beltway press corps baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife. On the contrary, we at the Journal would say the White House political guru deserves a prize, maybe the next iteration of the truth telling award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate intelligence committee exposed him as a fraud. For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real whistle-blower in this whole sorry pseudoscandal. He's the one who warned TIME Magazine's Matt Cooper..."
By the way, let me just tell you who Matt Cooper is married to just so we can connect all the dots here. Matt Cooper is married to Mandy Grunwald, and Mandy Grunwald is one of these high ranking Democratic Party operatives, and she currently is on Hillary's staff. So Matt Cooper married to Mandy. An incestuous bunch up there. By the way, I just want to tell you, none of this -- I mean it's frustrating. I'm not really worried about it. A popularity contest between the president and the press, or a popularity contest between Karl Rove and the press, the press is going to lose every time -- and this is also, by the way, Michael Goodwin's point, that no matter what the press does here, they're going to lose. They don't really have a chance. In fact, to interrupt the Journal editorial just to read his point there. "It's a war the media can't win and shouldn't wage," he says. "The intense grilling that White House reporters inflicted on Scott McClellan Monday was no ordinary give-and-take. It was a hostile hectoring that revealed much of the mainstream press for what it's become: the opposition party. Forget fairness or even a pretense of it. With one of its own locked up, Judith Miller of the New York Times, much of the Beltway gang has declared war on the White House. Reporters apparently decided Democrats are not up to the job. You can't really blame them. With Democrats reduced to Howard Dean's rants and Hillary Clinton's juvenile jab that President Bush looks like Alfred E. Newman, somebody has to offer a substantive alternative, and the press has volunteered. That they are basically liberals with press passes has been documented by virtually every study that measures reporters' political ID and issues positions. But bias is now slopped over into blatant opposition, a stance the media will regret.
"Instead of providing unvarnished facts obtained by aggressive but fair-minded reporting the media will be reduced to providing comfort food to ideological comrades. Already held in lower esteem by the public than lawyers and Congress, the press risks looking like a special interest group. Its claims to represent 'the American people,' as one McClellan inquisitor did, are easily ignored when it serves as an echo chamber for the anti-Bush. Indeed, as soon as Monday's bash-by-press session ended, Sen. John Kerry called on Rove to resign. If everybody resigned when Kerry demanded it, Washington would be empty." And he goes on, and I agree with that totally. You know, you get frustrated by this stuff, as I said yesterday, but I'm not afraid of the press. I'm not afraid they're going to win this, particularly in turning public opinion -- and that's of course where this program is concerned, is the minds and hearts of the American people. So they're fighting a losing battle here, and as I said yesterday: They're all involved. All these people on the left are in their last stand or second-to-last stand; they know they're desperate and this is illustrating it. Just as the Democrats in their frustration are showing us who they really are now after all these years, the same thing is happening to the press. They can no longer get away – the mainstream media – they can no longer get away with saying that they're just an objective nonpartisan group searching for the facts. It's clear what they've become, and as their respect in the public worsens, or lessens, their frustration mounts, and they become even more so what they are, and thereby further illustrating to everybody who they are and just continuing that cycle, which is a cycle downward. Now, back to the Wall Street Journal editorial.
"Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Karl Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Valerie Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. But it appears Rove didn't even know her name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists. On the no underlying crime point moreover no less than the New York Times..." This is the key part of the Journal editorial. "On the no underlying crime point moreover no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree that there hasn't been a crime committed here, so do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller out of jail." Now, this is something I didn't know. The Wall Street Journal editorial says that both the Washington Post and the New York Times joined in briefs, court papers, arguing that there is no underlying crime here. Now, if that's their position, if there's no underlying crime in all of this, how can they then say that Rove be said to have committed any offense as a matter of law? At least accordingly their own logic. There's no underlying crime when you're trying to protect your reporters but there is an underlying crime if you're trying to nail Rove? I think the New York Times is really far out, folks. Their editorial today is absurd. They're sticking their necks way out. They have walked the plank on this case on this whole story, and I think that's part of the frustration that comes from the fact that they're losing influence. There was just a poll taken the other day by some inside trade group of journalists, newspaper reporters, or readers, I don't know who it was, but the Times used to be the #1 most respected paper in the world. It's #6 now.
The Financial Times is #1. The Wall Street Journal is #2. The Times is losing circulation. They're losing advertising revenue. Their quarterly statements, business statements are not encouraging to investors. They're in trouble. Like so much of the left is in trouble -- and what are they doing? They're getting stubborn and obstinate and refusing to respond to what they must, and that is the public on whom they are dependent for their revenue. It's amazing. It's the news business. The mainstream news business continues to be the only business I know of where the customer is always wrong, without a doubt. Not only is the customer wrong, the customer is an idiot; the customer is a fool -- and this has been the attitude the mainstream press has had about you for years. It's just now becoming obvious to people. So now we have in these court papers we got the Washington Post, the New York Times, saying there's "no underlying crime" here when they're protecting their reporters. There is apparently a crime when they're trying to nail Rove, and now we have the outrageous hypocrisy of the New York Times obstructing an investigation that it demanded in the first place by keeping their reporter in jail -- and, by the way, another point about this. Everybody says, "Rush, Judith Miller, uh, said that the waiver that she got authorizing her to reveal her source was coerced." Hey, let me tell you something. Confidentiality is the prerogative of the source, not the reporter. If the source wants to give up his or her confidentiality, that's it. The reporter is then under no compulsion to keep the identity of the source secret. It's not the reporter's prerogative; it's the source's, and the source says, "I don't care. You've got a waiver. Go ahead."
But the New York Times will not let her or she will not do it herself, whichever is the case -- and I maintain, as I said yesterday -- there's something really embarrassing here that she's trying to hide and what I said yesterday has spawned a lot of speculation yesterday afternoon and last night on blogs. Who is she protecting? Does she even have a source? Did she do a Jayson Blair and make it up? Is she herself the source? Is she the source that's told everybody that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent? As we told you yesterday she wasn't even covert. There isn't any crime here. The law that applies will not apply in this case. She hadn't been a covert agent for nine years. That's really all you need to know about this. What it adds up to is that the press is just ecstatic. Look it, they've been trying to get DeLay and they're going to fail at getting DeLay. They tried to get me; they're going to fail trying to get me. They've tried to get Bush since 2000; they're going to fail trying to get Bush. Any time they have an opportunity they experience pure, unbridled happiness trying to lop somebody off -- and Rove has become the latest target. Rove is the guy -- and, of course, they've always wanted to get to Bush -- and that's why they've hated Ashcroft. They hated that had anything to do with George W. Bush because all roads lead back to Bush, and that's the road that Karl Rove happens to be on.
Now, I was driving into work today, I was listening to CNN on the radio, and I heard a new spin -- because these people can read, too, and it was Victor Kamber, I'm pretty sure. I couldn't see who it was, but his voice sounded like Victor Kamber. The new spin is that Rove lied to Bush and thus can't be trusted and thus should be fired. They're going to emphasize starting today the political aspects of this, not the legal, because I think they're all becoming aware that there really isn't anything legal to go on. They don't know what the special prosecutor has. They can't say Rove broke the law because it may not be the case but they can focus on the political aspect of this and if you've been watching the news, reading the news and watching the networks this morning you've noticed the shift, the change in direction: "Rove can't be trusted. Rove lied. Rove lied to the president! We can't have people lying to the president, this close to the president in the White House. He's gotta go." So that's the shift that has taken place. So they're getting off the tack they were on yesterday: "This is all illegal and Rove may be a criminal! He may be set up and he may be doing jail time." Now it's just, "He lied. He can't be trusted. The president can't trust him. Mr. President, when are you going to get rid of him?"
Here's where I see it. As of today, Karl Rove has not committed a crime but the New York Times has. The New York Times is obstructing a federal investigation that they demanded. Karl Rove is not. Karl Rove has testified three times to the grand jury. I don't know what in the world crime he's committed, and I think the libs have figured this out because they're now off on this new tack, "Well, he still can't be trusted. He lied to the president. He can't have somebody there who lies to him. He ought to go." But if there are obstructionists here, it is the New York Times. They have an editorial today that is just pathetic. I'm not even going to bother reading it to you. We'll post it or link to it on our website today. If you want to go take a gander at it, feel free. All I can tell you is it is a lie from top to bottom. You cannot read it and conclude that Rove was out to get anyone. You cannot read that e-mail that goes -- you know, Matt Cooper e-mail to his bosses, to conclude that Rove was out to get anybody. He was correcting Joseph Wilson's blatant lies, and so now we have the New York Times demanding this investigation and are the ones now obstructing it. It's the height of chutzpah, if you ask me, to write an utterly false editorial like this since it ran the false Wilson op-ed, then demanded this investigation. And now they blocked the investigation illegally, and today they lie about the facts relating to Rove and the law. So, you know, I think what the libs are hoping to do here is create such clutter and noise that no one will understand or see the truth so everyone will just conclude that Rove is a distraction and liability to the president's agenda, same people that wanted to derail his agenda.
In fact, there's a great story today on one of the wire services. In a month or so, next month Rove is scheduled to go into Maryland to do a fund-raiser for the lieutenant governor there, Michael Steele, who wants to become the senator. He's an African-American Republican -- and, of course, the Democrats are all saying, "You must cancel that fund-raiser. You can't go forward. With the trouble that Rove is in now, you must cancel that fund-raiser." Now, if the Democrats and if the libs are really confident of their position -- and if they really knew that they had Rove and Bush on the ropes and all this -- they would welcome Rove doing public appearances anywhere. Why? Because it would embarrass Bush. It would embarrass the president. They should be urging Rove to do these fund-raisers, they should be sending the limousine, the airplane to pick him up and make sure he gets to Michael Steele's fund-raiser down in Maryland. Because if Rove is such baggage, if Rove is such a noose around the president's neck, why not publicize him and give him free airtime on television and have all kinds of news stories and quote everything he says during a fund-raising speech. But, no, they're trying to get him canceled. They're trying to get it canceled because they are afraid of Rove. They are still desperately afraid of Rove and the very fact that they're on this tack now of getting rid of him is a testament to me of just how frightened of Karl Rove and George W. Bush these people are when you get right down to it.
As you can almost always count on, folks, this is not clear-cut true 100% of the time, but most of the time when you see people unhinged and acting hysterically at the root of it is fear. Fear and frustration, and I think that's what is motivating the libs and particularly the media today. But let me just tease this. Steele is going to run for the Senate. Steele is going to run for the Senate, and that's why Rove will be down there to do a fund-raiser for him -- and the libs are afraid to death he's going to come down and raise a lot of money for him. You know, in our pop culture today, this is going to make Karl Rove an even bigger celebrity than he already may be which is not much of one, speculated yesterday that most of the people in this country have probably never heard of him, in a name recognition survey wouldn't get very high. They're elevating, now. They're making Rove a big celebrity. They're making Rove a huge get, a huge draw. Send him out there on fund-raisers and he's going to draw in people who will contribute money that haven't, probably. Because the libs don't understand how much they are despised. The libs don't understand the press. They don't really understand just how much they are disrespected. And when they pick on somebody and when they put somebody in their crosshairs and they behave as they behaved against Karl Rove for the obvious purpose of destroying him, all they do is rally untold millions of people to support Karl Rove or whoever it is that they're trying to target. So especially when it's as unfair and as blatantly biased and un-objective as this is. All they're doing is creating millions of friends for Karl Rove. This is what they don't understand and they never will, because in the old days when they had their media monopoly, this is how they did destroy people and it worked then but they haven't realized yet or they're refusing to admit that this is the kind of stuff now that is causing them to ever so rapidly fade away.
People are always begging for a third party to emerge. Constitution, Libetarian, Green...
Folks, meet the Third Party! The MSM.
We knew this, though. They admitted they were good for about 15% in the last election. So, really, the Democrat support numbers only in the high '30's without them. Take away the fraud and they are looking at the lower end of the '30's.
Anyway, on a part I'm amused when I hear they fear Karl, Delay, Bush, Rush, Christians, the American people basically. Another part just shakes my head. I'm fine with them fearing us as it works from a strategic standpoint but I don't fear them and I don't fear anyone from our side. I fear certain ideas being given power by some individuals. No one person, though, is invincible. This is why I don't fear Hillary. She has no power that isn't given to her. She wasn't born with it, it can be stripped away in one night. 200 years from now she'll be lucky to be rate a paragraph in history books so why would I fear the woman?
Cooper, however, is her perfect match in every way.
Dead Wrong. MSM + Democratic Party = Democratic Party, now and always has been (well 45 years anyway). For MSM = Oppositon Party, they would have to swing to the Republican side when Democrats in control, which you know they didn't.
Sorry about that. I tried to find a small one. ;-)
Someone actually married this goat????? Wow! Must be great when they turn the lights out!
Dang! That's Mandy Grunwald???? I thought that was a picture of David Brenner!
Cooper is no prize either...the scary thing is that they have reproduced...
Why would they swing to Republicans if their views are not aligned? That makes no sense.
No. Wrong outlook. You need to look at how political parties are structured in Europe. One is a Liberal party. Another is a far left socialist party. Another one further left toward communism. They join together to create a blocking block. This is in effect what the MSM & the DEMs have done.
They work together because they have the same agenda. But the MSM does not take orders from the Dems. For instance, it is not the DEMS driving this particular story. It is the MSM. The Dems as part of the block of power are being dragged along for the ride, and because they have similiar interests to defeat this administration.
To me, the media as a true opposition party would include skepticism of the agenda of whichever political party was in power. That would be a legitimate function, but would require a diversity of input. I still say MSM+Democratic Party = Democratic Party.
I wondered today about another angle on her: did she see a possibility to nail the much-hated Rove and kept her mouth shut as a selfless sacrifice for the Left?
Given the new political spin the commies are putting on it as Rush indicated, I wouldn't be too surprised if she decided to come forward with the source's name soon.
Where have I heard this before ?? Hmmmmmm ... "The only thing that the US is doing in Iraq is just creating more terrorists"
Seems like the Dems and their MSM shills are doing the exact same thing here at home, re: with their attacks on anything and everything Bush (and/or Republican)
Can anyone out there get a screencap of evil Karl Rove (cue the wolf howl) from the AMERICAN DAD episode that aired a couple of weeks ago? I say we embrace his 'evil-ness' and start using it to our advantage!
BTW, the episode was hilarious!
And you don't think the Dems are sceptical of the Democrats? The fact they are making calls on some of the agenda and the Dems are being dragged along is proof they don't have confidence in the Democrats. They have lectured the Democrats about how to campaign against the Republicans, about what they are doing wrong.
They ARE a media outlet, you must realize this. In that sense they aren't going to go on the newscast at night and castigate the Dems they do Republicans. To do that they would have to abandon pretence of 'objectivity'. Their opposition is more subtle.
They have successfully pushed their own policies as well. Campaign Finance was the finest hour. You don't hear the Democrats or Republicans cheering that piece of legislation, so who got it through? The MSM. The Third Party brokered the deal and used their influence in the media to do it.
oh, I think the Democrats are cheering CFR. As Rove himself said, it enabled the Democrats to outspend the Republicans by $120 m last year. What it did was break the old shibboleth that more money=more votes and more votes = Democratic victory. The reason they're not talking about it is that they know it was a once in a lifetime windfall, because their 527's got out of the gate early and lapped the Republicans while they waited to see if the FEC was going to allow such an outrage, which they did. They just don't know what to try next.
Hence the hysteria. It is a pity that a newspaper with the history of the NY Times has fallen into the hands of paranoid schizophrenics, but it happens. These are people accustomed to creating their own reality and they figure they're in a position to create ours as well. That hasn't been true for a very long time now.
Hardly.
Article after article has been written with Democrats regreting the passage of CFR and I'll tell you why.
They no longer control the purse strings.
Instead of these interest groups having to beg them for money to buy votes, the Democrats have to incresingly cater to the 527's which they do not control. Hence, Moveon.org declaring they bought the Party.
The Democrats are not happy. The Republicans are not happy. McCain isn't even entirely happy since the 527's exist. Only the activists that now own the party because they control the purse, and the MSM, are happy.
When this whole Rove issue blows up in the face of the Democrats, it might help to undermine their (Democrats) efforts to block Bush's nomination to the Supreme court.
Isn't Moveon.org staffed by Democratic operatives from the top down, like Ickes, etc.? If they regret its passage, it's only because it didn't work although it appeared it had until about 7 PM election night when Rather, et al were putting Virginia in the Kerry column.
You said it all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.