Or, Blinky Van Susteren (remember her eyelifts?) still trying to verbally pummel someone into admitting that Michael Jackson killed Laci Peterson because she was going to expose Jon Benet Ramsey as being the love child of Ben & J.Lo who were both accepting hush money from Tuh-REE-suh Heinz Kerry so they wouldn't spill the beans about John Kerry's REALLY driving the car off the Chappaquiddick bridge 'cause Fat TeddyK was too busy in the back seat doin' the humphump with Marty-Lu King who was planning to have BobbyK killed for what he knew about JFK's not being dead but living in Great Falls Montana with Elvis who once dated RosemaryK (as good a reason as any for getting a lobotomy afterward) because her illegitimate step-grandaughter IS Blinky? ::whew::
Or, did you miss that show?
Yes. I only watch talk shows and avoid the news unless there is serious news coming down, like a war. Even then I understand that "the fog of war" affects the reports. Even Fox will go into a rhapsody over the rescue of Jessica Lynch - will become the Jessica Lynch network - while the actual news is that the military has passed the last apparently defensible position on the way to Baghdad. All networks did that.But anything but Fox, you'd think no military breifing of the press was ever honest, and you'd think that Baghdad Bob was just as good a source as an eyewitness report by Oliver North. Anything but Fox, and it's the military's fault if it succeeds in reaching the vicinity of the Palestine Hotel and, during a fight, ends up firing a shot into that hotel. Sad for the reporters killed. But then, how arrogant do you have to be to assume that the military will accept casualties to its own people just to protect your own sorry rear after they had warned you of the danger of staying in Baghdad?
Ultimately that's the point - journalists don't think of Republicans, policemen, or soldiers as being people. Let a Hillary Clinton speak of "a vast right-wing conspiracy" and journalism as a profession buys into the demonization of her oppositon without qualification. Socialists are in love with the idea of government and in contempt of society. They love the idea of secular power at the top of government and despise the frail humanity at the bottom of govenment.
Conservatives love society, the bottom of the pyramid where all the risk is taken and all the work is done, and are suspicious of government power and those at the peak of government. Socialists prattle about "society" but, critically, they actually conflate the word "society" with government in general and the President of the United States in particular. And, indeed, socialists prefer the United Nations as their ideal global god -feet of clay notwithstanding, and lack of any pretense of democracy notwithstanding.
Thus a George W. Bush who manifestly loves the troops as human beings is offensive to journalists. Offensive exactly for the human qualities which endear him to conservatives. It does not matter to socialists that in terms of policy George W. Bush is the second coming of John F. Kennedy; journalists loved Clinton precisely because he was a president who loved the president!
Socialists want a president who is contemptuous of those below him, just as they in their fantasy lives consider themselves to be above practical people, and will tolerate and celebrate them only to the extent that they (e.g., Warren Buffet) promote the anti-practical ideal of government as god. The Clinton Administration represented the ideal seperation of responsibility from authority - all the responsibility heaped on the people, all the authority concentrated within the White House. There is only way we-the-people can have divided government, and thus have some connection of responsibilty to authority in government. And that is to have a Republican president - because the fourth branch of government which sets the agenda of political discussion, journalism, is permanently socialist.