Yeah, yeah, another quotation post. But what the hell, it's good. From Atrios:

When I first posted on the Lott story I figured it would completely die. Why? Because I figured the usual suspects would make the usual around of apologetic statements. They would argue that what Lott was praising was 'States' Rights' and that was a GOOD thing and it was wrong to read anything into it other than Lott's support for "limited federal government" and what was wrong with that and you're racist for saying otherwise so SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP YOU STUPID BIG GOVERNMENT RACIST JESSE JACKSON AL SHARPTON LOVING LIEBERAL!!! (Emphasis mine, because it needed to be emphasized. -Demos)

Which is what happened the last time Lott stepped into this particular minefield.

What I hope comes out of this is the recognition and understanding that when a politician in the south goes on about "states' rights" they are speaking in code that is well understood by a portion of the electorate -black and white. I don't mean that all supporters of federalism are objectively pro-segregation (Very big of me, no?), just that in certain contexts and from certain people the use of that phrase and related ones is nothing more than a big "FUCK YOU" to the black population. They get it. And, enough of the whites get it too.

In 1860 States' Rights was about maintaining the institution of slavery. In 1948 it meant this In the 50s it meant opposition to any form of desegregation. Moving into the 60s it meant opposition to the nasty federal government's pesky anti-discrimination laws and that horror of horrors, the Voting Rights Act.

Us liberals feel genuine outrage the William Rehnquist was a poll thug. We'd chalk it up to youthful indiscretion if he hadn't lied about it in confirmation hearings -- twice. We feel genuine outrage that a necessary stop in the Republican primary season is Bob Jones University - a slap in the face to minorities and ANY non-Protestants, particularly catholics. We feel outrage that the liberal media tut tuts it a bit every four years, but doesn't make a big deal out of it other than as 'strategery.' We feel genuine outrage that, as Bob Hebert reminds us, Reagan's first major campaign apperance was in Philadelphia, Mississippi,

which just happened to be the place where three civil rights workers — Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney — were murdered in 1964.

Reagan knew the code then too:

During that appearance, Mr. Reagan told his audience, "I believe in states' rights."
Enough said.

And, we feel outrage that this speaking in code is, to us, obvious. It's obvious to anyone who pays attention. It's obvious to african-american civil rights leaders who get smacked down every time they bring it up. I'm tired of such people being accused of some form of "reverse racism" for even daring to bring it up. I'm tired of liberals and democrats being accused of cynical exploitation of race. What could be a more cynical exploitation of race than a fake organization run out of Grover Norquist's office with Lou Sheldon, Gary Bauer, and Sean Hannity on its board? My God what an insult.

Race and racism are still huge issues in this country. The P.C. backlash and its accompanied white male victimology has turned the issue completely on its head in a farcical fashion, and for the most part this is the slant that the 'liberal media' takes on these issues. It's time to stop this bullshit.

I've been writing about this sort of thing for a while now, so none of this really surprises me any more than it did Atrios. I believed then, and believe now, that the entire reason why this got so much play was that the conservative/libertarian bloggers and writers who maintain the real power latched on to this because Atrios and Josh Marshall had their party (and movement) of choice down cold and they didn't want to be a party to it. There is no question here of them actually being racist; I don't believe it, Atrios doesn't believe it, and nobody believes it. The problem, as Brock put it so well in his book, is in the greatest strength: their loyalty to the movement. Defending Republicans, even those nasty-ass segregationist throwbacks, is important- they're important Republicans that win elections- by definition without them the country goes Democratic, and the hated anti-American Lieberal leftists get the reigns. Once Lott proved himself a liability, though, then they were free and clear to jettison the old bastard. So they denounced him, and between them and Krugman they got the media on board. After that, it was over. Lott's gone, party's stronger. How Leninist.

What'll this mean in the future? Well, first, it's probably going to be a temporary reprieve for the Republicans, because they can point at Lott and say "see? We don't accept racists in our ranks." They won't start hacking away at each other: the circular firing squad is a Democratic institution, not Republican. The right-leaning folks in blogdom will no doubt try to use it when they call their ideological opponents racist for some reason, although anybody trying to use it on Atrios would be a bloody moron, considering the events of the past week or so. Left leaning folks in blogdom will continue to butt their heads against the sides of the Echo Chamber, although Atrios and Josh Marshall at least has proven that you can get something to resonate through the walls if you pitch it juuuust right.

Most importantly, though, the "liberal media" idea has suffered a massive hit. This story honestly couldn't have come at a better time, considering the broadsides that people like Jim Cappozola, Scoobie Davis and dozens of others have landed on the idea of the "liberal" media over the last few weeks. It was already taking on water, and now there's little to be done but grab the lifeboats and hope a plane flies by. Trying to say "but the media did report on it" won't help, because it's pretty obvious by now that they weren't going to, and all that anybody needs to do is point out all the cases just like this one that the media has ignored, is ignoring, or will no doubt ignore in the future. This sets a precedent.

(Besides, there's no doubt that Krugman is going to hammer away at this one in the future. I wish the country had more columnists that have better things to do. It seems like they produce the best, most fearless work. "Gamma girls" and all that.)

Anyway, Kudos to Atrios for (as I said on his site) ruining the career of an evil old bastard. In a just world, there'd be ticker tape involved.

while I'm on this, digby:

I hate to trivialize this by getting into a silly blogging prize fight, but this steams me.

It was Atrios back on November 30 who, in a felicitous bit of timing, began talking about "American Renaissance" magazine and the neoconfederate movement before Trent even uttered his most recent racist swill. The issue was pooh-poohed by conservobloggers who said in comments that Atrios was flogging a straw man because the GOP had purged it's Klan members years ago and moved to the "center."

A lively discussion of the GOP's ties to racist organizations was underway on this site, and Atrios was writing some extremely thoughtful commentary on the strange notion that anti-war protestors can be condemned as unAmerican while secessionists are considered patriots when the Lott story broke the issue wide open. And Atrios had it first.

In the media, the Washington Post wrote the only newspaper story on it on Saturday until Howie Kurtz' column on Tuesday. And the first politician to criticize Lott's comments was Al Gore on Monday. (Sisiphus Shrugged has a great post about how Judy Botox on Inside Politics cut some of the toughest comments--- like "If he wants to be the Haider of American Politics I guess he can be "--- and showed them later in the week when the story had some heat.)

I don't think there was even one blogger, one op-ed writer, one politician or one pundit from the right who said a word about this until it was waved in their face by Atrios and Josh Marshall soon after that the Majority Leader was once again showing his ugly, but heartfelt, racist beliefs.

Now, they want to take credit for the controversy? Bullshit.

Jim Lehrer was clearly puzzled tonight as to why this story took so long to find it's way into the media. Nobody seemed to know. But, I do. It's because this is a political story about "character" that didn't originate from the Mighty Wurlitzer with tidy talking points for a platoon of paid talkers to spew en masse on radio and TV. The press no longer even looks for this stuff on its own. It simply waits for it to come to them.

The Mighty Casio doesn't have a big ampliflier, but over the course of a few days it did push the story enough to find it's way into the mainstream.

Not much more to say here. Except that digby left out the part where Glenn was calling Atrios racist. Merciful gesture, I would guess.

Edit: oops, my apologies to Atrios and Glenn (sort of). It was Max Sawicky that Glenn was calling racist. Although, to be fair, I'm pretty sure that a googling of the site would bring up examples of Glenn calling "the left" racist. Atrios being on "the left".

Edit again: Nevermind! Check this out:

Perhaps Krugman will take on the race-baiting that has marked recent Democratic politicking in his next column.

No citation, no quotation, and I can't find any other links on the page about this supposed race baiting. Looks like we have a winner!

Credit where Credit is due:

what's remarkable in the Lott affair is how much he has gotten away with over the years. How many readers ever heard about the flap, several years ago, over Mr. Lott's association with the racist Council of Conservative Citizens? The scandal was actually worse than his remarks last week — but it just got buried. And without the indefatigable efforts of Mr. Marshall and a few other Internet writers, Mr. Lott's recent celebration of segregation would probably have been buried as well.

I still wonder at what prevents people from mentioning the world "Atrios" (a paranoid fear of anonymous bloggers?) but at least the whole "conservatives broke it while liberals ignored it" thing is nipped in the bud. And it's pretty clear to anybody in the know exactly who "a few other Internet writers" refers to.

While I'm on goofy Glenn stuff:

But regardless of whether members of the anti-war movement subjectively support Saddam (many of them, as David Corn has reported, are more accurately described as anti-American than pro-Saddam, but there are plenty of thoughtful folks like Henley who don't fit that mold) the fact is that their opposition to the war is a key element in his strategy. That doesn't make it necessarily wrong, of course: what's best for Saddam could conceivably also be what's best for America, though that's not much of a slogan. I'd take the misreport of Charlie Wilson's statement about General Motors over that one any day.

But when your movement is the key tool of a nasty dictator, well, it should give you pause, shouldn't it? Jim Henley's response is that he regards war as sufficiently undesirable that "the fate of some tinpot tyrant on the other side of the globe" doesn't matter to him. That's fine, and it's a reasonable argument even if it's one that I disagree with. But don't pretend that such an approach isn't, in fact, beneficial to Saddam, and that while it may not matter to you, it does matter to him and he's basing his strategy on it. What moral obligations flow from that fact -- and I think there are some -- is perhaps another topic, but don't deny the fact itself. Personally, it's not Saddam's fate that concerns me, but ours. I just think that Saddam's fate has a lot to do with our own.

Now, spin doctoring aside, Glenn isn't moving away from his core assertion: those who are against the war are Saddam's tools and are aiding his evil regime. Which remains ridiculous: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic is part of the reason why the United States ended up in this mess in the first place, even reversed into "the friend of my enemy is my enemy". The only way that Glenn's statement is even remotely accurate is if fighting the war turns out to be objectively good and if not fighting the war is objectively bad; otherwise we could be hurting Saddam, helping ourselves, helping the Iraqis, both, neither, or whatever. To claim "we're helping him" is meaningless, because we can't even determine what "helping" is. That begs the bloody question that we're arguing over in the first place! (He does imply that he recognizes that, but then proceeds to ignore it and minimize it with that silly bit about GM. As I said, spin.)

On the other hand, it ain't much surprise when you can also see this:

Here are the not-so-reasonable ones. Hesiod emailed me that by supporting war on Iraq I was "objectively pro-Al Qaeda, pro-Arab," etc. This is just dumb. People who oppose war on Iraq want to cover themselves by setting up a false dichotomy: war on Al Qaeda or war on Iraq. But, since there's no reason that one conflicts with the other, that won't wash. Indeed, I think it's more likely that the two reinforce each other.

Other than the reality of scarce resources and the negative effects of invading Iraq in terms of Al Qaeda membership and support(which are inescapable in the short term, even if the benefits of invasion outweigh them in the long term), this is just silly, because it really is the same argument upside down. The question is the benefit or harm of an action, and Glenn claiming that there is no harm to the invasion because of diverted resources or unintended consequences begs it as much as his implicit claim that invasion is a good thing or that not invading (and using some other solution, like containment) is a bad thing.

"To be against the war is to support Saddam" This, in a nutshell, is McCarthyism reborn. With better spin.

(I won't get into the odd assertion that "What's more, the 'antiwar movement' that they've relied on has been pretty much the same people, using the same slogans, regardless of the actual circumstances involved", tempting as it is.)

Edit: Hesiod collects a bunch of reactions, including a great one from Calpundit:

"Back in the 50s Mom had to sign one of those McCarthy-inspired loyalty oaths before she was trusted to teach our impressionable youths, and I spent my entire childhood growing up in Orange County, ground zero for the John Birch Society. My elementary school principal regularly warned us all about the evils of communists, atheists, socialists and their ilk, and he included in his warnings anyone who was merely insufficiently vigilant against their depradations.

So we know all about over-the-top patriotism here as Casa CalPundit, and it's not a pretty sight. You've had one chance to make the obvious apology — "I was just talking about fringe elements of the antiwar folks" — but instead chose to reaffirm what you said. Care to try again?"

Or, in other words, "why do those anti-war protesters hate America and love Communism/Islamism/Liberalism so much?"

Edit Again: GREAT bit on that "objectively pro-whatever" posted in Hesiod's comments section by "Randy Paul":

The phrase originated in the poisonous political climate of the 1930s as pure Marxist jargon, meant to lend an air of authority to the 'scientific' pronouncements of orthodox Stalinists. In a world of only two possibilities, see, anybody not 100% on Stalin's side with regard to every conceivable issue was 'objectively' on Hitler's, hence a traitor. It was by such logic that the 1938 Moscow 'show trials' so unforgettably satirized in Orwell's 'Animal Farm' proceeded.

Yeesh, I'm definitely not up on my Marxism- I had forgotten about that aspect of "objective" entirely. "If you're not with us, you're against us" is pretty damned Bolshevik, isn't it?

Glenn trots out another guy who swears ForRealThisTime that there is a credible link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And that Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster.

Ok, not the last one.

Now, other than the fact that this guy doesn't seem to understand exactly why Islamists wouldn't be overly impressed with Saddam Hussein (he claims that "islamic rhetoric" shows that Hussein is somehow Islamic, and places scare quotes around the word "secular" without advancing any real reason why we shouldn't think that Ba'athists are different than Islamists), and the problem that all of his sources for this bombshell are anonymous ("a very senior CIA man", according to this writer), and other than the problem of bringing up Prague yet again when every time it comes up it keeps getting knocked down (and in this case supporting it with a mere bald assertion that "the czechs remained convinced that Atta did meet Al-Ani"), and aside from the fact that these things are probably wide open to interpretation and that we should have no reason to believe somebody whose desire to get Saddam practically jumps off the page, and aside from the problem of trying to connect a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq back in 1992 with any culpability at all for the WTCs(a road down which the Bush administration does NOT want to travel, I'm sure), and other than mistaking these old connections for a casus belli that Iraq has violated the new resolutions, which is, of course, the issue at hand right now, not the old ones...

...this whole thing brings up the same old problem that it always has:

If Bush had it, he'd use it. If the CIA had anything even remotely of the sort, they'd be forced to tell Bush or their jobs would be instantly toast once he found out. They have no legitimate reason not to bring it out, either; despite all his implications, the author never gives a good reason why they'd bother, and it probably won't affect the possibility of Bush getting his war anyway. (Even if the CIA were categorically against it, something that barely passes the laugh test.) All he gives us is the fear that people will think that they've screwed up. Erm, newsflash: that's already happened.

Look, if this evidence exists, then bring it out into the open. For real, not with these half-assed quotations of shadowy sources saying ambiguous things. Take it to the Bush admin, if necessary; I'm sure that Cheney wants to find a connection so bad he can taste it. Until then, this is getting really old.

Dunno if I like this conclusion, but Atrios' quote of Stanley Crouch does show the reinforcement of a meme whose time has apparently come:

The "he," of course, is Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). In late 1998 and early 1999, when I was writing column after column about him and calling for his resignation because of his connection to the Council of Conservative Citizens, there was no response from the media at large, with the noble exceptions of Frank Rich and Bob Herbert, both of The New York Times.

That proved to me that all the talk about a liberal media bias was bunk - at least when it comes to race.

What's rather funny is that it was at least in part conservative/libertarian bloggers who popularized this thing... and they're absolutely adamant in saying that the media is indeed liberal.

(Oh, and in case anybody brings it up, this isn't to say that the echo chamber has all of a sudden crumpled and that the network effects of ideas online have suddenly ceased to be. Liberservative webloggers may be a lot of things, but racist ain't usually one of them. Probably why they got so pissed off about this whole thing: must suck being reminded of that unsavoury element of your chosen party/social movement. Kinda like that Chomsky name-baiting that the left gets so often, except lots worse.)

An email from Mike Huben requested my take on the media and Trent Lott. It's been an interesting affair, so I'll reproduce my reply here:

Three words, Mike:

Cover
Your
Ass.

They probably weren't going to cover this story and just let it slide, but a few people were dogged about it, especially online.

I actually think that blogosphere politics had a hand in this one, although not in the way you'd think. The right side of the blogosphere has been making a lot of noise about how fairminded and forward-thinking they are, especially compared to the humorless and racist and sexist and P.C. left. (Nonsense, but bear with me.) Thing is, in this case, if they had let this go or tried to explain it away when people like Atrios were all over it like the proverbial cheap suit, there is absolutely no way that they could ever claim the moral high ground. So they jumped on it. (To be fair, most aren't that fond of racism anyway; neo-cons are more libertarian than that.)

Once the bloggers got on it, the dual-identity types got on it. (NRO, for example: Jonah Goldberg, among others, bridges the divide between blogging and mainstream media quite well.) After that, and the embarrassment of that Howie piece on WashPo.com, the mainstream media saw what was coming and jumped on board. Now, of course, Republicans are all over it, and so is the media. They don't want to be the guy who was stuck defending or ignoring Lott.

In all honesty, I'm tempted to pull a Glenn here and say "Advantage: Blogosphere!" I would, except I'm still ticked that Atrios never got any credit for his work on the story, even though that ballot bit was gold.

Ah well, at least it puts aside that whole "blogging is meaningless" meme. For a little while.

Anybody else amused that Safire didn't like the term New Economic Policy because it was a name "with baggage", and then said that "space on today's tablet is limited to nine commandments?"

Guess it depends on whose baggage we're talking about.

(You know, the NEP term might be more accurate than Safire is willing to admit. The Republicans have been awfully good at staying on message and keeping in line recently, Lott aside. They're almost, well, Leninist. Pretty successful with it, too; maybe ol' Vladimir had a point, even if that socialism thing never worked out.)

From the same Krugman column, a far more important paragraph I hadn't quite realized was so a few minutes ago:

And yes, there are political implications. In the midterm elections, Democratic candidates carefully avoided doing anything to mobilize the black vote, fearing that this would just encourage turnout by rural whites. But the rural whites turned out anyway, while blacks didn't. In Louisiana, black turnout — the result of a determined get-out-the-vote operation, perhaps helped by Mr. Lott's remarks — was the key to Ms. Landrieu's unexpected victory. Might I suggest that this tells us something?

YES. Yes, I think it does. Word to the wise: the demographic trends favoring the Democrats in the coming years won't help if they don't get out the minority vote. It might lose them white, rural, conservative voters, but Krugman is right... they were lost anyway, and the dirty little secret is that Democrats might not really need them.

If I were leading the Dems, I'd be getting real loud about this. Not just to the faithful, but to minorities. If they get the idea that they can make a real difference, and propel a candidate to office that will respect their interests, the Democrats would be significant players all over the map. The Republicans learned this long ago with the evangelical christians; perhaps its time for the Democrats to learn as well.

Atrios quoting Krugman on the Lott affair:

It's unlikely that Mr. Lott will be forced to explain himself. The "liberal media," which went into a frenzy over political statements at Paul Wellstone's funeral, have largely ignored this story. To take the most spectacular demonstration of priorities, last week CNN's "Inside Politics" found time to cover Matt Drudge's unconfirmed (and untrue) allegations about the price of John Kerry's haircuts. "Just two days after moving closer to a presidential race, John Kerry already is in denial mode," intoned the host. But when the program interviewed Mr. Lott the day after the Thurmond event, his apparent nostalgia for segregation never came up.

From here, though, Mr. Lott's retroactive endorsement of a frankly racist campaign seems more important than Mr. Kerry's hair. The question is, who will make something of it? Not the media, apparently — but maybe it's time for the Democrats to make an issue of Mr. Lott's views.

Ok, it's official; the "liberal media? Nonsense" meme is now out there in the wild, and is likely to become a part of the left-liberal zeitgeist. Writing a column it is one thing; having it be a background point for other articles is quite another, and Paul Krugman is a meme vector of uncommon virulence nowadays. (Y'know, best columnist of the year and all. Speaking of which, anybody else noticed how good a job the Krugman-bashers online aren't doing of affecting his credibility? "Advantage:blogosphere" my proverbial aunt fanny, although "Advantage: Media Horse" might be somewhat more appropriate.)

Oddly enough, this change in the perception of the media is all because, (it would appear), of an interview with Al Gore in the New York Observer. Kinda like that "um, aren't we already in a war?" bit that turned the punditry upside down during the election.

Gotta say one thing: for better or worse, the man is listened to. Good thing he uses his powers for good instead of evil.

Atrios on the liberal media:

The media is not liberal, and therefore the failure of the liberal media to address Lott's comments is not proof that liberals are racists, but rather proof that the liberal media is actually not liberal at all.

A few bloggers pontificating is, as usual, not evidence of anything other than a few bloggers pontificating. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that conservatives care about this more than liberals. While I appreciate the fact that many Righty bloggers have condemned what Lott has said, so of course have all lefty bloggers. No Republican politician has condemned what Lott said as far as I know, while a number of Democratic ones have. Once again, because you haven't heard it is not proof that Democrats don't care, but rather proof that the liberal media isn't bothering to report what they are saying. I've only seen one conservative non-blogger pundit, William Kristol, give a tepid condemnation to what Lott said while he has been defended by Bill Safire and Robert Novak (twice). Every liberal pundit that has been given the opportunity has. And, no, Stephanopolous, Russert, and Matthews do not count, because they, like the rest of the media, are not liberal and in fact to the extent that they *are* liberal they are not, contrary to popular belief, liberal when it comes to minority issues. Coverage of these issues is usually either utterly ignorant or of the "backlash" variety.

The fact that there isn't more buzz about Trent Lott's comments should make all of this clear.

Just in case that wasn't clear enough:

THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS A MYTH.

Period.

Atrios notes that "With Landrieu winning, the Chafee/McCain double-switch fantasy enters the realm of (unlikely) possibility."

Well, first, I'm glad that Ms. Landrieu won; playing the Louisiana rules to try to eke out a win in the runoff by fielding tons of candidates may have been legal, but I'm still not overly fond of it.

Second, if that double-switch happens, a lot of people are no doubt going to be whining and crying about it. Honestly, it's just not that surprising; moderates on both sides are squeezed together due to the burgeoning polarity of the political elites in the United States, and switches like this may become commonplace. Indeed, if party discipline is truly on the rise (and by all accounts, it is) then this makes sense as well. It's a way for moderates or cross-partisans (leftist Republicans and rightist Democrats) to gain notoriety and power within an environment where they aren't going to be powerful in any case, and where (like in the case of Jim Jeffords) they stand the chance of being frozen out almost entirely. It's also a way for senators to leverage the length of their terms; in the house it'd be rougher, as it might provide an "in" by which a challenger could take your seat.

What the real question is is whether the United States will start seeing party discipline on the level of, say, a parliamentary system. It's quite possible, actually, as the individualistic nature of the system gives way to this sort of ideological polarization.

Krugman Weighs In:

This week Al Gore said the obvious. "The media is kind of weird these days on politics," he told The New York Observer, "and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party."

The reaction from most journalists in the "liberal media" was embarrassed silence. I don't quite understand why, but there are some things that you're not supposed to say, precisely because they're so clearly true....

...The "fairness doctrine" forced broadcast media to give comparable representation to opposing points of view. Restrictions on ownership maintained a diversity of voices. And there was a general expectation that major news outlets would stay above the fray, distinguishing clearly between opinion and news reporting. The system didn't always work, but it did set some limits.

Over the past 15 years, however, much of that system has been dismantled. The fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987. Restrictions on ownership have been steadily loosened, and it seems likely that next year the Federal Communications Commission will abolish many of the restrictions that remain — quite possibly even allowing major networks to buy each other. And the informal rule against blatantly partisan reporting has also gone away — at least as long as you are partisan in the right direction. There's more, of course, but that's the jist of it.

You know, it kind of makes me wonder. Gore has that supposed low popularity rating, and everybody in the Echo Chamber (a term he uses!) is quick to dismiss him... yet when he says something, it inevitably becomes pretty damned mainstream pretty quick.

Personally, I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of Gore support by political position and demographic; that 15% might start ratcheting up pretty quickly. Of course, it doesn't pay to tick off the media; as Atrios ably pointed out, however, you're probably screwed thanks to the "fair" left and the partisan right no matter what you do.

In a bit of heartening news, it looks like the (somewhat) mainstream left is finally starting to wake up and hearken to the Echo Chamber. Case in point, Signorile:

As you read this, the conservative punditocracy is likely in overdrive, ridiculing Al Gore for telling it straight about the media in an interview in The New York Observer last week. "The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," Gore said. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh–there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media."

It is conservative pundits’ stock-in-trade to nip such criticism in the bud, pronto–lest the debate shift to them, rather than staying focused on their powerful creation and whipping post, "the liberal media." They and their apologists throw out words like "delusional" and "desperate," maintaining a stranglehold on the discussion until they bludgeon the critic back into silent submission. Oftentimes liberals stand by during one of these clubbings, like scared chickens watching one of their own being dragged off to the slaughterhouse (and, cannibalistically, some join in, hoping to score some points with the slaughterers). Witness how quickly and effortlessly poor, wimpy Tom Daschle was plucked and thrown onto the barbecue after daring to criticize Rush Limbaugh two weeks ago.

Jeez, let’s not let that happen this time around. Even if you think Gore is a lousy candidate it’s hard to disagree with his critique, which he expresses with a lot more clarity–and balls–than most of those in the corporate-owned, supposedly "liberal media" do. (That fact alone should dispel the myth of the "liberal media")...

...True to form, Limbaugh was hooting and howling last week, professing shock that anyone could believe Gore’s claims that the conservative media has such power–yes, the same Rush Limbaugh who spouts Republican Party mantras on nearly 600 radio stations, was a commentator on NBC news on election night and was canonized recently by The Washington Post’s influential Howard Kurtz as a mainstream pundit, though Limbaugh still has the same far-right positions and tactics he’s always had. Actually, Kurtz’s recent defense of Limbaugh (claiming that Limbaugh is "policy-oriented") is a primary example of what Gore is talking about in his Observer interview. The conservative media’s pundits, positions, nonstories and half-truths are often legitimized without critique by producers, editors and reporters in the rest of the media. Why? A lot of these people are conservatives themselves and are quietly pushing an agenda, despite the pap about everyone in the media being a "librul." Others are hungry for ratings and circulation, and seem to believe that being "competitive" means sucking up. Still others appear to easily and pathetically succumb to the right’s charges that they’re suppressing stories because of their alleged liberal bias. This is Gore’s money quote:

"Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others. And then they’ll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they’ll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they’ve pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these R.N.C. talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist."

Gore also points to how, "especially in the cable-TV market, it has become good economics once again to go back to a party-oriented approach to attract a hard-core following that appreciates the predictability of a right-wing point of view, but then to make aggressive and constant efforts to deny that’s what they’re doing in order to avoid offending the broader audience that mass advertisers want."

Ok, that was a good portion of the article, but 'twas a good one. What I'm wondering is where this increased use of the term "echo chamber" stems from. Even Gore is saying it. Is it just a case of great minds thinking alike, or does, say, Atrios have a higher class of readership than previous thought?

Ok, I've got a request.

I'm thinking about changing the subheader for the page from "A liberal response etc. etc. etc." to something else. Suggestions?

(Note: wiseass EC bloggers need not apply. Unless the suggestion is really good.)

While I'm quoting Atrios posters, here's a good bit by "nameless":

I spent some time in the nutty groves of academe (an English department), and I cannot imagine anyone there seriously endorsing radical Islam or believing that America is an evil nation.

The prevailing style seems to be icy skepticism towards everything. To have such beliefs about terrorists or the U.S, would actually require them to take a position, which they are very reluctant to do.

I think that this reflexive skepticism (or distrust) of lefty academics exploited and/or confused as anti-Americanism.

I know that there are some kooks in academia, but their numbers are greatly exaggerated. In my experience, most of the "radical" professors hold relatively uncontroversial opinions in their nonprofessional life. As for their professional lives, holding "controversial" views is a way of distinguishing themselves and advancing their careers. I agree that they are more yuppie than commie.

Considering that the big thing within academe is probably postmodernism (whose entire raison d'etre is criticizing modernist assumptions), this characterization seems to make a lot of sense, and it certainly puts that "anti-American" bit in context.

Great bit by Digby over at Eschaton:

One of the things the right wing media and their cohorts in the RNC have discovered is that the mainstream media need tabloid fare for ratings and are in love with ostensibly trivial, "entertaining" political stories that over time can turn Democratic candidates into clowns and fools. The skewering of Gore was of this character and began with PR stunts orchestrated by the RNC until they took on a life of their own. RNC chairman Jim Nicholson drove up in a horse and buggy to the "fancy" hotel that Gore lived in as a child (when it was a middle class residential hotel.) The point was to show Gore as an elitist and a liar, but it was wisely done with a humorous bitchy flourish that the Dowd worshipping mediaTarts thought was just hilarious. It was only the beginning.

It's very difficult to fight these "silly" stories because the press enjoys them so, and you look like a humorless stiff if you make a big deal out of it. You can laugh them off, which Gore tried to do when he incorporated the internet line into his speeches, but they just keep coming. Soon, the Mean Girls themselves skew the coverage to entertain each other and show fealty to the narrative.

Each story, in itself, is trivial. But over time, they add up to a "character" mosaic in which the candidate has become an exaggerated cartoon figure rather than a real person.

In some ways, the outright viciousness and relentlessness of the attacks on Clinton and the slavering over his sex life (also contrived in part to feed the tabloid beast) were less effective because they humanized him, made him look like a victim of partisan overkill and ultimately people identified with him rather than his zealous accusers.

Gore, on the other hand, was destroyed by the death of a thousand jokes that accumulated until he had a strange, kooky persona that people couldn't relate to.

The Wurlitzer always learns from it's mistakes and it is very, very good.

Not much more to say, really. The Wurlitzer has figured out what the media wants, and feeds it to them. Raises the question, though... can it go the other way?

Ok, I buried this link in the entry below, but it deserves it's own entry. Somebody at the American Prospect, the Nation, or whatever should wake the hell up, buy, and reprint this. How can you argue with eloquence like this?

Some of Kristol’s readers know this, but many do not. And those who do not apparently are happy to wallow in their ignorance, pleased to view one of the Republican National Committee’s most reliable media mouthpieces as a brave and lonely voice against the alleged power, corruption, and nefarious influence of that straw man to end all straw men, the “liberal media.”

After Jim's lonely stand against the foul slavering hate of Little Green Footballs and the onslaught that followed, after his lengthy slandering at the hands of SDB and (through instapundit), the Echo Chamber in all its glory... he still has the stones and guts and wits to write brilliant and inflammatory pieces like this.

Maybe one of those Gamma girls has revealed herself after all.

Edit: a little bit of bad grammar there. Fixed.

Well, this is unsurprising:

The White House has decided that several thousand political appointees across the federal government will be eligible for cash bonuses, abandoning a Clinton-era prohibition that grew out of questionable practices in the first Bush administration....

...which has, of course, been reconstituted in Bush II, making this no surprise...

Administration officials said the policy shift, ordered by the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., earlier this year but never publicly disclosed, seeks to correct the inequity of political appointees' working side by side with civil servants who routinely receive bonuses.

There's inequity for a reason; political appointees aren't the same thing as career civil servants and aren't supposed to be. By the way, why does "never publicly disclosed" not surprise me?

The new policy is being instituted at many federal departments, and a few agencies have already begun distributing awards of several thousand dollars each to political appointees. For example, the Justice Department has given bonuses to political appointees who were deemed to have played important roles in counterterrorism and the Sept. 11 investigation, officials said.

Fortunately, I'm not a cynical person, or I'd mention something about asses being covered. Actually, this is quite probably on the level; the problem is that it needn't be, and probably won't be given time.

An Oct. 8 Justice Department memorandum explaining how the bonuses will be distributed within the department says that awards for political appointees "will be limited to truly outstanding performance that contributes directly to achieving the president's and the attorney general's national goals and objectives."

Again, good thing I'm not cynical.

"Political employees should be judged and rewarded in the same manner as career employees," the memorandum said.

Mr. Bush's aides say the White House policy shift reflects the administration's emphasis on a "results-oriented government," rewarding excellence and productivity by all federal employees.

Ok, enough foolishness. The combination of raw Republican power and what will no doubt be an appointment-happy new department stuffed with Republican appointees makes this sort of thing almost inevitable; I imagine that the Dems would do something similar, were they enjoying this sort of impunity. One of the roles of a political party is to reward loyalty, after all; it goes with the territory, and removing partisanship from the game only means that you have a mass of individualist lawmakers who can't get anything done and whose incumbency advantages doesn't face any sort of organized opposition by which they can be removed from office. (It also means heightened ideology in lawmakers; without partisanship, how else are people going to organize to get laws passed?)

The problem, naturally, is that the Bush administration won't really get called on this by anybody outside the party. There's a reason the media is called the fifth estate: they're supposed to be a check on governmental power that is neither trying to get its own laws passed nor get its own candidates in power. As past events have amply demonstrated, however, that is simply not the case. The media isn't going to call president to the floor on this any more than they have any of the other secretive bullshit that flows from this administration. They're too busy attacking John Kerry because he ain't as purty as Shrub and (as Jim Cappozola brilliantly pointed out with that absolutely brulliant "Alpha girl" piece) because they really want to be part of that popular and sexy neo-con clique.

(And why not? There's so much money and fame and power in it, and they think the public doesn't give a rat's ass anyway. They might even be right... 30something percent turnout is shameful, if unsurprising.)

Then again, perhaps there's some good in this. The more power that parties develop (and this is a definite blow for partisan power), the more likely it is that the Democrats will grow some stones and realize that the only way they're going to regain any part of the Government is if they start finding some liberal partisans that start hammering away *now*; ones who aren't running for office, don't care about fame or being liked by Bush and the neo-cons, and who have the guts, intelligence, and integrity to stand up to the blizzard of hurled bullshit that will no doubt follow. Cappozola identified the problem: the left needs Gammas, and Krugman is doing a yeoman's job but simply ain't enough.

Any volunteers?

Just a quick quote from Atrios right now:

The Washington press corps doesn't much like John Kerry. And, as we learned with Al Gore, that's important.


Actually, it isn't important. The Washington press corps won't like any Democratic candidate. What is important is that said candidate realizes that fact sooner and not later and stops trying to please them.

I'll admit that for a few very brief moments in '92 the press had a bit of a "Clinton Buzz" but that too was overwhelmed by their willingness to report any horseshit dished up to them about him. Dem candidates will always get a bum rap from the Alpha Girls. We can discuss why, but frankly it doesn't really matter unless we can figure out how to change it. Fact is, the Spite Girls will knock whoever the the Dem candidate is. That's the hand we've been dealt and it's time to figure out how to deal with it.

Not too much to add, except that part of the reason this whole thing exists is the good ol' Mighty Wurlitzer... it can be awfully tempting for mainstream media types to go along with the right's spin when it comes from faux-mainstream sources like Fox News, especially when the counter-spin is so relatively weak.

As to how to change it? Not quite sure, except maybe to put together a Democratic version of the living Zaphod Beeblebrox that is the Shrub, one that is as unthreatening and amusing to them.