Rahm, Chuck and The Nag… 30 April 2006Posted by marisacat in Big Box Blogs, DC Politics, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems.
No doubt all have read (or gagged and stopped reading) the moldy bagels and spoiled schmear served up from the NYT – and the Democrats – today.
No need to excerpt.
This just begs for some bleach from Walter Karp, Buried Alive, Essays from our Endangered Republic, (Franklin Square Press from Harper's magazine, 1992), p. 255:
"The Washington politician's view of what is going on in the United States has been substituted for what is actually happening in the country," former president of the A.P. Wes Gallagher pointed out in the mid-1970s, a time when the press enjoyed a brief hour of post-Watergate freeness.
And why would Washington politicians want us to know that our knowledge of them comes from them? That is the kind of knowledge that awakens a sleeping people, that dissolves political myths and penetrates political disguises.
To keep all such dreaded knowledge from the rest of us is the "information policy" of those who rule us. And so it is we hear, from the left as well as the right, the steady drone about media power.
There is more, same page… what? you think this 'lie down fall down party' is <gasp> NEW??:
From the "frightening information policy" to the impeachable offenses documented in the shunned Iran-Contra report, the private story behind every major non-story during the Reagan Administration was the Democrats' tacit alliance with Reagan.
It is this complicity, and not the Reagan Administration's deft "management" of the news we hear so much about, that explains the press's supineness during the Reagan years. As usual, it was Congress that was managing the news.
"It was very hard to write stories raising questions about Reagan's policy, because the Democrats weren't playing the role of an opposition party," said the A.P.'s Parry [that's Robert Parry], explaining to Hertsgaard why the press seemed to be "on bended knee" during the Reagan years. Congress, said Leslie Stahl of CBS News, "has not been a source for the press in the whole Reagan Administration.
They don't want to criticize this beloved man."
Even good stories fell flat, said Jonathan Kwitny, a Wall Street Journal reporter at the time, because "there is no opposition within the political system."
When the Times, to its credit, reported on August 8, 1985, that White House aides were giving "direct military advice" to the President's private Contra army, Reagan replied at a press conference that "we're not violating any laws."
Democratic leaders asked the President's national security adviser, Robert McFarlane (later convicted for his answer), whether the President was Iying, after which they assured the press there was nothing to the report.
And for many months one of the most momentous stories of our time "just went nowhere," as Larry Speakes, Reagan's press secretary, boasted to Hertsgaard.
The pain is not over (remember the image from above, the elephant before its pliant orchestra):
For eight years the Democratic opposition had shielded from the public a feckless, lawless President with an appalling appetite for private power.
That was the story of the Reagan years, and Washington journalists evidently knew it. Yet they never turned the collusive politics of the Democratic Party into news.
Slavishly in thrall to the powerful, incapable of enlightening the ruled without the consent of the rulers, the working press, the "star" reporters, the pundits, the sages, the columnists passed on to us, instead, the Democrats' mendacious drivel about the President's "Teflon shield."
For eight years we saw the effects of a bipartisan political class in action, but the press did not show us that political class acting, exercising its collective power, making things happen, contriving the appearances that were reported as news.
It rarely does.
The rather laughable remedy?, or so they sell themselves to be…
Don't miss this one (and believe me, my bleeding, liberal til I die, small "d" democratic heart has long opposed the Liebermans of the game):
Ned Lamont is going to be a fantastic Senator. I'm proud of all of our work, together, in putting him on the path to getting there. And that's why you should give. Not because he needs the money, though he does. But because this is an investment in yourself. This is an investment in what it means to be a citizen, to take action, to affect the country and the world, and to let hope triumph over apathy and cynicism.
Lamont is little more than diversion. I rather suspect some pique over this or that, perhaps deeply rooted. Some disposable time and cash (but not enough, tho a lot spent), some flexing by the BBB toward a "technologist". Yes, that is Lamont's definition of himself, for some years now.
Add in some out of office CT Dems and operatives who may enjoy a "run" at Lieberman, mix in lofty ideas from the recent display by Hackett.. and voila, you have an "insurgent" run.
The appearance of one, that is.
The exhortation in the solicitation for Lamont is to return our nation to ''greatness''.
We need humility and we need sanity. We need some of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings.
Otherwise, it is the orchestra: