PLAGUING BOTH HOUSES

Is the Truth a defense, or not?

In today’s Journal Sentinel, we see several examples of a familiar trap that those wanting to appear "fair and balanced" regularly fall into. On the front page, the J-S preps its readership for today’s debate in the governor’s race with a review of the "harsh rhetoric" that they say both campaigns have employed.

But how "harsh" is rhetoric that happens to be true? How much more "harsh" is a campaign of lies? In an article like this, the difference is not recognized. Harsh is harsh and the facts are inconvenient and irrelevant. The same plague is cast on both houses, regardless of silly notions of who’s right and who’s wrong.

But there is a difference. When Jim Doyle puts out a press release saying that Mark Green "broke the law and now he's lying to distract voters from the truth", that happens to be true. The State Elections Board and (the J-S always forgets to mention) a judge have both ruled that Green broke the law in his transfer of funds from his federal campaign, a ruling that he has refused to obey by returning the funds and with which he has since played games, pretending to appeal the case he agreed to be dismissed. [Note to J-S: Green lied to you again. He did not try to appeal to the Supreme Court yesterday, as he said he would.]

And Green has been "lying" about Doyle’s record, in his own ads and in a vicious smear campaign by surrogates on talk-radio and in "independent" ads. The latest example is described in another of the increasingly amusing articles on the obituary page of today’s paper. Another in an irregular series of "Ad Watch" articles – none of which so far, by the way, have described or included screen shots of any official Doyle campaign ads – reviews the latest Green ad, in which Green attempts to play the immigration card that the GOP set up for all desperate candidates a month or so ago.

Although the J-S does not conclude as such (and does not call out some "expert" to do it for them), the ad is one big string of lies from beginning to end. The writer claims that "some of the specific claims of the ad don’t hold up, while some do," but, after the article itself points out the outright and fairly obvious falsehoods, it’s clear that none of them do. No conclusions are drawn. The ad has been "watched", and that's about it.

In the "harsh rhetoric" article, though, we are urged to cry for poor Mark Green. "For months," Green whines, "they were on the airwaves bashing us - millions of dollars worth of negative ads - before we even started." Aw, poor baby. It turns out that’s not true, either. The Doyle campaign’s first four ads were all positive ads about his own record. Green was up and running long before Doyle started defining Green with his owns votes in Congress and words coming out of his own mouth.

The Journal Sentinel then lets Green claim that "his campaign has responded with ‘serious,’ issued-based ads," and then allows that lie to fall into space without challenge. Green’s ads have either been silly (with his family claiming he’s not extreme), staged (he used actors instead of real people in one ad) or scurrilous. Green even stole from a Bud Light ad campaign to create a radio ad that features the most blatant, childish name-calling ("Men of Greed", "Mr. Tax-Hiking Man") in state history.

Operating the background is the ugly 24-hour smearing of Doyle on wing-nut talk-radio. There, Green ads are replayed for free and the talkers remark how wonderful they are. The phrase "most corrupt governor in Wisconsin history" is said over and over; the lie that, repeated often enough, becomes accepted as true. This all happens in a cone of silence, where reprehensible shills like Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling are never challenged to answer the question: What are the details that makes you say Doyle corrupt? Like George Mitchell claiming that Doyle is "the most dishonest governor in 50 years" and then refusing to give one example, they smear with impunity and without facts, protected in their studio shell.

Green also benefits by the obviously coordinated "independent" ads, like the ones from out-of-state interlopers All Children Matter, that are even more reckless with the truth.

But, in an article like this and in a newspaper dedicated to putting Green in the best light possible, such distinctions are not made. They both do it, see?

But they don’t both do it. Campaigns should be compared not by perceived tone or by who is being "negative" by pointing out differences – that’s going to happen and should in every campaign – but by who is demonstrably right or wrong on the facts. Where there is such a difference in claim substantiation – where every fact alleged by Green is either an outright lie or, at best, an illegitimate stretch and every Doyle ad is backed up by definitive facts – that is a difference that should be recognized.

Plaguing both houses benefits Green, of course. He can be as reckless with the facts as he wants, safe in the knowledge that the J-S and others will simply say that "they all do it" at this point in a campaign season. The failure to recognize the low road from the high provides Mark Green with parity he does not deserve.

ALL CHILDREN MATTER -- REDEFINED

The obituary page is starting to be the most interesting page in the Journal Sentinel. This is where the editors send good-for-Doyle stories that have to be run somehow, but not like the pro-Green stuff they run on Page One.

For instance, yesterday, Page 5-B featured a story about former Secretary of State Madeline Albright appearing in Milwaukee on behalf of Jim Doyle. The story featured, for no good reason, foreign policy analysis of her comments by know-nothing GOP functionary Rick Wiley. No such point-counterpoint was allowed when Dick Cheney appeared, with Metro Page One coverage, to raise money for Mark Green, who would not appear at the same time as Cheney, lest he be photographed with the Prince of Darkness, on September 26.

Under the Albright story, there was an "Ad Watch" piece about a Green Bay TV station pulling the latest anti-Doyle ad, produced and financed by the shadowy, out-of-state, Amway/Wal-Mart-financed 527 group All Children Matter(ACM). ACM was identified in that article as "a group that supports the voucher program." In defending the defamatory bomb the out-of-staters lobbed into the state, the J-S identified school choice industry flack George Mitchell as "a prominent Milwaukee choice advocate and spokesman for the group."

After I pointed out the true nature of the group spending thousands of dollars trying poison the race in Wisconsin yesterday afternoon (see post below), the identification of both the group and Mitchell changed in today’s follow-up – also on the obit page – that the Green Bay station had caved to ACM pressure and will now run the ad. Now ACM is identified as "the Michigan-based group All Children Matter, which advocates for school vouchers" and Mitchell is identified as a "Wisconsin spokesman for All Children Matter". Although the new description barely scratches the surface of ACM’s dark genesis and poison activities in various state and local elections, at least it no longer looks like the ad was the product of the usual group of choice industry advocates in Milwaukee.

Missing in this article, again, is any skeptical identification of ACM as a "supposedly independent group ," a label attached to the Greater Wisconsin Committee for an anti-Green ad in a J-S "Ad Watch" article on September 27th. But any review of ACM’s activities shows that their targets for big-spending are the same targets chosen by the GOP. ACM has very little to do with children and everything to do with affecting state and local elections in favor of Republicans.

OUT-OF-STATE MONEY POISONS THE RACE FOR GOVERNOR

George Mitchell complained to me in an e-mail today because I labeled him "hyper-partisan" in my last post (see below), which discussed a lying anti-Doyle ad he was taking credit for and defending in the newspaper. "You might be surprised to know I voted for Doyle in 2002 and ...voted for Doyle in all his statewide campaigns. Also twice for Tony Earl and worked in the Lucey Administration." Well, hoo-hah. I guess that proves that. He continued: "I am not voting for Doyle this year because he is unethical, failed to eliminate the deficit, and lied to me in 2002 re his position on school choice."

Humoring him, I responded:

If that's really why you are against Doyle, why not just say so instead of being a willing vehicle for GOP backdoor messages? If you have a problem with his position on school choice, then say so, rather than making stuff up about the (non-)relationship between civil-servant Georgia Thompson and Goodwin or anyone else with real power in the administration. Is lying about relationships that don't exist fair game just because Doyle does not bow at the altar of George Mitchell?

The ad you produced (or, at least, put your name on) does nothing for your supposed cause of promoting better education for poor kids in Milwaukee. You and your organization have now exposed yourselves as something else all together.

Mitchell responded with this obviously non-partisan zinger: "Jim Doyle is the most dishonest Governor in at least 50 years...perhaps longer." Wow. Like what, I asked, and I challenged him to name just one. "I have forgotten more about Wisconsin state government and politics than you can hope to grasp...we don't need to waste our time on e-mail exchanges." OK, professor! How dare a little pipsqueak like me inquire of his Royalness. He has said so; therefore it is.

Little did I know at the time (i.e.: this afternoon) that Milwaukee’s George Mitchell probably had very little to do with the slick smear-job he claimed as his own in the Journal Sentinel this morning. It took very little time Googling to discover that the shadowy outfit that produced and bought the ad – All Children Matter (ACM) – is 527 shell game run out of Michigan and Virginia by Amway millionaire Dick DeVos and funded by DeVos and various heirs of WalMart founder Sam Walton. Although I assumed this morning that the sponsors of the ad were local and lead by Mitchell, it turns out Mitchell is just the local representative; a willing stooge of out-of-state interests trying to affect our election.

ACM has been poisoning elections in various states and now, here they are in Wisconsin, in a big way. Their dark tentacles were first made public in this election season when Mitchell fronted a complaint, based on ACM attack researchers, that exposed state-rep candidate Donovan Riley as a double-voter in 2000, the kind of oppo research only Amway/Walton money can buy.

It is interesting that Mitchell let the illusion be created that he or the usual local school-choice industry types in town were responsible for the ad rather than the mysterious DeVos project. It wasn’t his ad or his group at all. Regardless of how he may feel personally about Jim Doyle – and he sure seems to have some issues there – the money is being provided and the selection of the Wisconsin race as a target is being made by others, no doubt in collaboration with the RNC. In fronting for the ad, George Mitchell was allowing ACM to hide behind him as a local figure of some stature, earned or not. Not only was the ad a lie – so was he.

WATCHING ADS, CLOSING EYES

Last week, the Journal Sentinel ran its first "Ad Watch" article in the governor’s race, comparing a Green ad that misrepresented the J-S itself (but "packs a good punch", they got someone to say) and an ad attacking Green, which they (again) got someone to say was a "really bad ad".

This week’s "Ad Watch" runs further back in the paper (page 5 of the Metro section as opposed to page 2), and you can guess why. The ad "watched" had to be pulled, at least by a Green Bay station, because it went out of bounds for even political ads in trying to smear Doyle and his chief of staff, Susan Goodwin. So, good news for Doyle – that a pro-Green ad was so bad it had to be pulled – means a push to the back of the back of the paper.

The Journal Sentinel also appears to have lost its skepticism about the independence of ads generated by groups other than the official campaigns. Last week’s article called the group that produced the anti-Green ad a "supposedly independent group". There is no such second-guessing about the independence of the group running the anti-Doyle ad, a pro-school choice group run by hyper-partisan George Mitchell, running an ad that has nothing to do with the school choice issue. While the Journal Sentinel always defers to Mitchell and school choice industry advocates as pure of heart and spirit, the ad they produced is a remarkable piece of over-reaching vitriol that has nothing to do with their supposed purpose and can only benefit one politician. Are they also not "supposedly" independent? Well, no. That kind of skepticism is reserved for only pro-Democratic groups.

Also missing in this week’s "Ad Watch" are the outside academic voices that last week declared last week’s ads a "good punch" or a "bad ad". Instead, we hear from Goodwin’s lawyers and Mitchell. Were the J-S to submit the ad to the same analysis they did last week, surely the Mitchell ad would have been declared, at least, overreaching by trying to connect the conviction of civil-servant Georgia Thompson with anyone in the Doyle inner circle. But, no. This might be positive for Doyle.

The Mitchell ad is only the first salvo of the Ugly Campaign the Republicans surely have planned for the next 30 days. While the official campaign will stay on (slightly) higher ground, the GOP will use their usual shell groups or create new ones to lob bombs with phony charges and actors posing as concerned citizens. In the meantime, the Journal Sentinel will sit on the sidelines, ready to praise the GOP messages that "pack a punch" as good politics, no matter how dishonest; and to diminish any pro-Doyle messages as defensive and "supposedly" independent.

PRESS RELEASES PRINTED AS NEWS

More unsolicited but badly-needed advice for the Journal Sentinel...

To the Editors:

The single news story about the governor’s race that appears in the Journal Sentinel this morning – both in terms of how it leads, what it reports and what it omits – is the perfect example of what is wrong and biased about the paper’s coverage of the race.

Here’s what happened yesterday, notwithstanding what the J-S reporters may have dug up when they weren’t in their office, revising Green press releases:

• Gov. Doyle was endorsed by WSEU, the largest state employee union. The union was notorious in the ‘90s for always endorsing Tommy Thompson over Democratic challengers and, like other state employee groups, had numerous problems with Doyle early in his administration.
• Mark Green, who has refused to follow the orders of the State Elections Board and a Dane County judge to return hundreds of thousands of dollars he illegally transferred out of his federal election accounts, rushed to his bank and donated $1,000 that he received from the slush fund of recently-disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley to charity. However, over a half-million of Foley’s money was contributed to the RNC and other general GOP groups, and Green has not disowned the use of those funds.
• Gov. Doyle appeared in Eau Claire and encouraged all schools in the state to improve their safety plans, in light of the spate of school gun violence, in Wisconsin and across the country. (Heard on WUWM this morning)
• Failed GOP Attorney General candidate and lame-duck Waukesha District Attorney Paul Bucher has launched an investigation into the crime of advocacy committed on behalf of Doyle by an attorney to the State Elections Board. No such investigation is anticipated regarding Republican lawyers going exactly the same thing. As Waukesha County DA, Bucher as no jurisdiction to investigate, but he will apparently do so on behalf of Mark Green, anyway.
• Mark Green issued a press release about his health care plans.

Guess what you lead with this morning. That’s right, as you did when Green issued a meaningless proposal on stem cell research on September 6, the mere issuance of a self-serving press release is enough to get Green some Doing Good Things press. That story was, outrageously, run on the front page, above-the-fold, like it was some kind of breaking news. Today’s story about Green’s rehash of traditional Republican solutions isn’t news either, but at least it ran on B-1.

In the article, various bullet-points of Green’s press release are presented, along with little snippets of independent facts, some of them inconvenient (“but he did not say what it would cost”, “this would cost $30 million”). Although the Doyle campaign ran out an entire press release on Green’s plan the same day, a Doyle spokesperson gets one line in the piece. No critical eye is cast or any follow-up to the lack of funding, etc. The Journal Sentinel continues to not let the facts get in the way of good Green spin.

Interestingly (and not surprisingly), last week, when Doyle actually had something substantive to say about the state losing $10 million in health care funding due to Congress’ failure to act (Green is still in Congress, is he not?), the paper buried it even deeper than usual, on page 3 of the business section.

The Green angle on the hottest story in the country right now – the first of several, I’m guessing – gets short shrift at the bottom of the article. As many Republican candidates in close races across the country have done, Green quickly dumped his Foley cash. Bucher’s antics do better, played up higher in the article. But he is not called to task for why he is spending county resources to investigate a state government issue (or non-issue, as the case may be). Just because the State Elections Board happened to meet in Waukesha County one day doesn’t give him the right to play politics with his responsibilities and power as a DA.

Either one of these articles should have played bigger than Green’s press release on health care. At least they were actually “news”.

But the biggest outrage is that the Journal Sentinel completely ignored the endorsement of Doyle by the state’s largest employee union. Sure, these endorsements can cut both ways. Heck, the J-S could have trotted out some Marquette political science professor to say how these endorsements are predictable, don’t mean much anymore, etc. You could have jammed in a list of some Green endorsements from the Milwaukee cops or the funeral industry or whatever. But the endorsement of the WSEU is news, it has always been news and it was news for every other paper in the state today.

But, in the alternate universe of the Journal Sentinel, good news for Doyle means no coverage. Good news for Green (if he ever gets any), will run on page one, above-the-fold, with a smiling picture of the Journal Sentinel Candidate for Governor.

Instead of glittering generalities, phony “everybody gets mad at us” posturing and inaccurate personal smears (George Stanley has yet to apologize for confusing me with my brother), I would really appreciate it if someone – anyone – at the Journal Sentinel would explain how this single story properly summarizes significant events in the race from yesterday. Pretend you are addressing a beginning J-School class and explain. I really am curious how you justify it.

EVERYONE COMPLAINS -- WE MUST BE RIGHT

I spent much of last week trying to get the attention of the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, to get them to recognize, admit and change their ridiculously biased coverage in the Wisconsin governor’s race. So I like to think I had something to do with Sunday’s Ask the Journal Sentinel column by Editor Martin Kaiser.

In the column, Kaiser repeated the defense of the paper’s coverage that Managing Editor George Stanley floated with me in an e-mail last week. The coverage must be fair and balanced, the logic goes, because they get complaints from both sides. “We receive a similar volume of complaints from deeply committed Democrats and deeply committed Republicans, each side saying we are biased against their candidate or party,” Kaiser writes adding: “When we tell readers that we get complaints of bias from both sides, it usually surprises them.”

Well, before I’ll get surprised about it, let me first be skeptical. I’m sure they do get “complaints of bias from both sides” ; I’m not so sure about the volume. I mean, how could the Green campaign possibly complain about the gifts they are handed every day by the Journal Sentinel? It may be that various readers make general complaints about “liberal” media bias, a phony canard pumped up everyday by wing-nuts big and small. But I would indeed be surprised if anyone who supports Green could make the same kind of serious specific criticisms about content and placement that I raised in various e-mail last week.

Did Green have a problem with the Journal Sentinel leading with his (as it turns out) phony vow to appeal a judges ruling rather than with the fact that the judge confirmed that the supposedly partisan Elections Board got it right when they ordered him to return his illegal transfer from his federal accounts? Could Green really complain when the J-S followed the lead of wing-nut talk-radio by praising his false-on-its-face ad about the Elections Board vote, an ad that even the J-S complained misrepresented an editorial as a news story and even misquoted that? How could Green take issue Spivak & Bice’s cheery item about his fat-cat fundraising in Washington; an item that ended with Green honchos bragging that they were expecting “a hefty sum to be transferred here”?

Even if Green wanted to launch a complaint about the Journal Sentinel coverage just to mollify his red-meat base, what the hell would he find to complain about?

Today’s pro-Green coverage was one of omission. As Bill Christofferson points out today, a story out of Washington noted that an aide to Bush henchman Karl Rove, Susan Ralston, has been discovered with lots of ticket-stubs in her pocket from games and concerts, all courtesy of Jack Abramoff. If Spivak & Bice weren’t so busy looking under rocks on Farwell Avenue for hints of scandal at the Kenilworth building, maybe they could make the connection and turn their snide wise-guy routine on Green campaign manager Mark Graul, who used to be in the Abramoff comp-ticket-for-aides loop when Ralston worked for Abramoff and was handing out the freebies herself. But that might dry up a few sources for their anti-Doyle campaign, wouldn’t it?

“We strive to give our readers the most truthful, accurate, fair and helpful campaign coverage,” says Kaiser in his extremely self-serving column. They might or maybe Kaiser “strives” for such things, but, in its clear pro-Green bias, the Journal Sentinel has failed on every count. What the Journal Sentinel really needs is an ombudsman, someone to keep them honest. That way, these important issues of bias and outright campaigning would be dealt with more than spin.

EVERYBODY IS A STAR

It’s always cool to get a Letter to the Editor published in the Journal Sentinel. This morning, I received my reward for my week of e-mails and blogs. As they told me they would (and as I agreed they could), the J-S revised my e-mail from Thursday and ran it on today’s Letter’s page. Look way down on the bottom of the page (not that I’m complaining):

Article placement shows paper's bias

Wow. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign has followed up on the judge's ruling that gubernatorial candidate Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.) has to give back $467,844, as ordered by the state Elections Board, by filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission that Green give up more than twice as much - almost $1.3 million! - because of his violation of federal law. This has got to be big news, right?

Not according to the Journal Sentinel. Once again, the paper buried a negative story about Green's campaign on Page 3B ("Fund transfer prompts complaint," Sept. 28). I suppose if Green had somehow appealed the complaint or at least vowed to fight, that would have been the lead on Page One.

"Federal clarification of Green move sought," the sub-headline said. Whoa. Easy, Journal Sentinel, you wouldn't want anyone to notice such a bold move. If it were Gov. Jim Doyle who was alleged to have violated federal law, just imagine the headline, not to mention the story placement.

The story did, however, bring back the voice of Mike McCabe, often quoted in anti-Doyle articles in the past but remarkably silent in the Journal Sentinel pages since the illegal Green money was exposed. This even though he brought the complaint to the state Elections Board in the first place.

The Journal Sentinel continues to disappoint in its biased election coverage.

Michael B. Plaisted
Shorewood

There was a lot more in the e-mail, but, on the basic point, it’s a fair edit-for-space of my ideas. My problem with the J-S has never been with the edit page -- well, not primarily, anyway. They seem to reach out for diverse views, especially with the community columnist effort (I applied and lost both times). On the other hand, there is no excuse for giving the talentless wing-nut Patrick McIlheran a column (I hope they are saving his seat at the copy desk)or running Michael Ramirez' silly right-wing cartoons.

Now, I guess, I’m supposed to leave them alone and give someone else a chance at their 200 words next week. Not a chance, especially since things are bound to heat up in the paper’s pro-Green campaigning, now just a month before the election.

THE DIALOG BEGINS (SORT OF)

Yesterday’s missive to the Journal Sentinel editors, about the continued hi-jinks of Spivak & Bice (“The Spice Boys”), got the attention of at least J-S Managing Editor George Stanley, who wrote the following to me:

Mr. Plaisted: Today’s Spivak & Bice column could hardly be seen by any reasonable reader as “GOP talking-point propaganda.’’ In fact, I’m sure we’ll hear from readers today, as we often do, about how anti-Republican the column is. Every election season we receive the same volume of complaints from people who work for candidates of both major parties, with each side saying we are biased against their candidate or party. However, our reporters typically maintain the respect of the actual candidates for being fair and unbiased in their coverage. I understand you were involved personally involved in discussions about tossing out the original Kenilworth bids and in who should get the contract. When questions are made about how public money is spent, how public projects are bid, and how campaign donors get taxpayer-funded business, I promise you will be very aggressive reporting it, no matter which party is in power at the moment.

Boy, it's hard to figure out where to start. The e-mail is rife with generalizations, weasel-words and veiled threats to drag me into the Journal Sentinel's phony Kenilworth obsession. But I responded, of course:

Mr. Stanley:

Thanks for responding.

Just to clear one thing up, you have me mistaken for my brother Jim Plaisted. He is the Executive Director of the East Side Bid and facilitated the concerns of others involved to get the Kenilworth project done right. It is interesting, though, that you would seize on the (mistaken) fact that I might have an interest in the process, other than just being a citizen. Did Spivak and Bice make the connection or did you? Either way, it is a typical tactic of the right-wing to avoid addressing an argument by attaching ulterior motives to the messenger. Not that I’m saying that’s what you are doing.

I don’t know anyone who respects the Journal Sentinel these days for “fair and unbiased” coverage of the governor’s race. If they do, they are not paying attention. The “actual candidates” may say so, but how could they say otherwise? Rather than making these broad assestions about how wonderful everyone thinks you are, I would like to hear you address the specifics of my observations – the “Green Will Appeal” headline and lead, the S&B phony open-records complaint, etc. I know you have heard from others (other than the Republicans who brought the lawsuit, that is – by the way, wasn’t it dismissed? I think I read it back near the classifieds one day) about what happened with the Kenilworth building and I know those people can’t get a word in edge-wise about their perspective in the paper. Is the truth and being right a defense?

I am sorry to see that you don’t see the problem with your biased coverage. Because of its history, its position as a former great newspaper and the only newspaper in town, I think the Journal Sentinel has sacred trust with the community not to go on campaigns in favor of one candidate or another on its news pages. I don’t care if some Republican supporters complain that you don’t print every word of their press releases. You’re close enough.

It is interesting how quick Stanley was to try to dismiss my complaints out of hand because he was (mis)informed (by the Spice Boys, I’ll bet – I mean, you can’t really expect these great reporters to get details like first names right, do you?) that I was an interested party. Although we had this exchange early yesterday, I have not heard from him again.

In today’s paper, we got more Greenie spin on the voluntary dismissal of Green’s lawsuit. So, here’s today’s e-mail:

To the Editors:

If I were running the Journal Sentinel, I would be very upset with the Mark Green’s campaign right now. Here you are, putting your journalistic integrity on the line every day trying to get him elected, and all he does is play legal games and lie to you. With friends like this...

Green was apparently so dynamic and convincing earlier this week, promising to appeal the judge’s ruling in Madison, denying Green’s request for a temporary restraining order and affirming the State Elections Board, that you led with his vow to appeal, before even describing the judge’s ruling. As it turns out, a mere three days later, it turns out Green is not appealing the denial of the restraining order, as he said he would. In fact, he asked that his own case against the Elections Board be dismissed.

Green could have asked the Appeals or Supreme Court to take the matter of the denial of the TRO before the case was finished. Such an appeal would indeed “hasten the path” to the Supremes – he could have filed it any time this week. But he knew those courts wouldn’t take it for the same reason the judge in Madison denied the TRO – because he was not likely to win and there would be no irreparable harm if he prevailed later.

So, he turned tail and ran. This would have been a good time for the Journal Sentinel to show how “air and balanced” it is by not allowing Green to spin his pathetic dismissal of his own complaint. Alas, that would be asking too much. Apparently, when he ran away from his doomed court challenge, he ran right up to the supplicant Journal Sentinel reporters, to again “vow” to appeal to the Supreme Court. And, again, the Journal Sentinel eats it up, leading with how the action will “hasten the path”. But, if Green is allowed to appeal his own voluntary dismissal, he will be the first litigant in state history to do so. Green has the same chance of getting the Supreme Court to take the case as I do getting a guest slot on Charlie Sykes’ TV show. He’ll get laughed out by them, and, no doubt, praised by the Journal Sentinel for trying.

Green and his legal team are out there, creating smokescreens that everyone but the Journal Sentinel can see through. At some point, the Journal Sentinel will have to start seriously addressing the implications of the $400,000 to $1.3 million that he has illegally sitting in his war chest? Ever since the decision of the Elections Board, Green has been playing for time by phony legal stall tactics. And the Journal Sentinel has been giving it to him.

It’s one thing for the Journal Sentinel to be a shill for a doomed candidate. It is quite another to be played for a chump by the same candidate. If I were you, I know which one I would be more concerned about.

WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE

This morning's missive to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Dear Editor:

Let’s ignore, for now, the silly editorial and op-ed propping up Mark Green’s meaningless save-the-dogs legislation and the burying of the story that a Republican appointment to the State Elections Board had to resign because of he was actually hired by Green (any problems here? No?). In today’s Journal Sentinel, the cause of Mark Green is taken up primarily by Spivak & Bice.

Cary Spivak and Dan Bice hold themselves out as acting in some grand muck-raking tradition, supposedly tearing down the powerful or the pretenders to power with pompous hand-wringing about nefarious politicians being, well, nefarious. Every spokesperson is a “flack”; tactics are “trickery”; legitimate goals are colored with dark we-know-what-they’re-up-to insinuations. Supposedly “investigative” news “reporters”, the Journal-Sentinel has given these two broad license to wink, cast aspersions and do the barroom-chuckle at whatever feckless public figure catches their occasionally watchful eye(s).

Spivak & Bice have led the Journal Sentinel’s bizarre war on phone calls by Doyle aides, most particularly former Secretary of Administration Mark Marotta. According the S&B and the J-S, Marotta was supposed to go in his office, close the door and unplug the phone when it was evident that the initial contractor and plans for the UWM Kenilworth Building would have been a disaster. His subsequent efforts to correct the project – which has now resulted in the transition of an embarrassing eyesore into a gem of Milwaukee’s East Side – were seen by your intrepid reporters not as the good and necessary work of an engaged administrator, but as the money-grubbing gifting of the project to Doyle contributors (even if some of those giving contributions were not chosen for the project).

Most disingenuously, on August 19th, the column featured a whiny complaint about Doyle’s administration declining to answer some questions Spivak & Bice had about an otherwise-innocent meeting between Marotta a potential contractor. The editors of the Journal Sentinel allowed S&B to wrongly characterize the refusal as a violation of the state open records law, snarkily accusing Doyle of creating a "I don't wanna release it" exemption. Reading further, however, it’s clear that Spivak & Bice were not asking for documents – they just wanted to ask some questions. As they and you know, the state open records law does not require the production of new documents or answers to questions (just try getting answers from Jim Klauser back in the day). The only element of truth in the article was provided by the responder from the state: “This line of questioning appears to simply be a partisan attack.” Gee, ya think?

Where everything done by Doyle and his aides is sinister and every dollar dirty (see the column that same day, smearing Doyle for accepting money from Native American tribes), everything Green does is understandable, excusable or just plain cute. These hard-charging “reporters” have spent absolutely zero time hitting on Green for his illegal money transfer, contacts with Jack Abramoff or something as outrageous as issuing a campaign proposal written by realtors and home-builders at the same time he accepted $102,000 from those groups. Perhaps S&B missed it, hiding as it was on page B-5, next to the obituaries. (Note to Journal Sentinel: You’ve been trying to catch Doyle in a quid pro quo situation – this is what one looks like, so you’ll know it if you see it.)

In today’s column, Spivak and Bice cheerily tell the story of Mark Green having a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., featuring Haley Barbour and President Bush. Now, any story about a Doyle fundraiser in Washington would be a key opportunity for S&B to bring out the cynical sarcasm about contributors just wanting “good government”, etc. But, in Spivak-and-Bice-land a Green fat-cat fundraiser calls for a different (read: positive) spin. The hook in this item appears to be that poor Mark Green could not shake down as much candidates from other states because of those pesky Wisconsin campaign donation limits (and since when, exactly, did Green care about those?). No information about what group of contributors were the targets of this trip (more realtors and home-builders? No, they got theirs). No sly insinuations about motives or tactics. Just another day in Washington with Mark Green and his natural fat-cat constituency. OK with Spivak and Bice. At least the contributors weren’t Native Americans (or were they?).

Again, I wish the Journal Sentinel would leave the GOP talking-point propagation to its talk-radio division. Maybe that’s where you could put Spivak & Bice. I hear the Jessica McBride slot is open, or at least it should be.

JOURNAL SENTINEL GOES GREEN

I grew up reading the Milwaukee Journal. Every evening, in a small town 70 miles north of the city, my dad and I would settle in after dinner and read all or part of the then-afternoon paper. It was then one of the great newspapers in the country.

How the mighty have fallen.

After floundering and failing to recover its quality and prestige through the '70s and '80's, the Journal merged with the more raw and right-wing Sentinel in the '90s -- both were owned by the same company, anyway. While the merged paper looks like the Journal, it has become even more right-wing than the sensationalist Sentinel ever was.

The most blatant example was and is school "choice", in which millions of public school dollars have been squandered on mediocre-to-lousy private schools, some run by charlatans and thieves. The Journal Sentinel has lavished praise on the program and its conflicted promoters, in spite of absolutely no signs of progress or the promised deliverance of poor children from lousy schools.

As a corporation, Journal Communications Inc. has gobbled up every local paper in the state and controls some of the state's most powerful radio and TV stations. The radio station, WTMJ, is the only clear-channel station in the state and has evolved, as so many AM stations have, into all wing-nut commentary (when not running sports). This runs the gamut from the smug local Bradley Foundation mouthpiece Charlie Sykes to racist fire-thrower Michael Savage.

With circulation continuing the spiral downward, the only newspaper left in town has apparently decided to go wing-nut in its news pages, chasing the same angry-white guy that have flocked to their radio station. The paper often takes its lead from talk-radio, where straw men are constructed and non-issues are inflamed.

This Republican slant to the news is almost embarrassingly stark in this year's race for governor of Wisconsin. The incumbent, Democrat Jim Doyle, is being challenged by Mark Green, a Congressman from up north who has spent the last five years in Bush's lap.

The coverage has been truly incredible. Everything bad for Green is buried in the back sections. Everything good for Green -- including a meaningless Green proposal on stem cell research, the product of a press release, basically -- runs above-the-fold on Page One. The front page screams if any Doyle aide is discovered to have used the phone to get anything done. Green's many contacts with Jack Abramoff and his use of industry flacks to draft his campaign proposals is stuffed in the back pages or not covered at all.

The J-S Green-for-Governor campaign reached it's most outrageous point this week, when a judge ruled that, not only was the State Elections Board correct to order Green to return over $400,000 that he illegally transfer from his federal congressional funds; he also should return $1.3 million because the transfer was also contrary to federal law. The J-S played it on Page One, alright, but put some incredible spin on it, headlining and leading with the predictable fact that Green would appeal.

The outrages continued later in the week, and I decided to enter a dialog with the Journal Sentinel editors:

Dear Editor:

As if yesterday’s coverage of Mark Green’s loss from protecting his illegal money in court – leading with Green’s vow to appeal rather than more important story and details of the ruling itself – the all-Green-all-the-time coverage by the Journal Sentinel continues. The Journal Sentinel is losing a lot of its credibility and its soul on this race. Is it worth it?

In today’s paper alone, the following headlines:

"Face-off over Green's bill -- Sensenbrenner blamed for holdup"

Story: Mark Green introduced a sanctimonious bill about cock- and dog-fighting over a year-and-a-half ago and couldn’t get it through a Congress run with an iron fist by his own party. Mean old Jim Sensenbrenner stands in the way, still. And is it a “face-off” when nothing is scheduled on the bill and Green is just whimpering on the sideline, through press-releases and compliant Journal Sentinel editors? It is important, though, as Congress gets out of town this week to remind our readers, in big headlines on page A-3, how much Green has done to pretend to care about cock- and dog-fighting.

"Green's anti-Doyle TV ad may pack a punch"

Story: The Journal Sentinel jumps into ad-war analysis for the first time this year, just in time to praise Green’s first official foray into name-calling. It doesn’t hurt that the J-S has provided the fodder for much of the ad’s misleading claims. The Green ad is compared not to Doyle’s classy and truthful official ads that have been running for some time about Green’s illegal money, but rather to an amateurish ad by an outside group; “a supposedly independent group”, a precedent-breaking slice of skepticism that we’ll look forward to seeing in future reviews of GOP-inspired smear ads. Indeed, Green’s ads “may pack a punch”, especially when they are promoted in the J-S news pages and on talk radio, where they are playing audio from the ad for free. The only surprise here is that the J-S didn’t find room for this important piece of biased reporting above the fold on Page One.

"Residents feel better about state, poll says"

Story: No kidding? In an election year with an incumbent governor? Reading further, it appears the same survey came up with Doyle still leading Green by 5 points. And, it was done by a right-wing group, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, that can usually always get the results it wants. But facts and perceptions are stubborn things, are they not? Let’s hope no one notices. By all means, hide it on Page B-3. You can bet contrary results and Green actually gaining on Doyle for a change would have been on the front page.

"Doyle promises state funds to boost biofuels"

Story: Well, it’s not exactly cock- and dog-fighting, is it? How boring – Doyle continuing to take the state forward in important areas. How far back can we stick this on the business page? (Answer: D-3)

Bottom Line: In coverage and story placement, the Journal Sentinel has decided to be an incredulous shill for Mark Green against Jim Doyle. And I can already see the spin after Green loses: the GOP put up an inadequate, damaged candidate, which is the only reason the corrupt Doyle administration is allowed to continue. The Green loss will be all the more unfathomable, considering all that free help from the Journal Sentinel.

I didn't hear back from them yesterday, and my answer came in the newspaper this morning. I wrote again:

Dear Editor:

Wow. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign has followed up on the judge’s ruling that Mark Green has to give back $467,844, as ordered by the State Elections Board, by filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission that Green give up over twice as much – almost 1.3 million! – because of his violation of federal law. This has got to be Big News, right?

Not according to the Journal Sentinel. Once again the paper has buried a negative story about Green’s campaign on page B-3. I suppose if Green had somehow “appealed” the complaint or at least “vowed to fight”, that would have been the lead on Page One. But, since he might lose this one (too), the J-S sticks it way on the inside. “Federal clarification of Green move sought,” the sub-head says. Whoa. Easy, Journal Sentinel. You wouldn’t want anyone to notice such a bold move. If it were Doyle who was alleged to have violated federal law, just imagine the headline, not to mention the story placement.

The story does, however, bring back the voice of Mike McCabe, who was often quoted and cited in anti-Doyle stories in the past, but has been remarkably silent on the J-S pages since the illegal Green money has been exposed. This, even though he brought the complaint to the State Elections Board in the first place.

And how about that Elections Board? The Journal Sentinel’s bigger election story on B-1 promises more than it delivers. Apparently hoping people read just the headlines, the article about the “advice” of the Elections Board “evolving” cites only two previous instances, with only one – involving Tom Barrett – even roughly similar to the issue at hand with Green. In addition, the Board doesn’t give “advice” – it rules on the application of state law. Just because the Board was wrong about Barrett (the notion of Republican voting to allow the transfer to prop up the weaker opposition candidate is unconvincingly pooh-poohed in the article) doesn’t mean they have to make the same mistake again. As the judge ruled just this week (a fact buried in your “Green will appeal” story), the Elections Board happened to be right in demanding that Green give the money back, no matter how they might have got there.

The Journal-Sentinel continues to disappoint in its biased election coverage.

I did get some indication today that they might run some of this as a Letter to the Editor, but I'm sure that won't be the end of the story.

I think this blog might take a local bent for a while. Let the truth be told.

YOU GO, BILL

One of the things about the right-wing punks who dominate the radio and cable talk-space is that they never get out and actually debate anyone. They sit in the safety and sanctimony of their studio cocoons and smear, lie, exaggerate, denigrate (Dems), excuse (Bushies) and poison the political atmosphere.

For instance, after the September primaries in parts of the country, it was part of the Rove radio talking-points that the Republic party is more friendly to African-Americans because they put up Clarence Thomas-like stooges such as Ken Blackwell in Ohio (governor) and Michael Steele in Maryland (Senate), while Democrats in Maryland narrowly chose a white candidate over Kweisi Mfume for that Senate seat. I heard this on one national show and one local.

It’s the kind of point that is ridiculous on its face, but, if repeated often enough, sticks and smears and makes some who aren’t paying that much attention just more uncomfortable with Democrats. Put to the test in a real exchange of ideas, it wouldn’t last more than a minute and anyone perpetrating the idea would be laughed out of the room. But radio wing-nuts never get in those rooms with real people with real ideas. They hit-and-run and then hit again.

So in goes Fox News’ Chris Wallace to talk to Bill Clinton and he naively decides to float some of the anti-Clinton talking points about Clinton’s inability to terminate Bin Laden before he left office. Wallace, who lost all credibility by taking the Fox job after years of mediocre work for real news organizations, plays straight-man to Brit Hume and the other fire-breathers on the Sunday morning show. He has been around these clowns for so long, down probably does look like up to him.

Wallace starts wtih some stupid comment about e-mails he's received and then asks the former president why he didn’t go after Bin Laden. And Clinton properly ripped him to shreds. Clinton read him the riot act up and down about what he did and tried to do, about the fact that he did not flee Somalia after the Black Hawk Down tragedy, about how the same neo-cons that used to complain that he was too obsessed with Bin Laden now claim he did nothing, etc.

The best point Clinton made was right in Wallace’s face: You didn’t ask those other guys the same questions, did you? Wallace stammered, but he was sunk. A Foxie asking a real question to a Bushie? Why, you’d sooner see oversight from the lapdog Congress that has let Bush run amok all these years. Wallace knew he didn’t ask the same questions, but he pretended he did. And Clinton got – literally – right in his face. It was a brilliant and badly-needed performance from a great American.

Even the Bush-laden panel after the interview had to take some of Clinton’s points. The repulsive Hume and Fred Barnes, both of whom have surely claimed the opposite in the past had to admit that Clinton worked to get Bin Laden. The wingnut spin since the interview hit the internet on Friday was all about Clinton’s “purple rage” and Hume stoically spun out the old canard about Clinton being mostly concerned with his legacy, and that’s why he was so upset.

But, ultimately, the truth is the best defense, and Clinton had it all on his side. He tried and failed to get Bin Laden before 9/11. Bush just failed. At everything.

REMEMBERING NOW AND THEN

You know, they say we forget.

The Republic line (I’m not calling them Republicans again until they start calling the other party “Democratic” instead of “Democrat”) , distributed through the various layers of the Message Machine – from Cheney to Limbaugh; from Hannity to Rumsfeld – is that those of us who oppose this most disastrous and ill-timed of regimes – well, we just forgot all about 9/11. If we remembered, we would support Junior Bush and all the follies of his administration, from Iraq to Katrina. We would be United, which, in their minds, means that we would shut the hell up.

But, the fact is, I do remember. I remember seeing a strange “We are Being Attacked” headline and siren icon while lurking on Drudge that morning, thinking about what wack thing he was talking about now, and then getting a call to turn on the TV. I remember spending the rest of the morning watching the second plane hit, the towers fall, the dust in the air. Unlike the Kennedy and M.L. King assassinations, this was a moment we shared in different places; not on the networks, but on the various all-news cable channels, jumping from here to there to see, to feel, what was happening. I picked up my son from school that day like all the other parents, nervous and unsteady, just wanting to hold my boy.

I remember going to New York the next summer, feeling the injured souls of the natives of the island, going to view the rubble while my family slept.

Oh, I remember 9/11, alright. I remember it a lot more than Bush and his coniving minions, who went into hiding until they devised a way to twist it those thousands of dead victims their political advantage. While I sat open-mouthed in my home, watching in horror, they were making plans to seize the deadly opportunity. They emerged with another of Karl Rove’s brilliant political strokes. They decided to call it WAR.

It wasn’t War. But they gained so much power by calling it so. When 9/11 happened, Bush was already a failed president. He didn’t make any friends when they bludgeoned our democracy within an inch of its life by radically stopping the recount in Florida in 2000. His feed-the-rich initiatives, jammed through a compliant Congress, were too much for most people. But a War president – well, people give those fellows a whole lot of lee-way, don’t they?

In the one honest moment of his presidency while standing on the rubble at Ground Zero, Bush promised retribution and then gave us anything but. Bin Laden was just another wedge issue, another way to get things they wouldn’t otherwise be able to achieve. Sure, he invaded Afghanistan and gave us increased poppy production and a puppet regime. But, just like the day before and the day before that, the Bushies started working right after the planes hit to invade Iraq. Now the door was open and who could question them? Who would dare?

For five years now, Rove has used 9/11 like a political get-out-of-jail-free card, justifying and excusing every outrage and mistake. The War King could not be questioned, lest the terrorists win. In the mid-terms of 2002 and in 2004, the Republic party prevailed because of this fear-mongering. It’s something no one but them could have succeeded at, because nobody but them would have the naked ambition and lack of morals to try.

It is this kind of hubris that has lead Bush in recent days to say something even more ridiculous than usual. In his political speech from the Oval Office tonight, he said it again. The fight against Islamic extremists, he said is “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation.”

This is nuts. Not that someone as dim as Bush would know the meaning of the words they are putting into his mouth, but an “ideological struggle” has to have at least some arguable qualities on both sides. An “ideological struggle” is something upon which reasonable people can disagree, that can be debated and countered logically. If one side is, well, like us and the other side is a bunch of otherwise-powerless religious nuts, bent on making their points through suicide and random acts of violence, that’s neither ideological or a struggle. We win and we can’t lose that one.

There are ideological struggles that need to be fought, alright, but it is with Bush and with ourselves. Are we going to be a nation of laws and justice or a nation where the means justifies all ends? Are we going to be bound by the words of a Constitution that respects the privacy of our homes and ideas, absent a court warrant, or are we going to allow every inch of our life to be examined and every orifice searched? Are we going to allow greedy men to profit from fear to line the pockets of their friends and to build their power? We win all those, too. But, by “we”, I sure don’t mean George W. Bush and his devious handlers.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and the Bushies are pulling out all the stops. To them, to question is treason; to deny “unity” on their terms is unpatriotic. But, no, it’s not going to work, not this time.

After he loses one or both houses of Congress, this will be the last 9/11 anniversary that Bush will be in any real power and the last time he’ll be able to use that tragic day for any political purpose. If he had a soul, he’d be on his ranch on September 11, 2009. He’d reflect on the victims of 9/11/01 and he’d wonder what he could have done different to heal the nation and improve the world.

As it is, justice demands that he be alone that day with his empty thoughts, never knowing the damage he did; damage far worse than anything done on 9/11 or since.

SUNDAY MORNING DARKNESS

Of all the horrible moments we have suffered as a nation on and since 9/11, the most gruesome have been the annual appearances of VP Dick "Dick" Cheney on Meet the Press.

The most secretive, reclusive and unfortunately powerful vice-president in U.S. history prefers friendly venues. He had made many more appearances on King Wing-Nut Rush Limbaugh’s show than on any other. Then there is always the occasional drop in for Scotch and massages at Fox News. There is no limit to chummy outlets for the Real President in the "new" (read: right-wing) media.

When the Dark Prince decides to show up for questioning by a real journalist – always as part of some administration scare-monger PR campaign, of which there have been dozens – he usually slips into his too-comfy chair on the set of Meet the Press to exchange somber tones with Tim Russert. The Cheney Chair on MTP has been the scene of many of the more memorable Veep performances in the propaganda war, including wild claims, eventual recantations and denials that he ever made the previous statements.

Russert is one of our best Sunday talking-head facilitators (George Stephanopoulos has grown into a more effective and comfortable voice at challenging spin, George Will notwithstanding), but he has two modes of interrogation – one for Democrats and one for Republicans. Administration flacks are allowed to spew any old lie, with little follow up. Democrats are submitted to bright lights in the face and a seemingly endless library of pull-quotes, projected and read on the screen, to show their obvious (to Russert) hypocrisy and deviousness. "Were you lying then or now?" is the usual gist of things for the Dems, while the Bush flunkies, like robotron Condi Rice, get a nice smile and cute greetings for her dog as a send-off.

It’s hard to say where Cheney or Russert are going into tomorrow’s coffee-and-doughnuts session. Cheney’s useful stooge, the empty-suited Junior Bush, just spent the past week admitting breaking international law with the CIA Black Sites and insisting that Congress rubber-stamp the very process for trying terror suspects that the Supreme Court just invalidated. We can expect more smearing of Bush critics as appeasers and worse, delivered in Cheney’s patented if-I-project-my-voice-I-might-have-a-heart-attack delivery style.

Whether Russert will be able to pierce the veil of Cheney’s sanctimony is always the attraction in these appearances. It always depends on whether Russert has any interest or stomach for the fight. Sometimes he starts out ready for a fight, pull-quotes at the ready. Cheney always is able to brush anything off as mere piffle, and, by the way, why don’t you understand we are at war, etc. He presents himself as entirely reasonable, like he just another egghead in a Cato Institute panel on C-Span. For some reason, this facade usually puts Russert to sleep, and the followup questions fall by the wayside like so much irrelevant and unnecessary squabbling.

In the end, Cheney always prevails unscathed. After tomorrow, he’ll be able to claim again that he entered the MSM’s heathen’s den, "they" didn’t get it (again), and he can run to Limbaugh’s show again next week to clean up any messes he left behind and bask in his own impossible glory.

One hopes that Russert has had enough of being lied-to and manipulated through the years and comes out swinging. If I were him, after all these years of being the good lap dog and getting kicked in the teeth in return, I’d create a ruckus. Confront him with a pull-quote demonstrating one of his lies (the one about Atta meeting Iraqi intelligence in Egypt will do), and bang his shoe on the table until he apologizes. Just cut loose. Get in his face. Announce that he is quitting after today’s show, but not until he gets some answers. Reach across the table and grab the little war-wimp by his collar. "Confess, you bastard! Con-FESS!!"

I suppose this is too much to ask for. But I’m asking for it anyway.

TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN (WELL)

Bruce Springsteen had the best (and, you would hope, last) word on musicians promoting their political opinions in a CNN interview earlier this year. When asked about getting flack for his political positions, Springsteen said, "Yeah, they should let Ann Coulter do it instead." In other words, alright, so I play music, write lyrics and seek truth for a living. What are her credentials?
Good question. The national political discussion is poisoned with talentless right-wing flunkies like Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage – all of whom have no known background qualifying them for anything, much less dominating the national discourse with their large radio megaphones.

Most musicians – especially rock & rollers – are, er, not too bright and are fish-out-of-water discussing anything but chord changes and equipment preferences. But the best of them through the years have at least thought about various Big Pictures – War, Peace, Injustice, Women – and some can even discuss these things outside the four minutes of a song. The best of them have actually added to the national discussion and created signposts to ideas and generations: "Blowing in the Wind", the Hendrix Anthem, "Ohio", "For What It’s Worth", etc. They’ve earned as much of a right as anybody to get on their soapbox if they want, especially if they can coax 25,000 people to show up to listen at $100 a pop.

Neil Young has gotten up on various soapboxes through the years, but nothing has quite got his attention like the Bush Administration and their outrageous behavior in Iraq and at home. Although Bush’s disastrous war has been going on for over three years now, Young jumped into action and made Living with War in five days this spring. This was just after near-death and a brilliant personal CD/movie/DVD (Prairie Wind and Heart of Gold) last year. A heartfelt tribute to troops, peace, protest and all things American, LWW tried to rip a hole in the Bush facade, which has always been paper-thin and ready to crumble anyway. Often clumsy and sounding rushed – would the verse about Bush and steroids in "Let’s Impeach" have made the cut if everyone had a little time to think about it? – the album feels like an unfiltered screed from Hunter S. Thompson, with all of the flaws, false starts and hints of angry genius.

The Bush outrages lit a fire under Neil Young and he somehow lit a fire under his old friends Crosby, Stills and Nash. All three have been pretty negligible as artists since Deja Vu, but it hasn’t stopped them from years of forgettable albums and meaningless tours, whether it was one, two or all three of them. Even the tours with Young have often been of the mail-it-in variety. Last time at the Bradley Center in 2002, they were still doing the love-child/godfather thing, barely tolerating Young, who came on at the end of the show to bust up Nash’s goddamn vase that Joni Mitchell bought way-back-whenever. They couldn’t hold a candle to him, career or talent-wise, and they didn’t much care. The checks all cleared.

But there they all were again September 6th under the full moon at the Marcus Amphitheater, almost equals, with Neil in the benevolent driver’s seat. With all four brandishing guitars that were turned up and singing in full voice, CSNY was a real band, maybe for the first time. Starting with Young’s "Flags of Freedom" from LWW, all were focused, charging as one into the bright space of musical speechifying.

The LWW spirit and songs (all but one was performed) were the focus, but didn’t dominate the night. Sounding brighter and better with this ensemble (with excellent support from Ben Keith on pedal steel, Spooner Oldham on keyboards and others), some moments broke through better than on the record – Neil screeching "Don’t need no more lies" on "Restless Consumer", for instance. Other songs might not make the next tour, although all have their momentary impact. But it was clear why we and Neil were here tonight. No one else had any product (or ideas) to push.

The CSNY catalog got an early and healthy workout, much to the relief of the 50-ish investment bankers, lawyers and bewildered spousal units salt-and-peppered through the crowd. Although Crosby (in great voice and apparent health) or others may have been out front on various songs, the thick, beautiful buzz of Young’s guitars provided subtle depth unheard-of (or not allowed) in days of yore. During the instrumental moments of "Carry On" and "Wooden Ships", Neil would prowl the space in front of the drum kit, rocking back-and-forth and looking for someone to challenge. Often, he found Stephen Stills, who finally seems to have learned a few things about tone and holding notes – his solos were often indistinguishable from Young’s. Throughout the night, the Other Guys sought out Neil for his approval and to raise their game. He gave generously. They seldom, if ever, looked for each other.

Highlights of the first long set included "Long Time Gone" (written for Bobby Kennedy, and they got that one right) and an outrageous "Almost Cut My Hair", with Crosby playing the delirious fool who still thinks he owes it to someone. During "Deja Vu", Neil quoted sumptiously from "Cortez the Killer" during the dreamy instrumental break. We have all been here before, indeed. Like "Cut My Hair", many of the causes taken up by the well-meaning former hipsters had long teeth and dog-eared pages, like an old high-school notebook. Lots of getting back to the land, which hasn’t worked for anyone but polygamist Mormons in Utah. But what the old stuff lacked in useful substance, it made up in groovy celebration of well-earned glories.

After an hour-and-a-half of loud, beautiful noise, the boys gave ‘em what they came for – well, most of ‘em, anyway. For an hour, it was sunshine, communes, flowers-in-vases, women and sailboats. Young joined in seamless harmony on CSN first-album guilty pleasures "Helplessly Hoping" and "Guinevere". Stills entered soul-growler territory on a solo "Treetop Flyer", with Neil in acoustic support. Besides a dramatic "Roger and Out" (most improved song from LWW), Young’s major contribution to the quiet set was a perfect "Only Love Can Break Your Heart", with Crosby and Nash.

Just before "Teach Your Children" (and, now that we’re grownups, don’t we? Shouldn’t we?), David Crosby strapped on the electric 12-string he was playing most of the night. Neil playfully came over and seemed to be goading him into something. Crosby then became Roger McGuinn for 15 seconds, playing intro of the Byrd’s version of "Mr. Tambourine Man". There were groans all around when he stopped, but it was a moment that said something about possible true comradery on the tour.

After a moving "Find the Cost of Freedom" (accompanied by projected photos of thousands of the Unnecessary Dead), Young reached into the history bin for some images from his more recent (1979?) past. While Hendrix’ seminal National Anthem blared into the Amphitheater, three diverse actors raised an oversized microphone to the center of the stage, Iwo Jima style, and tied a giant yellow ribbon ‘round the old mic stand. This theatrical quote from the Rust Never Sleeps tour was brilliant, and Young waved the prop at the crowd when he wanted some noise the rest of the night.

The next hour was all political, loud and powerful. It began with "Let’s Impeach the President", complete with projected lyrics and video to support the Bush soundbites from the record. Graham Nash had his only bright moment of the evening with the most dated song of the night (and that takes some doing with this bunch), "Chicago". The point, I’m sure, was the chorus "we can change the world", and we can, but who remembers who was "...your brother bound and gagged/And they chained him to a chair"? How about Bobby Seale in the notorious Chicago 7 trial.

After that, Stills and Young explored their legacy. "For What It’s Worth" benefitted from a sonic update by Neil and a torrid reading by Stills. Like the blazing version of "Ohio" that followed, the song was hurt by the fact that the same sorts of things aren’t exactly going on in this national crisis – there are not "thousands of people in the street" and Nixon ain’t comin’ anymore (these guys are worse). But to the extent the reflection of previous rage informs our own, we learn, we grow and we fight better. Besides, both songs just kick total ass and always have.

All that was left was Neil’s signature blow-out from the last tour, "Rockin’ in the Free World". But it was so much different and better with everyone involved. Wait for it: CSNY almost out-rocked Pearl Jam on the recorded version. I said almost. Intent on breaking all his strings, Neil was possessed, searching for musical challenges from anyone willing to take him one, including the single horn player. It was 20 minutes of shear audio dynamite and he almost smashed that precious black Gibson of his in the process. No encore. None needed.

Getting out on a limb like Neil Young has personally and politically in the past year is not for everyone. Not everyone can handle the blow-back (he was cable-squawk fodder for a week after LWW was released, when he could have been promoting Heart of Gold) or want to even deal with getting out front on important issues. He has made the world a better place by keeping his music intense, focused, honest and meaningful – more so than anyone in his musical generation. He’s trying to move something else now through joy, music, memories and facts. The more people who come to these shows wanting "Our House" and who end up humming "Let’s Impeach" on the way out, the better.

SUPREME COURT IN BUSH SMACK-DOWN

The Unmerciful and The Necessary

The most dangerous place to be right now is behind any Bush administration official. At any moment, Bushies all over town are backpedaling as fast as they can on important issues on which they formerly promised to stand their ground. As the ground crumbles and shifts under their feet, they lurch back, back, searching for that safe, common ground.

Like millions of others, I have waited six excruciating years for the Bushies to get their just deserts in the courts. Given how Bush was "elected" in the first place – ultimately appointed by the worst decision ever from the U.S. Supreme Court, I’m sure they didn’t take the courts very seriously as anything other than a manipulable rubber-stamp. I can still hear Justice O’Connor from the tense, historically live audio during oral arguments: Something like, "Why couldn’t the voters just follow the instructions, for goodness sake?" For goodness sake, indeed.

The Bushies have always had designs on your civil liberties, but they were handed an enormous gift on 9/11/01. After flying around the country in Air Force One while they tried to figure out how to spin the disaster to their advantage, Karl Rove decided that Bush must use the word War, for maximum political leverage. After declaring War when there was none, the Bushies proceeded to demand and grab power for themselves in a way unheard of in American history, even (especially) during real war time.

And why wouldn’t they? It’s not like Congress was going to reign them in, what with the GOP congressional lapdogs in power and their pitiful sycophants on talk radio and cable marching in lockstep. Meanwhile, consultants convinced the Democrats that they ought not be perceived as unhelpful to the military response. You would have thought the Dems would have learned their lesson after Al Gore graciously conceded the presidency that rightfully belonged to him that they get nothing out of playing nice with these bastards. But, there they went, and, as the better, as it always will be.

In the meantime, the usual suspects were rounded up on the "battlefields" of Afghanistan – many innocent cab drivers, merchants and cell phone users – and hauled off, hooded and naked, to the metal cages of Guantanamo, so that America could show the world how humane we are and how we would like our captured fighters to be treated. Not.

The whole bizarre setup at Guantanamo was created fully-formed, as if it was the result of a five-year project at the Heritage Foundation. Because of the ingenious design of the unprecedented program – Gitmo is in a foreign country, but on U.S. land; names of detainees withheld; access to lawyers and the Red Cross next to impossible; "rendering" to foreign torture agents, etc. – it took over four years and lots of creative lawyering to get a case to the Supremes that actually meant something.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, an amazing thing happened. Despite all odds, what’s left of the U.S. Supreme Court – five of them, at least, the last vestige of sanity in a nation of corrupted democracy – stepped up and inserted a badly-needed legal foot into the Bushies’ behind. In fake TV wrestling, they call it a smackdown – that from which one does not get up, much less spin it in terms that preserve your dignity.

Known by the last name of the unfortunate detainee, the Hamdan case is destined to be as legally iconic as Miranda. In the opinion written by the Ford(!)-appointed, moderate-in-any-world-but-this John Paul Stevens, the Court left no question where it stood on the issue of the Bush claims to imperial status and power.

"But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction." Wow. Read it again: "...the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law..." Thus ends five years of bullshit-and-bluster by the Bushies, everything from warrantless searches of phones and bank records to endless detention without charges. "...bound to comply with the Rule of Law..." And, while you’re at it, John Paul the Good capitalized "Rule of Law". Boo-yah.

So much for the Bushies’ visions of monarchy, or so it would seem. For instance, in its ruling, the Court addressed the broad claims the Bush gang has always made about the infamous Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that swept through Congress so that we could kick some Taliban in 2001. Not so fast, says the Supreme Court: "...there is nothing in the text or legislative history of the AUMF even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter..." the regular processes of the courts of military justice.

Let’s just apply that logic to the many now-wild power assertions of the Bushies in so many other areas. What else can it be said that Congress never even "hinted" at an intent to expand or alter? Warrantless wiretaps? Bank and phone records? Forget it. Their goose is cooked like a Cheney quail – caged, helpless and with buckshot all over the faces of the innocent.

The Rove talking-point machine has had a hard time handling a smackdown as dramatic and definitive as this. At the height of their belligerence – say, a year ago – the Bushies would have used this opportunity to announce the suspension of Supreme Court rule, setting up a sub-division of the "Justice" Department to review and dispose of all complaints from annoying Americans and others as an alternative. At first, they called the broad ruling "narrow". They implied that Congress can "fix" or "tweak" the process, but not without enough protections that would result in the outright release of all but a few.

And then there are the dark ruminations of the sub-surrogates, the places that Rove sends the most outrageous messages, to soften up the underbelly with the poison of the obscene. There, the Mark Levine and Mark Savage’s of the world – pliant local and national wingnuts – talk about the ultimate constitutional crisis, the declaration of executive branch supremacy that puts to death comity and checks-and-balances once and for all.

But even Dick Cheney knows he couldn’t pull that one off. Even Cheney knows it’s over for their sorry regime and they can choose to slink off in shame or drop the Bomb and hasten the Rapture. For even thinking about this, the Bushies will burn in a Special Hell built for those who falsely claim the Kingdom.

So, the Bushies this week did the only thing they could do. They capitulated. A memo went out saying that, oops, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did apply to the Gitmo unfortunates, as the Supreme Court said. Now, we hear that even those in CIA custody (no difference, really) are so protected.

At times like these, you want to be a fly on the wall when the lawyers came in to tell Cheney the jig is up. For all of his evil intentions and accomplishments (now unraveling), Cheney always inherited, as the driven straw-that-serves-the-drink, the legacy of Richard Nixon. Nixon got drunk in the White House at night and railed at all the elites that victimized him and his poor father and mother. He talked to the portraits on the walls and thought they talked back. He forced Kissinger on his knees to pray for a god only he saw, and only after three or four stiff bourbons.

For his part, Cheney has none of the pitiful charm of the overwhelmed, lonely psychopath that Nixon was. Unlike Nixon, Cheney is surrounded by yes-men and other enablers, much more loyal and dangerous than those amateur pipsqueaks Haldeman and Erlichman. He also has a ridiculous Amen chorus in the wingnut media, willing to make excuses for any failure. Unlike Nixon, Cheney will not die in lonely isolation – both he and Junior will be very well taken care of, thank you.

But, for at least one day last week, Cheney had to swallow what the Supreme Court handed out. You know these bastards thought long and hard about creating a constitutional crisis by blowing the Court off – boy, did they ever think about it. But, in the end, they had no political capital to expend. So they caved. They are not, in any way imperial or all-powerful just because they have declared that a War is going on.

And the Rule of Law applies. To them.

Boo.

Yah.

FACE DOWN (DEAD LIKE ELVIS)

The day after the Supreme Court decided that, not only does the Emperor have no clothes – he is not even Emperor, Junior Bush took his tired, empty suit to Graceland. There, in the Hall of Ghosts for a real King, Bush got smaller and smaller, eventually disappearing altogether in the shadow of Presley’s greatness and his own shocking inadequacies.

The event was staged for the benefit of Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi, a true leader and rock-and-roller, who took full advantage of the opportunity to revel in the dusty antiques of the Jungle Room. Touching (gasp!) artifacts and dancing on the sacred shag rug of Elvis, circa 1977, Koizumi looked like he could have led his own band and perhaps held his own in the market of the time, in the record bins somewhere between Kansas and Loggins & Messina. Alphabetically, anyway.

Unfortunately, Bush stayed in the shot and was not, er, excused by the Matrons of Graceland, Priscilla and Lisa Marie. I guess in the House of E, everyone must be received (although I don’t think Bush paid the regular admission price for the tour). While Koizumi reveled in the moment and spun his arms in late-Elvis windmill fashion, Bush and Laura watched uncomfortably, waiting, as they always do, to be led off the grounds to the safely of Air Force One and the next fundraiser. Bush had his "when is this over with?" look on his dorky face.

For his part, Koizumi may still be there, for all we know, playing billiards in the pool room, flipping through over-the-air channels with the clicky remotes in the yellow RCA TV room and, perhaps, spending some quality time with Lisa Marie. Hey, she’s done worse.

Watching our classless, clueless president, I couldn’t help but think how wrong it is for him to be the first president to visit Graceland. Imagine if our first and only true rock-and-roll president, Bill Clinton, had visited his soulmate Elvis’ shrine-and-grave while in office (and, now that I think about it, why didn’t he?).

First of all, he would have fired anyone on his staff who wore Halloween Elvis getups and did not treat the visit with the respect it deserved. "Campy" is for when you go see the original Batmobile at an auto show; not for paying respect to an all-American original who magically blended R&B, country, blues and his own broken heart into rock-and-roll as we (should) know it.

Clinton would have strode into the Jungle Room like he belonged there, sniffing the air, touching the tapestries and the leather of the couches. Maybe he’d bring his sax and blow a little "Love Me Tender" into the rarified air, hearing the notes bounce off the walls like a late-night jam session with El and Scottie (Moore, Elvis’ guitar player). Clinton would have brought knowledge and respect to the visit that Bush couldn’t manage even if he cared.

Of course, the media would have quickly trivialized any such visit. Clinton in the Jungle Room? What, are you kidding? The jokes write themselves, do they not?

One thing that Bush and Presley did have in common, though, was/is disastrously bad management. But, where Elvis’ enormous talent was soured, wasted and ultimately destroyed by Sam Perkins, Bush has a different management issue. Junior Bush has proved throughout his life that he has no talent, for anything. He knowingly and willingly offered to serve as the vessel for all the bad ideas of his handlers – Reagan without the natural aw-shucks star quality.

Where Sam Perkins’ mismanagement robbed us of a few great records and, perhaps, a decent career that would have continued to this day (Elvis deserved his elderly Vegas years at least as much as Paul Anka); Karl Rove and company robbed us of our national soul and our international respect.

If anyone deserves to reach the end of his career face down on the bathroom floor, it’s George W. Bush.

Flagging the Debate

When I talk to fellow travelers about the dangers of the plague of wing-nut Talk Radio, I am met with knowing, dismissive yawns. The wing-nuts are just talking to each other, they say. Let the guys in the tank tops and crew cuts sip their High Life and confirm their Angry-White-Maleness with Limbaugh everyday. It's harmless and keeps them off the highways. Who needs more NRA bumper-stickers and road rage?

But, actually, it is Talk Radio that built up Junior Bush and tore down Clinton and Gore -- relentlessly, 24 hours a day. It is Talk Radio that ridiculed and promoted the Swift Boat lies about John Kerry, easily making the difference with a divided electorate that did not want to re-elect Bush, but, for some reason, wasn't comfortable with the alternative.

But those are only the Big Picture results. Where Talk Radio really does its damage is in inflicting the small cuts that cause every off-message opponent of the regime to bleed just enough to lose their credibility, no matter how solid their arguments. Wing-nuts don't argue; they damage and destroy. More importantly, their poisonous inquisitions leak into the MSM, where the guilt-ridden Big Feet throw bones to the wing-nuts by treating their "issues" as legitimate.

For instance, I was in my car for all of two minutes tonight (getting it off the street, the preference of the City Fathers here) and still managed to here one of our minor local wingnuts "discussing" the display of Mexican flags during the very impressive rallys held about the country this week (including 30,000 here in Milwaukee). There was, of course, the usual uncreative blather about them Mexicans coming here to get our welfare and get their kids in our schools (everything but calling them "wetbacks", which local repulsive wing-nut Mark Belling did about a year ago -- and he's still on the air). Now that's playing to the base.

But there were also a couple of themes developed by Karl Rove, no doubt, that I heard on both national and local shows. One was that the protests were promoted sneakily on Spanish radio and TV. I don't know what that has to do with anything -- the people still had to show up on their own; I don't think they were flown there by Telemundo traffic helicopters -- but the implication that those foriegners using those funny words are always talking about Us is meant to delegitimize the success of the rallies.

But the other non-issue was the display of the Mexican flag during the rallies. Whole industries -- well, kiosks in the malls, anyway -- are built on the desire of people throughout our supposed Melting Pot to display the flags of their national heritage, from St. Patrick's day to Milwaukee's famous German restaurants, etc. But, no, if these people want to object to an oppressive anti-immigrant policy, only U.S. flags shall be displayed. To what nation are they loyal, anyway?

Notice what both of these talking points do: They cast aspirtions on the advocates of a point of view, without ever getting into the real substance of the issues involved. This is what the wing-nuts do. Distract and destroy.

But the real success of this particular smear campaign won't be clear until the MSM takes these non-issues and discusses them on thier editorial and op-ed pages. "Some question display of Mexican flags at rallies", the headline will say, and there we go. People will know more about the flag displays than they will about the details of the proposed law, including the 700-mile fence at the border. Chalk up another one for the bad guys.

Next: What we can do about it (maybe).

57 Channels

Really, can you believe Joe put "Our House" on his hot playlist just because he heard it on some lame paint commercial? Hell, why not "In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida", fer cryin' out loud. Makes me want to just rip those damn earpods out of his head. No, but, really, the "Kitty's Back" ringtone is to die for and...

Did you ever notice that the more freedom and media outlets we have available, the less we do with it? There are now, what, 500 cable/sattilite channels available and what the hell is on but a bunch of recycled junk, bad Hollywood product from the past 20 years and niche programing for the over-served (golf, cooking, funny animals). For every gem like the Daily Show/Colbert Report hour, there are thousands of hours, channels and bandwidth wasted on brainless programming designed to keep (or make) you stupid. As Springsteen sang 12 (!) years ago, "57 Channels and Nothing On". Try 500, and counting.

Now multiply that by millions on the internet. Instant publishing and distribution hasn't exactly led to open doors for new ideas. The only truly reliable sites for news are run by the major news organizations, with sites like Salon and Slate adding slightly to the national conversation, but mostly through the regular prism of the Washington Press Corps.

Blogs are given great credit for moving something somewhere, but only when they get noticed by the Mainstream Media (now known as MSM). Blogs on the right are a well-financed sub-section the Bush Surrogate program, cited by radio wing-nuts for affirmation of this or that and introducing the outrageous in order to probe the soft underbelly of the electorate for brain neuron stimulation ("Damn illegal immigrants! Why can't they speak English?").

Blogs on the left are more diverse, by nature, and tend to offer small snippits of wisdom and observation and tons of links to other places that show how right we are. Some are mentioned on the MSM -- some of the dippier bloggers even get face time on cable news -- but only for their novelty status ("Yeah, I'm a blogger...tee hee") and seldom for the substance of their writing (such as it is) or their ideas. I'm sure there are some wonders out there that I just haven't found yet (just like there are bands playing and CDs proving that rock-and-roll is not Dead), but the impact on the national discussion is: not much.

I'm going to try to get some ideas out there and try to get a serious discussion going before the 2006 election cycle gets into full gear. The bottom line is that the oppressive regime of Talk Radio will get worse and we have to find a way to counter it. More to follow.

French Freedom Fries

My son is working on a project this month about his heritage. I was able to give him lots of information about the Plaisted liniage -- all the way back to Normandy in 1100 (then to England; across the ocean to Maine in 1650, etc.). He decided to concentrate on France as one of his countries of origin.

After school yesterday -- before heading out to Lake Park to play catch on a sunny day -- I had him sit down to watch some live video of the authorities trying to clear demonstrators from a square in Paris. The smart-ass 20-ish students and workers dared the jandarmes to hit them with the robot water cannons, and so they did. It is always interesting to watch the supposedly powerless toy with the determination of the supposedly powerful when they try to move them. I'm sure most of the crowd would have moved on hours ago, were it not for the ridiculous show of force. It was too much fun for the young people to play with the tin soldiers.

There has been much tut-tutting about the French protests, objecting to a change in the French law that would eliminate job security for young workers -- apparently they get the first two years for free, or something like that. This has been charactorized as downright un-American by the suck-it-up crowd, most of whom have agent-driven contracts and golden parachutes.

But, really, what is so wrong with government-sponsored job security? Not that it will ever happen here, but does everywhere in the world have to convert to our survival-of-the-luckiest version of trickle-down capitalism? I always admired the fact that everyone in France and other parts of Europe take August off as a paid holiday (not to mention their nationalized health insurance).

We need to lighten up and not be so damn virtuous about working our asses off for less pay and no security. We need to get a real life. The French already have one.

Dead to Me

It's taking a while to get started again.

I last blogged in earnest in 2004, leading up to the re-coronation of Junior Bush, an otherwise insignificant speck of dust who has served as the front for an enormously poisonous regime that has twisted political logic and destroyed any independent media that might otherwise stand in its way.

My last blog on the old site (a Salon mechanism that, for some reason, demanded $39.95 annually) had to do with the death of a counter-culture icon (back when there was a counter-culture), Hunter Thompson, who decided to take things into his own hands 20 years after his greatest achievements, and left it for others to appropriately blow his ashes out of a cannon.

As I write now, the bodies of Casper Weinberger and Lynn Nofziger are lying in some funeral home, getting dressed up for their somber ceremonies and fitful resting places. Screw the bastards.

Weinberger was scheduled to go on trial for lying to Congress and before he was summarily pardoned by Daddy Bush as he was on the way out the door in 1992 ("Where's the Outrage" case number 3492: Imagine if Bill Clinton had done the same thing...). He was a top-grade fixer, when he wasn't drawing big checks from the likes of (insert your favorite defense contractor here).

Nofziger, on the other hand, was a acolite of pioneer poison pig-fucker Lee Atwater, who more appropriately met his demise of self-imposed death-by-karma much earlier. Nofziger used his professorial goatee and bald head to snow the chattering classes into believing (or at least pretending to stomach)the nonsense sold by the Reagan and Bush I administrations. A mere piker compared to Karl Rove, Nofziger seemed capable of chuckling beneath a stein of Irish beer with Buchanan, et. al. at D.C. watering holes while the victims of the contras and other GOP-sponsored criminals bled into shallow graves.

Reagan, Weinberger, Atwater and Nofziger now dance with the other-expired in an undisclosed location. Hell is now hotter and Hunter laughs from above with the Dance of the Just.

Blaming the Victim

I've been listening to talk radio a lot lately. Maybe I just have too much time on the road, going from here to there. Maybe I can't seem to tear myself away from the poison dripping from the speakers. Maybe I'm amazed.

For all of the self-flagellation going on with progressives and/or Democrats these days, no one seems to grasp the real impact of the Echo Chamber on political dialog in this country. Wing-nut talk radio -- and its various cousins on cable TV and the internet (although the internet just gives the stooges an excuse to talk about something as if it has actually been "published") -- have had an enormous impact on the political landscape. Even the nuttiest, graveyard-shift clear-channel AM mystery voices start rumors and introduce ideas that eventually find their way into the mainstream press.

The Democrats can't get a word in edge-wise. And I'll be damned if I can figure out how we possibly could.

Some dismiss the wing-nuts because it is assumed that they are only preaching to the converted. Who cares how the hopelessly-fooled confirm and maintain their delusions? But the impact -- entirely intended -- of the continuous drumbeat of Roveian talking points is that issues and leaders are seen through the distorted prism of an ingenious alternate reality; one where the hopelessly manipulated, wrong and inadequate Junior Bush is a just and pure leader of men and any Democrats who might threaten his reign with new ideas or just plain old common sense are universally savaged and characatured as lame and ineffective.

As I examine the dark caverns of the wing-nut world, I have noticed how all of them devote more time to defining their real or imagined enemies than they ever do discussing any of their "ideas". After all, Bush "won" in '04 not by any confirmation of his own wonderfulness -- voters were done with his sorry ass a full year before that election. But, besides making sure his wealthy contributors fixed the paper-trail-less voting machines in Ohio (OK, maybe, but I wouldn't put it past these bastards), he "won" by making sure people thought the worst of John Kerry. "OK, he's a dick," the Average Voter thought of Bush. "But, Kerry?"

I'm going to explore this for a while. Stay tuned.