(1) Attorney General Gonzales's position, explained:
"I take the responsibility for what happened...but not the blame. Responsible people get to keep their jobs."
-- David Frye's "President Nixon" in Richard Nixon: A Fantasy, ca. 1973 EV. (From faulty memory, alas. :( Corrections welcome!)
Given Gonzo swore under oath that there was nothing political in the firings of the (Republican) U.S. Attorneys -- only to have massive proof to the contrary surface, most recently his Chief of Staff's memo to White House Counsel Harriet Miers coordinating the political strategy involved -- we may be gratefully rid of one of the worst attorneys general in U.S. history, shortly. I sure hope so. (Said Chief of Staff is already gone, for having done what his boss wanted him to. Shades of Scooter Libby.)
(2) Most people working in media are socially liberal, and though many are politically conservative in other ways you might expect to see something other than the bizarre anti-Democratic Party metanarratives we actually do see. This one, for instance:
(a) Dems introduce non-binding resolutions to disapprove the President's Iraq escalation. Narrative: "A 'non-binding resolution'? Why won't they do something serious?!"
(b) Dems take the bait, try to pass a law impairing the President's ability to escalate in Iraq. Narrative (paraphrased from an editorial in the Washington Post, no less!): "Instead of a responsible effort to withdraw from Iraq, this will only prompt a Constitutional crisis, since the President has already said that he'll veto it. This doesn't serve the nation's interests."
Note, btw, the concept of the President enshrined in that Post editorial: not an elected officeholder with staggeringly low approval ratings, who might be swayed by popular opinion and a vote of the Congress; no, Mr. Bush is apparently God's representative on earth, who cannot ever change his mind. If you choose to disagree with him, you're only stirring up trouble. (This from the "liberal" Washington Post, mind you; I assume over on POX News they're vomiting blood over treasonous heretical faggotry or somesuch. Like usual. :P )
My point, however, is this: why the consistently pro-GOP bias, becoming ever more shrill as GOP policies consistently fail, and the GOP itself loses political support? True, media businesses are huge corporations and can be expected to be sympathetic to corporate interests, but there's more to it than that. So file this away for future reference:
In the United States, official labor unions exist to prevent the rise of actual labor unions. In much the same way, the Democratic Party exists to prevent the rise of an actual Democratic Party.
Had the GOP been smart, they would have left well enough alone: a two party system, one protecting corporate interests, the other protecting corporate interests plus those of greedheads, religious fanatics, bigots, and crooks. It's a truly magnificent system: every time people lose heart over the Dems, in come the GOP for a few years!...to remind them it could be a hell of a lot worse.
Unfortunately, the GOP got out of control and decided to eliminate the Democratic Party entirely: through "campaign finance reform" that cut off its funding, the "K Street Project" that cut off its lobbyist support, offyear "creative redistricting" to guarantee expanding GOP control, and so forth. But something breathtaking happened: thanks largely to the internet, a new generation of supporters poured fresh life and financing into the mordant Democratic Party.
Only this NEW, new Democratic Party...is in serious danger of becoming an ACTUAL Democratic Party: the people paying for it want it to do their will. Hence the current panic.
One almost pities the lying hacks at the Washington Post editorial board. They know as well as anybody that the current administration and GOP are likely to destroy American power -- not to mention possibly eradicate human life on earth -- forever; and yet if this horrible new Democratic Party takes over, corporate taxes might go up, the propaganda system itself could be endangered, and God knows what else.* Is it worth the risk? Who can say??!!
Hope that helps explain the current dilemma, otherwise difficult for folks to parse. ;)
93 93/93 -- AJ
(who though he doesn't really do anything about this stuff, feels happier and saner to understand it)
* Perfect recent example of this: California. Thanks to Gov. Pete Wilson's use of wedge issues -- particularly against gays and Latinos -- California became a solid Democratic-majority state, and looked to continue so indefinitely. Enter the recall election to remove Gov. Gray Davis, the protected ascent of Arnold Fartzenknocker, and so forth. And I've already mentioned the media anointing -- a year before the primaries! -- the two least electable Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Clinton and Obama, as the only two allowable choices for the 2008 nomination. So it goes.
Bottom line: If actual Dems are ever allowed to take actual control, they might forget where their bread is buttered; hence the periodic corrections. In 1968 those corrections were made in rather melodramatic ways; today our masters generally prefer more peaceful means. I pray, btw, that this latter bias continues. :/