The Fool wrote:
<<http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=a6da2e05-c808-4f7e-9ab2-3d2a01a82a15>>
[snip]
8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to
ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've
developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some
variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics
are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions
such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he
cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right
assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the
truth.
I read this just after reading Fred Clark's latest blog entry,
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2005/12/god_save_the_ki.html
if you want to read the whole thing
The meat of that post, to me, was this:
<quote>
The White House's claim, essentially, is this: The president may do
whatever he sees fit in order to keep the country safe. For some, those
last seven words justify and legitimize the unlimited powergrab of the
first eight. But many of us cannot accept the beginning of that sentence
-- "the president may do whatever he sees fit" -- regardless of what
follows.
<end quote>
That is the heart of the disagreement, I think.
Julia
p.s. thanks for giving me that opening for sharing the slacktivist link!
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
