The Bosque Boys

Quick Hitter from the Martian Mariner:

Something I found especially ironic: the New York Times feigning indignation at a media leak.

"Until Thursday, that is, when the Drudge Report, citing an article in an obscure Australian magazine, gleefully broke the news on its Web site. 'Prince Harry Fights on Front Lines in Afghanistan,' it reported, spoiling the carefully orchestrated deal under which British news organizations had been given details about the prince’s deployment in exchange for not telling anyone.

"The awkwardly timed dissemination of such juicy information had a number of very quick repercussions."

So now it's "gleeful" little Drudge screwing up what even British tabloids were able to keep a lid on. Apparently, the NYT limits its leaks to more important matters having no impact on human life - like the leak of bin Laden's satellite phone in 1998. And it never makes any "awkwardly timed disseminations," such as last week's juicy bit about McCain and his lobbyist girlfriend.

Nope, the NYT wouldn't do that, and not even British tabloids would do that - and that's why established media should have the lock on presenting the news. Because these blogs simply don't know "how it's done" - they'll print what isn't "fit to print."

Give me a break.

In past wars, we would have read the story of Joshua Chiarini in the papers. Now the blogosphere must do the job for the MSM. Chiarini is a Navy Corpsman attached to the Marines. On February 2, 2006, his actions in Anbar province earned him the Silver Star. Read the story here.

My searching has found no mention of this story in the New York Times or Washington Post.

On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving my wife and I traveled to northwest Arkansas to the home of one of her sisters and husband. On Thanksgiving Day her siblings and spouses assembled at Branson, Missouri, for fun and fellowship. My wife and I returned to Oklahoma City on Saturday evening so as to be in church with our daughter and her fiancee Sunday morning.

The Interstates were busy: $3.00 gasoline did not seem to deter many people. Branson was crowded with visitors. New construction is under way there. And the Disney corporation has purchased a big chunk of acres near Branson to develop into some sort of tourist attraction.

We seem to be in good economic times, whatever the MSM say.

From Reuters via the Washington Post:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh raised $2.1 million for children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers on Friday by auctioning off a letter from Senate Democrats denouncing him for a remark about 'phony soldiers.'"

An important story meriting prominent placement?

The Washington Post did not think so; they chose to bury the item on its "Nation" page under the "Wire" link. As of this writing (Friday night), the wire service account is underneath more than thirty other such stories.

When is Rush Limbaugh more newsworthy?

Very frequently--but mostly when he is in trouble.

He is front-page news when he demonstrates insensitivity toward an enfeebled celebrity venturing into the political arena (the Michael J. Fox tumult). Limbaugh has also found himself at the top of the page concerning his personal life, when his battle with addiction to prescription drugs found its way into the public domain or later when authorities detained him for carrying Viagra on an international flight. Evidently, those incidents were stories with high news value.

So, Limbaugh is a person of general public interest. Is there anything special about this particular story?

I think so. Limbaugh earned a record-breaking amount of money for a worthy cause. The ebay auction netted the biggest charitable contribution in the history of the online-bidding enterprise. Limbaugh more than doubled the previous record.

Did the story involve any other persons of note? Were there any compelling special interest angles?

You bet. The online charity auction was the ensuing chapter to a major imbroglio from the recent past. Fifteen days ago, Limbaugh found himself on the defensive when the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and forty fellow Democrats in the Senate, charged him with making "outrageous...unpatriotic and indefensible comments" directed at soldiers dissenting against the war in Iraq. The story was above-the-fold news in all the major dailies and the network news shows.

The developments today unquestionably constitute a noteworthy follow-up to that featured story.

But what did all that add up to for the mainstream network news desks tonight? A big fat zero. I could find no coverage on the big three nightly news broadcasts or on the Newshour.

In fairness, I must accord some left-handed praise for the New York Times for at least covering the culminating event. They currently feature a full-length, in-house story on the front page of their website: Limbaugh Sells Critical Letter for $2.1 Million.

However, the story begins and develops with a pungently hostile slant. Check out this lead:

"After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as “phony soldiers,” he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators."

TWELVE (let me repeat, TWELVE) graphs later, we get Limbaugh's side of the story:

"Mr. Limbaugh has said that he was only referring to one soldier who was critical of the war and had served only 44 days in the Army and never seen combat."

In between, we learn that Harry Reid is a big enough person to applaud the charitable gift. Quoting Reid:

"I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people."

We also learn that Rush was dead wrong in his character assessment of the Leader:

"He [Limbaugh] predicted the sale’s success would anger the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a signer of the letter, who[m] Mr. Limbaugh calls 'Dingy Harry."

But no--Reid was just tickled pink over the news.

In a truly bizarre conclusion, the Times, consulting a purported tax law expert, insinuates:

"the Casey foundation [the high bidder] might be liable for taxes because it would have difficulty demonstrating that the purchase of the letter furthered a charitable purpose. [Quoting the tax attorney]: 'They’d have to establish the link between the transfer of money for that letter and promoting free speech, and that’s going to be tough.'"

Say what? I don't have a law degree, and I have no experience with the IRS--but come now.

A 2.1 million-dollar gift to a registered charity is going to be tough to justify?

Bottom Line: No fair-minded person can say that the mainstream media is a level playing field for prominent conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. In other words, objectivity is always subjective.

UPDATE: Thomas Lifson (link via RCP here) asks a question to which we all know the answer, but it is nevertheless brilliantly illustrative: what if a Republican leader had attacked a liberal media favorite in a similar manner, using the power of Congress to intimidate a major media outlet? Would the smashing return shot have been news?

I refrained from extensive commentary concerning the "General Betray Us" ad. Briefly and indirectly, on a few occasions, I made a few cursory and cryptic observations regarding the unfortunate incident. But I also predicted that the ad would have no long-term meaningful impact on the 2008 election.

However, I certainly could have commented on the NYT's hypocrisy and blatant partisanship for facilitating the ludicrous attack. I could have commented on the calculating Democratic presidential candidates who painfully contorted themselves to avoid incurring the wrath of the irrational radical fringe within their party now so vital to securing nomination. And I could have written about the cowardly silence of Democratic Party leaders, who ruinously enable that same cretin-like and corrosive coterie within their ranks.

Why did I lay off the "General Betray Us" ad?

Frankly, the entire imbroglio was beneath our mission and my talent. To quote myself: "The Okie Gardener and I envisioned this blog as an electronic salon where reasonable and earnest people might come and exchange beliefs and impressions regarding important issues."

The "General Betray Us" ad was not an important issue. It was an abomination and an embarrassment and a national humiliation--but it did not quite rise to the level of worthwhile political discourse. For me, the "General Betray Us" was akin to walking down the street and encountering hoodlums engaging in vile language. Should we take the time to instruct these barbarians in civil conduct--or do we just keep walking, choosing not to cast our pearls among swine. What really is there to say to MoveOn? And who is there to persuade who is not already immutably convinced one way or the other?

But then things got stickier. The opposition struck back. Media Matters and other liberal "watchdog" groups regularly troll the airwaves of conservative radio, listening to hundreds of hours of conversation per week, and looking for something incendiary to use against Republicans. This week they hooked a big fish: Rush Limbaugh.

They caught Rush intimating that servicemen who speak out against the war are somehow less loyal, worthy, and/or patriotic: "phony soldiers."

Lefty blogs and Democratic Party leaders in Congress, raw from the "General Betray Us" excoriation, gleefully pounced on the Rush assertion. Rush claims that his persecutors have the quote out of context.

An aside: Rush is right about this incident. The quote is out of context and much ado about not much. More importantly, a thoughtless characterization in the midst of a heated and unrehearsed conversation is categorically different from a full-page ad placed in the New York Times. Having said that, it is also true that Rush is a flamethrower and often imprecise in his speech.

As Steny Hoyer said on the floor of the House this week, "what’s good for the goose is good for the gander."

The Democrats are anxious (perhaps desperate is a better word) to make a point. They want to send a message that Republican politicians are similarly vulnerable to guilt by association. MoveOn.org did not invent calumny. In truth, Rush and Sean et al are as good at political vituperation as any member of the party of Jackson. In the words of Robert Deniro's Al Capone, "somebody messes with me, I'm gonna mess with them." Are the Dems going to the mattresses? Maybe.

Nonetheless, "let not your hearts be troubled." Rush is safe. We take care of our own. Not because we are cravenly beholden to talk radio like the Democrats are to their lunatic fringe--but because Rush has earned our loyalty over nearly two decades of stalwart service to conservatism. He is a hero of the revolution.

Granted, Rush is not an intellectual wellspring for conservative thought, but he is a bright, self-educated, entertaining, and articulate "popularizer" of the faith, and he deserves our admiration and protection. Before there was a blogosphere, a conservative cable news channel, or a vast network of right-wing talkers, there was Rush. Standing fearless in the face of the enemy like a stonewall, Rush broke the liberal monopoly on the mainstream media. When pressed, the hip progressives who liked to pal around with Don Imus gave him up like a bad habit. That won't happen to Rush. We owe him too much. And that brand of personal allegiance still means something in Red-State America.

In terms of disdain generated from the mainstream media and the liberal establishment, Matt Drudge ranks second only to Rush Limbaugh. The Left hates Drudge; they have parodied him, slandered him and attempted to reduce his readership by brutally disparaging his audience.

None of it has worked.

Why? What is the value of Drudge?

Like most of America, I had never heard of the Drudge Report before January 21, 1998. As we all remember, Drudge entered the American political lexicon by breaking a huge story that Newsweek refused to publish: the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Once I realized that Drudge readers found out on January 17 what I didn't learn until four days later, I decided that Drudge was a necessary supplement to my news diet.

Drudge cuts to the chase with sensational political stories. The recent Al Gore III and John Edwards dust-ups are cases in point. While the establishment outlets wringed their hands and waited for the sensational to become news (because others were reporting it), Drudge reported. Drudge became the one-stop center for Gore news this morning.

Similarly, when George Stephanopoulos mentioned John Edwards's latest hair gaffe this morning on GMA, I clicked around a bit to no avail--and then went to Drudge. Of course, there it was: Top-Right Corner. Easy.

Most times, as in the case of the Edwards story, Drudge is not an investigative reporter; he is not a newshound in the sense of a muckraking journalists, but he is a newshound in terms of highlighting interesting but obscure stories already in play. In the case of Edwards, the story came from an incredibly elite source, the Washington Post. But Drudge made it the story of the day.

Although the field is congested now with imitators on both sides of the divide, Drudge continues to play a vital role in electronic politics. Slap me if I ever get too cultured for the Drudge Report.

Trivia Question: What is the least-read edition of any daily newspaper?

Answer: Saturday.

This Saturday in the Washington Post:

Christina Shelton, an intelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 1984 to 2006, writes of her role in determining the existing links between Saddam's Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization during the summer of 2002.

Quoting Shelton:

"[Back then] I summarized a body of mostly CIA reporting (dating from 1990 to 2002), from a variety of sources, that reflected a pattern of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda, including high-level contacts between Iraqi senior officials and al-Qaeda, training in bomb making, Iraqi offers of safe haven, and a nonaggression agreement to cooperate on unspecified areas."

The Shelton piece is a curious article (in full here), as it comes without editorial comment or context--but clearly radiates resentment for the way in which George Tenet, the media and the swirling "politics of the Iraq war" have clouded the study of an extremely complicated issue.

Notwithstanding, she optimistically predicts that "a more complete understanding of Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda will emerge when [future less politicized] historians can exploit the numerous seized documents."

We can only hope.

For now, the template of the mainstream media, who often bemoan the lack of nuance in political discussions, demand "black and white," "right or wrong" answers when it comes to pre-war intelligence.

At least one source is already calling the early box office for Sicko "healthy" ($1.3 million in 441 theaters on Friday).

UPDATE-2: Weekend total: $4.5 million to finish at No. 9. nationwide (full story here via BostonHerald.com).

An aside: these numbers are approximately five-times weaker than the opening for Fahrenheit 9/11--but still very strong for a documentary.

Considering the pre-opening publicity for the film, which began in earnest a month ago, the high profile of the filmmaker, and the plethora of positive reviews, no one should be surprised at the initial interest in Michael Moore's latest offering.

Having said that, my hunch is, in the end, Sicko will fall well short of expectations (however, even if my prediction comes to pass and the picture goes South, don't hold your breath for much critical press coverage).

The feature-length documentary is receiving a big push from the studio and a first-class ride from the film-reviewing fraternity, many of whom are big fans of Michael Moore's politics and like-minded in their basic assumptions about America, big business and evil Republicans.

However, my prediction is that Sicko will not have legs. Once the usual suspects see the film (and go back and watch it again a few times for the team),* who else is really going to care about this film?

In general, American filmgoers are not fans of the documentary genre. In terms of style, if you have seen one Michael Moore film, you have seen them all. Why would Joe Sixpack and family spend thirty-some dollars to go see a serially angry and malcontented demagogue deliver a heavy-handed and patronizing harangue dripping with sarcasm and a depressingly redundant deep-seated cynicism?

In the bluntest terms, it is unlikely that the work will ever appeal to anyone other than the axis of American liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia). One great irony is that the biggest fans of this film will be an elite echelon of Americans who actually enjoy the best health care in the world. Even more ironic, there are actually very few of these ostensibly compassionate humanitarians who will be willing to give up their own premium personal care to stand in line in some national health system so that the "unfortunate" might have more access. In the most practical sense, they are as much against "leveling" as William F. Buckley.

In the end, the hype around Sicko will prove to be another self-indulgent exercise of the American Left. Without seeing the picture, I can already tell you that it is a frontrunner for an Academy Award. Barring a late entry from Al Gore, Michael Moore should have a clear path to another statuette. On the other hand, Moore, who too often listens to his own press and the retinue of fools who encourage his antics, is still not a major player in American politics. He is a major player in Hollywood--but he carries very little weight (no pun intended) in fly-over country.

*UPDATE-1: This exhortation from the Daily Kos explains some of what is happening in re the weekend numbers:

Quoting Kos poster "hopesprings":

So if you want to see SICKO stick around and move into more and better venues, go see it this weekend. If you want all of America to be able to see it easily, go see it. See it again. And tell your friends to see it.

Will the campaign generate enough momentum to attract a wider audience? We'll see. But I stand by hunch.

From the homepage of Congressman Mike Pence (R) Indiana:

PENCE AMENDMENT PASSES HOUSE 309-115
Prohibits FCC From Reviving Fairness Doctrine

Read the full press release on Congressman Pence's website here.

What Happened?

Pence's amendment to the 2008 Financial Services Appropriations bill prohibiting funds from being used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to impose the Fairness Doctrine passed the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 309-115.

Is this a big deal?

Not really. The story did not make a big splash. I heard about it on Washington Journal this morning. Having searched the Post and the Times and then Google, the most prominent mention of the amendment I can find is in the Hill. You may read the well-crafted and informative article here.

As the Hill points out, the bill speaks to the 2008 budget, and "there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president."

According to Pence, he intends to "introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act to ensure that the victory we experienced on the House floor today extends to future generations."

I am less optimistic about that legislation.

Needless to say, the overwhelming vote for the Pence-Hensarling-Flake Amendment may not tell us much, as it was an opportunity to appeal to talk radio listeners without consequences. However, it is instructive to note that over 100 Democrats voted for the bill, which tells me they don't need a weather man to tell which way the wind is blowing in their home districts.

As I said a few days ago in this piece (you may review the entire post here), I am not greatly alarmed by the Democratic saber-rattling on this issue.

Quoting myself:

Such a move would incite a massive popular revolt that would dwarf the grassroots rebellion engendered over immigration. There has never been a more democratic apparatus in American political culture than talk radio, and fly-over country loves and appreciates this conduit to the centers of national power. Perhaps it is true that America grows more apathetic everyday--but an enormous portion of the remaining fighters and patriots listen to talk radio. Red-blooded, Red-State America can be mobilized in a single afternoon.

Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton are foolhardy, indeed, for introducing this hot button subject into the arena. On the other hand, we should not look a gift issue in the mouth. If they want to threaten the conservative base with this scenario--let's kick it around.

Looks to me like Mike Pence and company are wisely kicking it.

I have ridiculed Good Morning America mercilessly over the course of my brief career as a blogger. No apologies; they have deserved every word of derision--and more. But, fair is fair, and this morning the GMA crew shocked me with their spin on the Elizabeth Edwards story.

This morning's program featured a live interview with Mrs. Edwards. Before Chris Cuomo began his questioning of the candidate's wife, he introduced a critical analysis piece by Jake Tapper as preface. Perhaps cynical or "unfriendly" is a more precise characterization of the report.

The phrases "political stunt" and "Coulter cash" kept coming up. The report questioned the timing of the clash with Coulter (we are up against a contributions accounting deadline) and the hypocrisy of denouncing Coulter but also unabashedly making use of her comments to raise desperately needed "cash" for the campaign.

These are obvious points--and dead on. But you can understand my surprise that they saw the light of day on GMA to be used against a Democratic politician.

You may read the Tapper piece here and also view the subsequent interview.

The line of questioning did not get any easier for Mrs. Edwards. After an obligatory and awkward compliment ("Mrs. Edwards, you are looking robust, today"), Cuomo played a longer clip of the Coulter comments on GMA that initiated this round of name-calling.

The original GMA (6-26) segment here via YouTube.

Note: I am posting the 7:23 full version (not the fifteen second clip that made the rounds). Ms. Coulter alludes to a Bill Maher comment in which he suggested that we would all be better off if Dick Cheney died in a terrorist attack. For what it is worth, you will note that Chris Cuomo did not seem to sense that Ms. Coulter had stepped over the line.

Cuomo to Edwards: "Hearing the quote in context, are you still angry?"

Mrs. Edwards responded with a litany of clichés and indirect answers.

A verbal mosaic (my interpretation of Mrs. Edwards's comments):

--Yes (I am still angry).
--Coulter is evil and she must be confronted
--I don't know or care what Bill Maher said; I am talking about Coulter
--What about the 9-11 widows?
--What about Hillary's "chubby legs"?
--We must stop Ann Coulter--not for us, but for the children

Cuomo: "Is this a political stunt?"

Mrs. Edwards:

--not self-interested, completely altruistic
--must make bold stand for future of America

Cuomo: "Was this a ploy to raise money on the eve of an important fundraising deadline?"

Mrs. Edwards:

--nothing to do with money
--had no idea it might help in polls or fundraising
--only for the children
--Just like I spoke out against racism in the South, I am speaking out against a similar evil

Wow! I was shocked. What had I witnessed?

Later: GMA ran a long puff piece on Hillary Clinton's female staffers: "Hillary Land." It was all cute stories, laughs and pictures of Hillary holding babies.

Now I was less impressed with GMA. Am I too cynical? If so, I cannot help myself. But it dawned on me suddenly why GMA was grilling Mrs. Edwards like she was the wife of a GOP candidate. Could it be that there is room for only one uber-mother in this campaign?