During the 1990's, Republicans peppered Bill Clinton with baseless allegations, working the media to keep him from enacting his policies.  To this day, conservative commentators like to use the adjective "scandal-plagued" to describe Clinton's term.  There is a "truthiness" in that, sure, there were scandals, but all were generated by the right wing to bring down the president.  At the time, the MSM obediently printed every rumor and allegation, without bothering to check if the charges had any merit.  We now know that Clinton was the most thoroughly investigated president in history, to the tune of $70 million, and none of the scandals led to indictment.  None but the Lewinski affair. The rouge independent counsellor Ken Starr had a suspect, but was searching deperately for a crime.  Nothing panned out.  Throughout the impeachment, Clinton's approval rating remained in the 60+ percentile.

Wingnuts rallied around the battle cry, "Where is the outrage?" when their efforts to tar Clinton got no traction.

Today, and for the last 6 years, those of us in the reality-based community have been asking, "Where is the media?"

Talk about scandal-plagued administrations.  Jack Abramoff.  Signing statements.  Abu Ghraib.  WMDs.  Warrantless wiretapping.  Scooter Libby.  Enron.  Waterboarding.  Walter Reed Hospital.  Hurricane Katrina.  Halliburton.  Each could fill a book.  Some already have.

Yet where is the media in exposing these scandals?  On Bush's side, that's where.  Too often we're told it's a  minor transgression, or Clinton did it too, or the world changed on 9/11.  The blogoshpere has been the driving force behind shedding light on most of these stories, dragging the sleepy MSM along until they finally wake up and say, "Holy shit!, I didn't think it was this bad."

Think I'm exaggerating?  Jay Carney, Time magazine's Washington bureau chief, posted this mea culpa.  Check out the comments posted in response to Carney's apology.  Be sure to visit Josh Marshall's excellent site to see why Time magazine is jealous.

Yes, the media is just now beginning to realize the scope of Bush's lust for power.  There are rumors that Bush is drinking again.  I don't buy it.  But he is drunk, on power.  Alcoholic that he is, he has replaced the bottle for power, and the more he gets, the more he wants.  He really gets off on it, too.  Take the way he treats foreign leaders when he's visiting.  But I digress.

The MSM has been MIA.  Only in the blogosphere has the full extent of Bush's abuse of power been openly discussed.  The MSM is starting to respond to the public's thirst for real journalism, instead of the pap we've been handed.  Scooter Libby's trial exposed that the White House felt NBC's Tim Russert was a useful ally in getting out Republican talking points.  For once, I agree with Bush.  Tim Russert has been a GOP tool.

It has taken the Democrats a long time to understand the extent of media bias, but it's finally sinking in.  When Nevada Democratic party officials made a deal with Fox News to host a presidential debate, bloggers took the lead in demanding that the deal be withdrawn.  (Can anyone be so clueless not to realize that Fox News is a megaphone for the Republican party?)  John Edwards was the first to withdraw, and as pressure and petitions mounted, it only took a remark by Roger Ailes to break the deal.  Actually, Ailes' remark would likely not have caused a fuss if there wasn't already a mounting protest against the Fox Noise channel.

Now, there's a point I want to make.  You have to read this as background.  Andrew Roberts writes a pretend history book and Bush has a "literary luncheon" in his honor, where a small group of neocons teach "lessons" to keep him on the right track.  Of course, the main lesson is that if Bush remains true to the neocon cause, God and history will look favorably on him.  Now, isn't that creepy?  It doesn't matter what anyone else outside the cloistered neocon circle thinks, they tell him.   Bush believes history will prove him right.  He has no doubts, no regrets.  Completely delusional.  It's an interesting perspective into how Bush and his ilk reside in a separate universe.  Conservatives even launched their own Wikipedia, Conservapedia, because they perceive a liberal bias.  It's true, facts have a liberal bias.

Now, Bush is probably dumb enough to fall for the rationale that history will prove him right.  I seriously doubt that the rest of those in his circle (or should I say bubble?) feel that way.  They plan to rewrite history to prove their motives were pure and their logic infallible.  This is where control of the media is crucial.  This isn't just spin for them, it's about control and dominance.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.  But that's the nut of it, isn't it?  Conservapedia, Fox News, AM talk radio and the well-funded right press parrot the administration's deceptions and create an alternate universe where the wingnuts can feel at home.  They have to create an artificial history.  How can you reason with, how can you have any rational discussion with people so detached and isolated?  How can they make informed decisions, if they're only listening to one side of the discussion? 

But it gets worse.  They also have an alternate morality.  They like to claim Christian values, but Jesus spent more time teaching compassion and care for the sick and poor than anything else.  We know who Bush's base is, and how he nurtures those that are wealthy and powerful.  Misguided as his Christian values are, Bush believes God is working through him, so he can do no wrong.  These thugs will not surrender or go quietly, even when confronted with the evidence against them.  The end justifies the means, and if a few laws were broken to cement their hold on power, that's OK.  Hold on, it's going to be a very bumpy ride for the next 20 months.
Where is the Media?  March 16, 2007
Worst.
President.
Ever. 
Care to donate?
Get serious.  This is my hobby, my therapy, my patriotic duty. If you've got a few bucks burning a hole in your pocket,
give it to one of
MY FAVORITE LINKS:
(they deserve it)
"Where is the Outrage? " 1997
About me:
As a blogger, I am teh suck.
I update this site rarely, with good reason.
I'm a 54-year-old full-time research engineer, married with two wonderful daughters. Whereas most bloggers have only one reader, (hisself), I get the occasional hit from surfers curious about the URL. 
I took this address way back in May 2003, grabbing dibs to say the obvious,
Bush is scum.

                           giss