The dumbest comment on the McFly affair to date

by folkbum

And I'm proud to say it was made right here in the comments section of this very blog!

Regular (and blogger in his own right) Dad29 came by last night to say, "Frankly the biggest story is 'who sent the letters/emails?'--unanswered by Bice." (Original Bice story here, for the one or two of you who haven't read it yet.)

This is dumb for two reasons: One, it suggests that somehow evidence of a transgression (and a Class E felony!) is somehow more important than the transgression itself.

Two, and this is the key, the statement perfectly encapsulates everything that went wrong with the treatment of (alleged) lawbreaking by the Bush administration in the last decade. Wiretaps being done without a warrant in violation of the law? Who told you that? CIA black sites scattered across Eastern Europe? Let's get that reporter's notes! There are photographs out there showing detainee abuse? Stop their release!

Well, okay, the last one also applies to the current administration.

But this is, perhaps, the most frustrating thing for me in considering the way in which government, at many levels, has been running lately, and the way in which people who ought to be (for want of a better term) watchdogging it are falling down on the job. So much attention is paid to the evidence or consequences of the evidence of wrongdoing that no one ever gets around to prosecuting the criminals.

This is not, in any way, to say that McFly should be prosecuted. It's just that this dodge--who leaked the evidence?--is so irritating to me that I have to comment on the larger pattern, using this minor matter as the catalyst.

---
Updated to add: Jessica McBride has made me popular again (according to SiteMeter's graphy thingy):

Whoa

by folkbum

So my storm-phobic dog wakes me up in the middle of the night, and I pull up the news to see the damage (wunderground tells me there's been tornado warnings about). I was not expecting to see this kind of damage.

***

COLD LIGHT OF MORNING UPDATE: Generally, I let people's personal failures lie, unless there is something that makes such a failure something more than mere human weakness; otherwise, it looks like public reveling in others' private misfortune. (For example, I took no pleasure--and personally made no mention on this blog--of the earlier-than-expected Plain grandchild.)

But two things prompted the above comment. One is that McBride has broken a very strict commandment of journalism. She is for the most part now a crime reporter for Milwaukee Magazine, reporting not just on Chief Flynn in recent months but also on topics like the possible upper-Mississippi serial killer who murders drunk college kids and tosses them in the river. If this is her beat, she's crossed a big red line.

Two, Flynn's arrival in town was heralded, far too much so, by the morality squawkers on line, in print, and over the air. He was coming in to clean up the town, this Good, Upstanding, Irish Catholic (another factoid from McBride's writings on Flynn) man was going to put Milwaukee criminals on notice, the squawkers said, and they celebrated his every victory. A high-profile man whose base of support expects--nay, demands--fealty to the straight and narrow has gone off track, and reaction will be interesting to watch. Will they demand his head, as they did with John Norquist? Will they let it slide? (Of course, many of these same morality-police righties are proud to be called "Charlie Sykes Storm Troopers," and Sykes himself is not such a role model for marital fidelity.)

ONE MORE UPDATE: 1. Brawler has a compendium. Not kind to the parties involved. 2. Dan Cody is nicer. 3. Wiggy sure picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue blogging.

To engage or not to engage

by folkbum

In all my years in the Cheddarsphere, the other side has often been insufferabe. (I'm sure they would say roughly the same thing about me and my side.) However, in all those years, that other side represented the side in power. I cannot even begin to imagine just how much more untethered they will become once Barack Obama is sworn in January 20. The first week or so of president-elect Obama has been pretty rough already.

I remember the the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was president and the conservative media played the role of beleaguered opposition. My mother listened to Rush Limbaugh--I recall Limbaugh's short-lived television program on at the house, too--and G. Gordon Liddy and the like, and had to deal with the misinformation and paranoia that resulted in the house. I remember watching Sunday morning television to see Jerry Falwell hawking video tapes between his rants, tapes that supposedly showed the connection between Clinton and cocaine trafficking with all the murder and other crime associated with it. I recall Ann Coulter on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" (before ABC fired him for being, er, politically incorrect, according to the Bush White House's definition) and being surprised that she could return time after time to spew her nonsense. I've read David Brock.

All of those, of course, happened in mainstream venues with relatively large audiences and, I would hope, some measure of concern for propriety and decency. Yes, even with all the crap flung by the howling right through the Clinton years, I have a feeling that there was a great deal of restraint involved.

Why? Because you're starting to see what an unrestrained out-of-power right-wing movement will look like; take a tour of parts of the right-wing Cheddarsphere (not the parts I generally link to) to see it.

The fringy kooks like Limbaugh and Coulter who we hoped in the 1990s would fade have gone on to become the mainstream faces and voices of Republican and conservative thought. Bullies like Hannity and O'Reilly dominate the discourse where once they would have been consigned to joke status. During the campaign, Obama was repeatedly excoriated for not going to FOX News (where he did eventually sit down with O'Reilly), while no one even seemed to care that John McCain cancelled on Larry King.

But how did the fringe right get so powerful? There are two possibilities: One, the left engaged them and gave them too much credibility (i.e., Maher's use of Coulter). Two, the left chose not to engage and allowed the insanity to take hold. The former view has always made a lot of sense to me; as I said, I do not link to the fringier elements of the conservative Cheddarsphere because I don't feel the need to give them any more attention than they already have. It doesn't seem to matter; consider that in the week since Peter "put a bounty on [Obama's] melon" Digaudio started his new blog, he's already nearing 2000 hits, something that after almost 6 years of blogging is a good week's total for me. Obviously, my ignoring his lunacy has not significantly changed either his writing or his audience.

Or consider this: I have three tabs' worth of Jessica McBride columns open in my browser right now. McBride, off the airwaves for a while now and blogless almost as long, seems to have much less sway in the discourse now. So do I really want to draw attention to the fact that in two columns just before the election (1, 2), McBride calls Barack Obama a "redistributive" "socialist" out-of-the-mainstream candidate ("McCain is a centrist, Obama is not," she wrote)--and in her post election column she leads with, "How can Democrats claim Barack Obama's victory means the country has liberalized when Obama ran as a moderate?" (Note: Some headline writer needs to be fired for calling that column an election "post-partum," rather than a "post-mortem.") How much does pointing out the foolishness and inconsistency really help my side, as opposed to just offering McBride additional credibility?

One more: Pretty much everywhere I go on the righties' blogs these days, "gus" is there (remember him?). He poisons every thread he's on, making them unendurable. It's impossible to have a rational discussion once "gus" hits the comments. See, as a recent example, this post at Badger Blogger, where a few thoughtful liberals try to have a reasonable discussion with a few thoughtful conservatives, and watch how the whole thing falls to hell once "gus" shows up. Do we engage that? How do we engage that? And what good does it do to try to have a conversation if you know that people not already committed to the thread are likely to see "gus" doing his thing and give up reading it?

On the other hand, the latter view, that we failed to engage and allowed the growth of the fringe into the mainstream, is voiced eloquently this week by Dan Shelley, formerly a news director at Milwaukee's WTMJ radio, which is the Wisconsin equivalent of FOX News, with some baseball thrown in. Shelley writes in Milwaukee Magazine how conservative squawkers moved from loony fringe to mainstream:

left WTMJ with some regret [. . .]. In the constant push for ratings, I had seen and helped foster the transformation of AM radio and the rise of conservative hosts. They have a power that is unlikely to decline.

Their rise was also helped by liberals whose ideology, after all, emphasizes tolerance. Their friendly toleration of talk radio merely gave the hosts more credibility. Yet an attitude of intolerance was probably worse: It made the liberals look hypocritical, giving ammunition to talk show hosts who used it with great skill.

But the key reason talk radio succeeds is because its hosts can exploit the fears and perceived victimization of a large swath of conservative-leaning listeners. And they feel victimized because many liberals and moderates have ignored or trivialized their concerns and have stereotyped these Americans as uncaring curmudgeons.

Here, Shelley is clear: By refusing to engage both the hosts' rantings and the listeners' concerns, we liberals let the conservative talk genre thrive. The implied answer is that not only do we have to stand up and engage the arguments head-on, we also have to offer something to the audience--for surely that audience is real, though less powerful than conservatives might like to believe (example)--that allays the fears and offers them a more realistic, more optimistic world view.

When I talk about the influence of this blog--which I maintain is meagre and not something worth touting--I generally talk about the ability to eventually shift the conversation slightly toward (what I see as) the truth, toward a more progressive view of policy and the world in general. For example, my post earlier this week on Obama's "civilian national security force" spent a few days at the top of the google blog search rankings, and I found myself cited as a source to smack-down the paranoia of the right on everything from a classical music usenet group to an ESPN discussion board. Being able to put the facts out there and offer an alternative (and, to some, authoritative) take on a topic is important to me, because it does change the conversation just a little bit. I'm not looking to win the whole game here, just move the ball downfield a yard or two at a time.

But I wouldn't have written that post if I wasn't planning to engage, going directly at some of the local bloggers and their readers who have bought into the idea that Obama was seriously talking about instituting a kind of secret police (some still do buy into that idea).

My ambivalence about this is years old, now, and I don't think I have ever tried to work through it this way before. I think the take-away lesson is that we have to start taking the fights more directly to the fringe. Every day that this kind of paranoia and extremism goes unchecked is a day we've lost the debate. McBride's columns shouldn't linger in open tabs on my computer but ought to be funneled into letter-writing or rebuttals. When the new Peter DiGaudio not only lies about Barack Obama but accuses liberals of being anti-semitic while making some pretty vilely anti-Jewish statements himself (suggesting that 3/4 of American Jews are "really self-hating and [. . .] may have been the type who sold out their fellow Jews to the Nazis in 1930s Germany") he needs to be called on it. By everyone.

So let's engage.

Do you think Jessica now calls him "Loophole Paulie"?

by folkbum

A judge today refused to dismiss five counts of misdemeanor sex assault filed against an acupuncturist who practiced in the City of Pewaukee and Delafield and scheduled the case for a July jury trial.

Samy A. Elawady, 63, of Wauwatosa, was charged in March with nine counts of fourth-degree sexual assault in connection with inappropriately touching the breasts of six female patients, according to the criminal complaint filed against him in Waukesha County Circuit Court.

Defense attorney Paul Bucher argued that five of the counts should be dismissed because the state failed to allege in the charging document that the touching was for the purpose of sexual gratification. [. . .] The former Waukesha County district attorney said two elements are required before sexual assault charges can be filed: touching and sexual gratification.

Hat tip to my wife, who read to me from this story just appalled that anyone would offer up such a defense for a serial groper. No surprise it comes from a serial GOPer.

Walker Officially Breaks Another Promise

by capper

Remember earlier this year, when the conservatives made such a big deal about a pledge that Governor Jim Doyle made several years ago about not raising taxes. They kept repeating the "No Tax" thing ad nauseum. When confronted on the fact that the statement was from years ago, they said that it did not matter, a promise is a promise. An example would be such high thinking would be from Jessica McBride, in an exchange with Tim Rock:

Other Side said...
The quote you are using is from Governor Doyle's State of the State address back in February 2003 and was made in reference to to digging ourselves out of the Thompson/McCallum fiscal mess.

As a journalism professional, you might try to get all the facts and report them rather than just parrot talk radio. Your students expect more from you.
October 28, 2007 9:45 AM

Jessica McBride said...
Other Side, Your typical gratuitious(sic) nastiness aside, who cares when he promised it? He promised it. He made similar comments since then, as you well know, anyway.
October 28, 2007 11:11 AM

I would bet a lot of money that they will be changing their stance on this issue real soon.

Scott Walker has now officially declared that he will be seeking re-election for Milwaukee County Executive. This is in spite of the fact that he promised, not to run for a second full term as county executive. And before Fraley, Owen, Sykes and the other Walker supporters go into full denial mode, he did indeed promise. In fact, when you look at those campaign promises, he has broken many of those. He also appears to be in the hooks of special interests, when CRG (Corrupt Republican Goons) can make their own platform for Walker.

And before all the Walker lemmings get into line with their one-plank platform about holding the line of taxes, let's not forget that this year, even with the Milwaukee County Board doing their best to correct Walker's inept budget, it still blew up in record time. How much are all these inquests (and I'm certain there will be a lawsuit coming), faulty budgets, and broken promises really going to cost? I bet it's going to add up to a lot more than the six dollar tax increase in the 2008 county tax.

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means

by folkbum

I didn't watch the Democratic primary debate last Thursday. I feel relatively confident that I know enough about the candidates now without having to suffer through Wolf Blitzer to learn more. Besides, I am planning to remain firmly neutral right up until that moment I step into the booth next February, by which time the nominee will almost certainly be decided.

However, I do enjoy reading other peoples' takes on the debates, as I find those responses much more revealing about those responding than about the debate in the first place.

Take Jessica McBride (please!). While McBride will almost certainly not be voting for a Democrat for president, she has still taken a keen interest in our debates. And, though Hillary Clinton is probably the last Democrat McBride would vote for even if she were to slum over here on the left, you can always count on McBride to stand up for Women Scorned Everywhere Even If They Are Democrats:

This was the nails-on-chalkboard question of Thursday's Democratic presidential debate. It was also, arguably, sexist. They ask the female candidate about jewelry????! (But, to the media, Republicans are supposed to be the sexist ones, right???) This is right up there with the media writing about Hillary's cleavage. Who cares????!!!

The women's solidarity there is touching, isn't it? You can tell how much she cares by the punctuation!!!! McBride never misses an opportunity to stand up for women maligned, regardless of who they are.

Until, that is, she remembers that it's Hillary we're talking about:

If they're going to plant a question, at least make it a good one. Like,

Hillary, since you claim to support women's rights, do you think Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey were telling the truth?

I don't know McBride's Women's Studies bona fides, but I do not think the accepted definition of "women's rights" includes swallowing wholesale the lies of liars that even Ken Starr didn't believe. "Women's rights" doesn't include believing allegations made, retracted, inconsistently remade, and never verified by any news organization (the Wall Street Journal editorial page is not a news organization).

Of course, I'm not a woman. I could be wrong.

(I should note that, in getting ready to post, I discovered capper beat me to it.)

The usual selective outrage--I'm over being surprised

by folkbum

One of my favorite new-ish bloggers, the Illusiory Tenant, did a Bad Thing: He referred to a less-favorite blogger, Jessica McBride, by a word that, this being a relatively family-friendly blog, I won't reprint. But it starts with c and rhymes with "front." To be clear, it was a Bad Thing to do, and I do not condone it or excuse it in any way. If IT were one of my students, he'd be in the office right now and I'd be on the phone with his mother. Enough other people have written well enough about why it's wrong that I don't need to cover it here.

The IT has proved to be one of the funniest bloggers around. (Read his comment to this post, for example; I wish I had half that wit.) And to see someone who can skewer with clever words opt for a blunt instrument like that particular slur is always a little sad. IT came around to an apology--which was indeed, truly warranted, since such an insult is just simply not appropriate. Michael Mathias, in a beautifully moving post (as usual), follows the trail back to what McBride said in the first place that led IT to comment, and considers that, perhaps, McBride should offer an apology of her own.

But what has me most intrigued in all of this is not the back-and-forthing among the bloggers as, in the end, it's a tempest in the proverbial teapot. No, what perked up my attention was word that Charlie Sykes ranted about this on-air. Hearing about IT's c-wording of McBride made me think of all the other Bad Things I've read in comments section around the Cheddarsphere, most of which never get apologized for at all. One in particular leapt to mind: When a local blogger referred to people he encounterd while shopping who were guilty of the crime of speaking Spanish nearby. That blogger used a different c-word to label his fellow shoppers, this word being not just a slur but also a breed of dog. (The details are here, courtesy of the Recess Supervisor.)

Although I did not listen to Charlie Sykes at the time--I can't listen to the radio at work and, given my borderline high blood pressure, if I could listen to something, I should listen to something less likely to kill me--but I would be willing to bet real money that Sykes said nothing about that blogger using that slur. Now, of course you can argue that since the Spanish-speaking shoppers are not personal friends of Sykes, he might have less of an interest in complaining about that slur. It may just be partisan, as Illusory Tenant is liberal and Sykes shares a conservative ideology with the blogger in question and would be less likely to criticize. It may be that Sykes didn't catch the racial slur, as it was in the comments of a post--but then again, so was IT's. All of these things are kind of reasonable explanations for why Sykes may not have gone after the racist comment and blogger.

But here's the kicker: That blogger has a place on Charlie Sykes's blogroll (something that cannot be said about even McBride herself!), one of the most coveted prizes among conservative Wisconsin bloggers. That blogger was on Sykes's blogroll when he made the comment. Having someone on your blogroll is never to be taken as a sign that you endorse everything that blogger says or does, no matter how stupid. But in this case, we have equivalent breeches of civil discourse, the only difference being that one victim has her own blog to fight back--and the voice of Wisconsin's biggest talker to defend her. If we're going to be outraged, we should be about both.

However, the silence over the one (McBride has him on her blogroll, too) is not surprising. The right has made an art of selective outrage. Consider the howls last week over Democratic Congressman Pete Stark's remarks that American men and women are dying in Iraq for the president's amusement; the outrage machine kicked into high gear and forced Stark to apologize. In the meantime, no one on the right seems to care about John Boehner's 4000-soldier "small price to pay" crack. That's just one example; the incomperable digby, in response to the Stark matter, says it all better than I can.

So do I think that Illusory Tenant was indeed wrong to do what he did? Yes. Did it rise to such a level that the outrage machine (excluding, of course, McBride who had every right to be upset) needed to hit its high gears again? Judging by the antecedents, no. That it did, though, doesn't suprise me anymore.

Is Hillary Clinton a Socialist?

by folkbum

I ask because any time I set foot into any of Wisconsin's more palatable right-wing blogs, I get pelted by that notion, that you can throw a beard on the senator and she'd be a dead ringer for Karl Marx.

Clinton is not my candidate (which is not all that significant, as I probably won't pick a candidate before the primaries), and not the first one I would choose if I had a gun to my head, so this is not some sort of knee-jerk defense of someone I have pledged my time and dollars to. But I do think I can speak with some authority as someone who has watched Democratic politics for some time now, someone who has watched Hillary Clinton since 1992, and someone who knows a thing or two about being a part of the drum-circle left, as we have been labeled.

And I say this: Hillary Clinton is not as liberal as you think she is.

A couple of items in particular prompted this post, the most proximate being comments below this Jessica McBride post. Specifically, someone calling him or herself "lugnuts" came right out and said it: "Bill was almost tolerable, but Hillary is a socialist--just what we don't need."

In response, I expounded on a theme that, if Clinton is the nominee, I'm sure you'll hear more of later: The right's narrative about her for the last fifteen years is that she's some kind of Red Menace in Pumps. But it's a lie, it always was and always will be. She came to national prominence at the time the right was perfecting its politics of personal destruction, and her Baby Boomer sensibility (vs. Barbara Bush's decidedly different affect) created the ideal personality and character wedge to use against her husband. But it was all a creation of the media and the spinners, not an accurate reflection of Hillary's actual person.

Tthe right's treatment of Hillary may in fact be the textbook example of the way it creates caricatures of the left to run against and argue against. (George W. Bush is now perhaps infamous for his straw men.)

Hillary's DLC-flavored centrism is so far from the caricature of her as a socialist, and it's reflected in the fact that she is the least popular candidate with many liberal interest groups, from MoveOn to labor. She often finishes fourth, behind "undecided," in on-line straw-polls.

There on the right is the Political Compass for most of the major-party candidates for president, based on their voting records and public documents and statements. (I threw myself in for comparison.) And while it may not be wholly accurate, as the candidates didn't do it for themselves, it shows quite clearly that Hillary Clinton is not anything like a socialist. It explains why the drum-circle left isn't out beating the pots and pans for her. (It's depressing that people who lack the temperament to be president are those who most closely agree with me.)

But my explanation that "lugnuts's" perception of Clinton as a socialist was just that--a perception--was greeted with derision by McBride herself, who commented later in that same post, "I think Hillary has been very shrewd appearing to move to the center. The shrill anti-war left has helped her in this manner. But she is far to the left of the American mainstream."

That is, of course, false in two ways: One, Clinton has not "moved to the center," because she started out there. If anyone is likely to have listened carefully to the righty-constructed fairy tales about Clinton, it's McBride. It is likely that as McBride sees more and more of Clinton, it conflicts with the caricature she's carried around in her head of what the senator is really like and really believes. McBride interprets this conflict as evidence that Clinton is moving to the center, rather than as evidence that her right-wing media has been lying to her for more than a decade.

Two, it's also false in that Clinton is not "far to the left of the American mainstream." This is just one more bullet point to add to the list of how often conservatives like McBride overestimate how popular their brand of reactionary throw-backism is with the American public, the way they believe that if they like it, then everyone must like it. On perhaps the most important issue of the day--Iraq--Hillary is being left behind as the American people move further and further toward withdrawal from Iraq. Look at the poll numbers and tell me whether Clinton's refusal to insist on a withdrawal timeline is "too far to the left." The American people agree with "the shrill anti-war left," not with Clinton or dead-enders like McBride.

I suppose Iraq may not be the best issue to examine on a left-right scale, so let's try what else was in the news this week: health care. Clinton's new health-care plan is not completely sucky, but, again, from my cymbal-wielding perch in the drum-circle left, it's disappointing. It's not even as "liberal" as the Healthy Wisconsin plan, which is, in its reliance on for-profit insurance companies, also disappointingly conservative (though better than the Republican plan--which is no plan). But she's still not "too far to the left" of anything: In the top poll right now at Polling Report, 55% of Americans want "one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers." More than half of the American people want a single-payer system, and Clinton's plan is far to the right of anything like single-payer. I would call 55% mainstream; I would say Clinton's health care plan is not. And McBride and others who balk at single-payer are not, either.

I could go on, but I have to go to work, and you see my point, I think. I opened, though, with a question: Is Hillary Clinton a socialist? Obviously, I say no. The beautiful thing about the blogs, though, is that I can throw open the comment thread and let all of you who disagree have your say. And I'm interested, seriously, in hearing from you. If you think, as McBride apparently does, that Clinton has "moved to the center" more recently than 15 years ago when I first learned about her and the Clintons' decidedly centerist, triangulating ways, then tell me why you think that.

Things like this--the utter untruths being propagated about Clinton by people who clearly don't know what they're talking about--make me kind of root for a Clinton nomination. The more people see of her and hear the right blabbering about something this observably false, the less credible the right and its candidate will become. I don't think the prospect of a Republican implosion is worth compromising my principles just yet, but if Clinton is the nominee, and if the right keeps red-baiting her, it could be a fun election to watch.

The Unreliable General

by folkbum

Yesterday, Bert pointed out that General David Petraeus, despite how chiseled his jaw or how nice a guy he may seem, ought to be approached with a deserved skepticism. It's the job of the Congress to be adversarial--not in the sense of immediately disagreeing with anyone before them, but in the sense of testing what those people have to say to find if they are trustworthy and, ultimately, truthful. This is ultimately also the job of the media; Bert pointed to Jon Stewart's examination of Petraeus, and it kind of makes me sad the the best adversarial journalism is being done right now by a fake news show.

So it's no surprise that erstwhile media figure and current journalism instructor Jessica McBride is so willing to roll over and abdicate the role of media adversary. This goes back to the "A Challenge for Liberals" post that I mentioned earlier this week. Read the comments following her post, as they are perhaps one of the most concise demonstrations of just how far divorced from reality--and how unwilling to test for the truth--conservatives have become.

If you recall, that post simply asked Democrats to explain how they feel about what she saw as an equivalence between us and Osama bin Laden. The next-to-last comment is McBride's final attempt at a rebuttal to me; it is an all-caps whine-fest. There is a lot of insanity in it, as well, but I want to highlight just a couple of the all-caps pieces.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY USE SUCH HATED, VICIOUS RHETORIC AGAINST BUSH, ARGUING REPEATEDLY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HE LIED US INTO WAR. PROVE IT. HE RELIED ON FAULTY INTELLIGENCE THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND OTHER WORLD LEADERS ALSO BELIEVED.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY DEMOCRATS WOULD TRASH THE REPUTATION OF A MAN LIKE GENERAL PETRAEUS.

The reason, of course, is that in an adversarial system, be it a courtroom, a two-party system of government, or the fourth estate versus the second, that's the other side's job: Test, and if the opposition is found lacking, point it out.

Why would we say that Bush lied? Because, you know, he did. We have known for years, for example, that the intelligence he passed on to the Congress about Iraq in 2002 was incomplete, lacking the dissenting evidence that he and only he saw (i.e., it was collected after 2001 when Clinton left office). That intelligence suggested, in fact, that the public evidence pimped by Cheney, Rice, and Powell was inaccurate and based on unreliable sources. Bush knew that at the time. But he did not tell Congress. Or the American people.

More recent revelations have made it that much more clear. Bush was briefed "on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction." That intel never made it to the Congress, never made it outside of the US intel community. Bush knew. Tenet knew. Cheney almost certainly knew. They knew about the tubes. They knew about "Curveball." But he did not tell Congress. And he certainly wasn't going to tell France.

It is entriely possible, in the most generous interpretation of what happened, that Bush was dissuaded from believing the contrary evidence by strong forces in the White House. Perhaps it was Dick Cheney, who overruled Bush's own orders on at least one, and probably more than one, occasion in this war. (So much for Bush being "the decider.") But to suggest that Bush's picture of the intelligence was the same as everyone else's is just plain false. And I cannot believe that even Jessica McBride would continue to hold such a patently false and easily disprovable belief about the matter.

Why would we say things about "a man like General Petraeus"? It's because, for one, we knew that any written report he submitted would be written by the White House, not Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. And then after that news broke, of course, the White House elected not to issue a report at all. We also saw--watch Jon Stewart above--that despite his claims to have written his own testimony, his talking points were straight from Bush's mouth. We also knew that Petraeus's selective use of statistics (civilian deaths are up, but since they're not "sectarian," the surge is a success!) was ridiculous. The U.S. doubled troop strength in Baghdad, for example, for a minimal change in violence. That, and we know that he obfuscated in an op-ed just before the 2004 election to suggest that the Iraqi troops he was training were stepping up--troops that, three years later, haven't stepped anywhere near "up." We know that Petraeus's immediate boss called the General "an ass-kissing little chicken[something]"--and that "something" isn't "hawk."

We've watched the goalposts move so many times it's hard to see them in the distance any more:

White House press secretary Tony Snow, May 10, 2007: "Keep in mind, benchmarks ... are not new. The president talked about them in [the] State of the Union. We talked about them in Amman in November. Secretary Rice put a list of 17 together in a letter to Sen. Levin. So you do need to have metrics."

White House press secretary Tony Snow, Sept. 12, 2007: "No, benchmarks were something that Congress wanted to use as a metric. And we're going to produce a report. But the fact is that the situation is bigger and more complex, and you need to look at the whole picture."

It is simply stupid--the sign of nothing but pure unthinking vapidity--to accept anything this administration or anyone attached to it says uncritically, passively, without an adversarial mindset. There is a history with Bush, the administration, and everything they say that demands skepticism. (Just this week, the new Director of National Intelligence admitted he just made stuff up in sworn testimony to Congress.)

Last night's speech from Bush is a prime example. You can remind yourself of what the surge was supposed to do; have we made it? But perhaps most upsetting is the plan to bring troop levels in Iraq back to pre-"surge" levels by next July. Bush (and Petraeus) say that's because the surge worked. But the fact is the surge could not have lasted any longer if we'd wanted it to:

[S]enior military leaders -- including Adm. Michael Mullen, incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- have acknowledged that the "surge" effectively will end in April because there are no fresh replacements.

Reminds me of earlier this year when Bush wanted to blame his decision to extend troop deployments by three months on Democrats.

Why do we call him a liar? Because he lies. Why don't we trust Petraeus? Because he hasn't earned it. This is not complicated.

Calling Osama bin Laden a Democrat is like calling an earthquake a terrorist

by folkbum

A new video by America's public enemy number one might well engender any number of feelings--anger, regret, frustration, maybe even a little fear, certainly concern for what may be afoot in the coming weeks and months from those who wish us harm.

Notably missing from that list is glee. I don't think any reasonable person ought to look at a new video from Osama bin Laden and decide that it is best used, even tailor-made for, partisan advantage.

Which, of course, didn't stop Jessica McBride:

[I]t's worth reading the actual transcript of Osama bin Laden's latest televised diatribe because of the things it clears up.

It's irrefutable: If bin Laden lived in America, he'd be most inclined to vote Democrat. After all, he's pretty much adopted the Democratic Party's rhetoric and platform. However, in fairness to the Democrats, bin Laden is also mightily ticked off at them. So maybe he'd be a frustrated Democratic voter. He could land a job as a propagandist at moveon.org. He'd post angry comments on Huffington Post and Daily Kos. Maybe he'd join Cindy Sheehan's campaign, write a column for the New York Times, or do research for Noam Chomsky. Who knows. But I can tell you one thing. He would never vote Republican.

I'm not really sure at what point the hypothetical voting habits of bin Laden became ripe for speculation (as opposed to, say, where he is and what he might be trying to get from his followers). But it seems to me an unlikely prospect that someone intent on bringing religious government to every land he touches would be likely to vote for a party that staunchly defends the separation of church and state against those who claim it doesn't exist. The Whallah finds the notion that bin Laden is a Democrat unlikely as well, and if you're willing to brave the Great Orange Satan, you can trace the connections one brand of fundamentalism (Islamic) has with another (Christian).

But calling bin Laden a Democrat--like calling him a Republican, for that matter--makes about as much sense as investing all your money in Countrywide Mortgages right now. I suppose that had the Soviets never invaded Afghanistan, and, subsequently, if the US had never trained and armed bin Laden and the Mujahadeen, a wealthy Saudi like Osama bin Laden may have ended up here, and who knows how he would vote. But those things all happened, and now bin Laden believes exactly one thing about the United States: He wants to kill us all. He's no more a Democrat or Republican than an earthquake is a terrorist--he no more discriminates in his destruction than the earth plans its upheavals.

I don't think that he'd bother to stop and ask the people he was about to blow up their political affiliation, their position on abortion or immigration, their plans for fixing Social Security. Osama bin Laden is the enemy of the United States. That means you, me, Jessica McBride, and the 300 million others of us together. All of us. That McBride's instinct upon seeing a bin Laden video is to use it to bash Democrats says a lot more about her than it does about him, the Democrats, or this country. Six years ago, this country was united and singular in its purpose--to track down and eliminate whoever was responsible for attacking us. And now she are using exactly that person to further the divide that has grown since. I feel dirty even having to respond to it.

Perhaps sensing that she was losing that particular battle, McBride later refined her attack:

Challenge for liberal readers
On the Iraq war and George Bush specifically, how does Osama bin Laden's rhetoric differ from your own?

That's kind of a follow-up to one line in that original post of hers, "[T]he left can stop arguing that if America changes its foreign policy, Al-Qaida and other terrorists will suddenly like us." But that whole line of thinking is just as tainted--and just as offensive. At least in part, because "the left" does not argue that changes to our foreign policy would suddenly ally al Qaeda with us. I'd like to know who on "the left" it is who says this, in particular since the line from the left about our fight in Iraq is that it was a mistake to abandon our search for bin Laden. It may be true that bin Laden thinks our adventure in Iraq is a mistake for us, but it is also exactly what he wanted us to do when he attacked us on 9/11/01. Democrats generally stood against the war with Iraq that bin Laden wanted, with the majority of Congressional Democrats voting against the Iraq War Resolution (something Jessica McBride still refuses to acknowledge as true).

If we had listened to people like, say, Russ Feingold back in 2002 (I assume he qualifies as "the left," right?), we would have intensified our efforts against al Qaeda, hardly a strategy to make them "suddenly like us." If we'd elected John Kerry (kind of "the left") or Howard Dean (certainly "the left" in minds like Jessica's), they would have pulled US troops out of Iraq to go after al Qaeda. Even Noam frickin' Chomsky can't believe Bush let bin Laden get away!

This is perhaps the last resort of the last dead-enders. They have no refuge left but to call the vast majority of Americans terrorist sympathizers, a supposition that is not only patently false on its face but is deeply, deeply offensive. It may be the lowest McBride has sunk yet.

(Update: Seems Plaisted beat me to it.)

McBride Validates 50+ Things

by capper

In McBride's sophomoric response to the 50+ Things You'll Never Learn From Talk Radio, McBride attempts to refute the lessons listed, but only unwittingly ends up to be true and giving them validation.

Then, in the comments section, Grumps of the Happy Circumstance, takes on the herculean task of trying to talk some sense into McBride with this observation:

Do the conservatives who are yakking back at this list of "Things Conservatives Won't Say" realize that they are validating the underlying point of the list?

Not only does McBride fail to heed the warning, but offers her reasoning why conservative talkers do what they do (emphasis mine):

Yes, Grumps, of course. If we wanted to sound as illogical as liberals, we WOULD start spouting the things on the list. But we're not illogical, so you'll never hear conservative pundits say most of those things.

In other words, McBride is saying that speaking common sense, admitting errors, the Bible, behaving ethically and the other similar lessons are illogical to Conservatives.

Doesn't that hurt your brain?

by folkbum

This post by Jessica McBride is a perfect example of what for most people would be mind-splittingly painful cognitive dissonance:

Here's a thought on the "it's the public's airwaves" argument touted by those who want to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

The public's spoken. They want largely conservative talk.

Since it's "their airwaves", their wishes should be paramount, right? If the public wanted other views on the air, they'd get their news/opinion elsewhere. (McBride's italics and poor comma usage.)

Here's why it's gotta hurt: For 35 years, people of Jessica McBride's political orientation have been telling us that the media (newspapers, wire services, network and cable TV, etc.) are liberal--that liberal voices dominate the media because the media elite control the message and the means of distribution.

I disagree with this assessment (Chris Matthews, for example, is not liberal, but a sexist pig), but I doubt McBride--or most of her readers--would. In fact, some of the most ardent commenters on her site (and on that post) spend time on their own blogs decrying the liberal media.

But when they speak about conservative dominance of talk radio, it's the result of the "market"--the "public" wants conservative hegemony on the AM dial.

Who's to say that if there is liberal bias or dominance in the rest of the media--and, again, I don't think there is--it's not because of the "market" or because the "public" wants it?

Apply a consistent standard, people.

Waiting for the riots

by folkbum

Jessica McBride doesn't like it when Democrats talk about foreign policy. That's why she is willing to rewrite the Constitution to say, for example, that Senators like Russ Feingold can't complain about the conduct of the Iraq war. And, presumably, why she would blame Democrats for "inflaming the Muslim world" when introducing and article mostly about a Republican. And, I guess, why she is willing to risk Godwin's Law just to diss Barack Obama.

Today's abomination is hand-wringing over flag-burning protests (organized, as best as I can tell, by unnamed "tribal leaders" somewhere in Pakistan) last week over Obama's positing that he wouldn't be afraid to go into Pakistan to capture Real Terrorists if the opportunity were right, even without permission from the government. This is further proof, you see, that Obama's an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. Obama can't talk foreign policy "the right way, it's a stance filled with peril," she says. In comments below that post, she adds, "I don't think he has the foreign policy experience (or judgment, based on many of his recent statements) to be elected president in a time of war."

So now I'm waiting for the riots in Pakistan over this:

George W Bush said [Monday] he was confident that with the right intelligence, the US and Pakistan governments could take out al Qaeda leaders, and declined to rule out consulting Pakistan first before ordering US forces to act.

"With real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done," said the US president.

He was asked whether he would wait for permission from General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, before committing the US military to move on "actionable intelligence" as to the whereabouts of terrorist leaders in Pakistan. He did not answer directly.

And I'm wondering where the riots were a year ago, when there was this:

President Bush said [one day in September 2006] he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said. [. . .]

Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."

But Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, told reporters Wednesday at the United Nations that his government would oppose any U.S. action in its territory.

"We wouldn't like to allow that at all. We will do it ourselves," he said.

And what about the riots about all of this:

But in no case did these reports [about a weekend Republican debate] note, as debate moderator George Stephanopoulos did, that when Giuliani was asked about Obama's comments [on invading Pakistan] on the day of the speech, he did not criticize Obama, but rather echoed his position: "[W]ould that be an option that's on the table, which is we have a chance to catch bin Laden and we have got to do it ourselves because we're not sure if somebody is going to do it correctly -- yeah, I think I would take that option." And, in several cases, the media outlets did not report that even amid their criticism, both Romney and Giuliani affirmed during the debate that they would retain the option of acting against Osama bin Laden over Pakistan's objections, if necessary.

Actually, I don't think there will be riots, unless some different unnamed "tribal leaders" somewhere in Pakistan decide to stage something for the cameras and do some speechifying to puff themselves up some more.

What's kind of funny for our purposes here, though, is this pointed barb McBride throws at Democrats in her post about the flag-burning: "[T]he Democratic hypocrisy over [Obama's] comments is glaring." She explains this perceived hypocrisy: "Will the Democrats who criticize Bush for straining relations with allies now criticize Obama?" You see, we Democrats are upset--and I think rightly so--that Bush and his actions on the foreign stage have diminished U.S. credibility abroad. I think we can all agree that Democrats believe this. However, what I have not heard (and I did a quick googling; if someone can prove me wrong on this, I'll take it) is Democrats criticizing Bush for saying that he would take necessary steps to (finally!) get bin Laden. I think Democrats would, in fact, be quite pleased if US Special Forces were to pop up one day with the Bearded One in tow. That's what we've been begging for Bush to do for six friggin' years!

Instead, I think we should look to McBride: Bush has repeatedly said he would go in even without Pakistan's permission. The two leading (declared) Republican candidates have said exactly the same thing. In other words, what Obama said last week is exactly what Bush has been saying for a while now, and what her Republicans said just yesterday, and the one she targets is, of course, Obama.

Who, I ask you, my fair and loyal readers, is the hypocrite now?

McBride Math, again

by folkbum

I have generally left Jessica McBride alone since The Unpleasantness, as I do kind of feel sorry for how she was treated by WTMJ-AM. I never asked for or expected he to be fired, and I think TMJ could have done a much better job handling the situation. But sometimes she makes it too easy, and I just can't stop myself.

McBride posted this pithy item last night:

Liberal logic
When Al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq, most Democrats in Washington wanted to invade it.

Now that Al-Qaida is in Iraq, most Democrats in Washington want to leave.

Who's taking their eye off the ball?

Question: How many of you think that McBride believed, in 2002, that there was no al Qaeda in Iraq? How many of you think that McBride listened to those opposing the invasion when they warned that creating chaos in Iraq would draw al Qaeda in? Anyone? Anyone? I thought so.

But this is not about McBride's past; it's about her math. We've talked about McBride's math before. A year ago, in response to overwhelming votes across the state in referenda to start withdrawing troops from Iraq, McBride decided to re-write the lede: "More voters in 30 Wisconsin communities voted Tuesday to stay the course in Iraq than wanted the troops to withdraw," she wrote. "It was purely a symbolic message, but a heartfelt one." See, that's funny, because there were 33 referenda that day, not 30. She decided to leave out the votes from Madison, Shorewood, and LaCrosse in order to get a majority of voters that day selecting "stay the course." (Even then, 22 of her 30 communities voted for withdrawal.)

Her selective math shows in the current questionable post: When she says that "most Democrats in Washington wanted to invade" Iraq, she's just wrong. If you look at the roll call, you'll note that 81 House Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and 126 voted against it. Twenty-nine Democratic Senators voted for it, and 21 against. (These totals do not include Vermont independents Rep. Bernie Sanders or Sen. Jim Jeffords, who both caucused with the Democrats and who both voted against the resolution).

That makes a majority (147 to 110) of Democrats in Washington who voted against giving the presidsent the authority to invade Iraq.

That's still a relatively close vote, sure; but even many of those who voted in the affirmative on that resolution made it clear, unlike the way McBride phrases it, that they did not "want[] to invade" Iraq. Many of the Senators voting yes, for example, reviewed the provisions of the resolution that required President Bush to certify all kinds of things (things left uncertified when the bombing started) and hoping that war could be avoided. Few Democrats--maybe the Lieberman variety--approached war with Iraq as a positive development.

So McBride tries vainly to understand "liberal logic," as she calls it. The answer, of course, is that it's only hard to understand if you use McBride Math first.

Before They Were (In)Famous

by capper


This morning, after having the distinct displeasure of hearing part of Charlie Sykes' feeble efforts at maintaining support for the war in Iraq, and seeing jibberish like this, it made me wonder. Is it really possible that all of the people still defending Bush's decisions had, at one time, worked in a pet store together?

Some Monday Links

by folkbum

I've been collecting links in open tabs for a while now, and, as long as the Stone Creek is willing to give me WiFi, I thought I'd slap them all into a post and let you know what I think you should be reading.

• Tim Schilke writes more in-depth about the horror that Paul Hill Days will bring to this community. And asks what kind of message the organizers really want children to take away from the events.
  
  
• Credit where credit is due: Jessica McBride has turned the comments on.
  
  
• I've been enjoying the new Safari 3.0 public beta. It plays nice with Blogger (finally!), has a much cooler integrated search function and greater tab functionality--and the resizable text boxes just plain rock. You can download it for Mac or Windows here.
  
  
• Seth at In Effect is, as always, your best source of analysis on the Senate Dems' health care proposal. There seems to be a lot to like for reasonable people, and to hate for the crowd that hates these sorts of things. And, while we're at it, the indispensible WisPolitcs Budget Blog is tracking pol reaction.
  
  
• I was going to do a snarky post about this, but Mike Plaisted beat me to it.
  
  
• Here's a different take on the Fariness Doctrine, via Tim Rock
  
  
• Digby: "This is exactly the kind of manipulation that is made possible by a weak and stupid president." Well, we get what we pay for. Along those lines, there's serious speculation about the "liberal" Washington Post holding and softening their Cheney series. (Oh, and here's the transcript of digby's speech accepting the Paul Wellstone Award.)
  
  
• Bush Administration Official: "Not everything we've done is illegal." Why isn't this all over the front pages?

How far out of the mainstream is Jessica McBride?

by folkbum

I almost feel bad for piling on, but this is too easy not to take the shot. Tuesday, McBride blogged about the proposed immigration bill, the deal struck between Congress and the president:

How far out of the mainstream is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board?

So far out of the mainstream they think the amnesty immigration bill is "ugly" and "un-American."

No, not because they think it's too lenient. They think it's too tough!

The "they think" link takes you to the editorial where, indeed, they write that "ugly is too kind a description" for the bill. They cite, for example, the lack of a provision that would allow families to be together and changing how businesses sponsor employees through the H1-B program. Mostly, though, there's this:

It will entail a historic repudiation of that quintessential American value: that people who come here from other countries to labor to make this country richer and stronger deserve a chance to formally become one of us through legal residency or citizenship.

The guest worker portion of this measure says that only their sweat and toil are worthy. The mostly Latino workers themselves are not. [. . . ] The re-entry part is problematic because immigrants will have to be convinced that there is no risk in leaving. If they discern risk that might separate them from their jobs and their families, they might opt to remain in the shadows.

But the lack of a path to legal residency for the temporary workers makes certain that they will remain in those shadows. Under this measure, they could only be temporary workers for two years, renewing twice but only if they spend one year outside the country between each stint. This only assures that these two-year workers will prefer to remain here--undocumented and exploited.

This is the part that McBride seems to have a problem with, the complaint that the measure is "too tough" to be useful. She and the rest of the conservative noise machine find any path to a legal status to be "amnesty" and, therefore, "too lenient." It will only take you a few seconds with google and a pair of hip-waders to find outrage at GOP lawmakers supporting this plan in the swamp that is conservative blogosphere. (Sean Hackbarth has an example.)

Problem is, McBride and the conservative bloggers are the ones "out of the mainstream" on immigration. This is a pretty common theme, I've noticed. I remember it from last year about this time when Russ Feingold was asking for a censure of President Bush and every conservative blogger in the state insisted he was "out of the mainstream" or selling out to the "drum circle left." Yet when you looked at where the general public was really at, Feingold was dead on with public opinion. Those bloggers just assumed that because Feingold disagreed with them, he must have been on the fringes, while never considering that, perhaps, it was their own attitudes that were on the fringe.

The same thing is true for immigration, if you look at the actual poll numbers. Responses vary based on the wording of the question, but you get a sense that in general, the kind of strict closed-border, deport-them-all policy McBride and Co. would favor is decidedly not what the public would want.

• From a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll done May 4-6: 53% oppose building aborder fence, 50% oppose a guest worker progam without citizenship as a possibility, and a whopping 80% favor some path to citizenship for illegal immigrants here now.
  
• From a USA Today/Gallup Poll in the field April 13-15, 2007: 76% prefer a path to citizenship, either leaving and returning (42%) or staying (36%).
  
• From a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll taken April 5-9, 2007: 55% say guest workers should be a part of an immigration bill, 40% say only border security.
  
• From another USA Today/Gallup Poll done March 2-4, 2007: 59% think illegal immigrants should be able to stay if they "meet certain requirements"; only 24% say "deport them all."

I haven't come down one way or the other on this immigration bill. I think, generally, trying to round up and deport 12 million people will be a much more expensive and time-consuming process than is ultimately worth whatever gain might come from it. I also think it would be better to have people who are here visible and, therefore, not so concerned about who might discover them that they would be willing to kill a Kenosha sheriff's deputy, for example.

But what is certain is that McBride cannot claim that the Journal Sentinel editorial board is out of the mainstream here. She is.

A final McFiasco post

by folkbum

This is a post mostly just to gather the last few thought strands about the whole mess. I'm not saying I'll never write about anything related again; don't get me wrong. But this is some important stuff you shouldn't overlook.

Some of you who read me by accident (or because you live with me) may be wondering what the big deal is. And it is a big deal. Fact is, Friday (when McBride was fired) and today (when everyone got back into the office to find that McBride was fired) have been two of my highest-traffic days ever. I'm talking numbers that rival recent election days. (Unfortunately, I don't get paid unless [DEPENDENT CLAUSE REDACTED TO SATISFY GOOGLE'S SENSE OF PROPRIETY].)

But why? I can't help but be reminded of Seth Zlotocha's question of so long ago. (Actually, it was only February, but the fact that it feels like so long ago kind of proves his point.) He wondered whether the kind of blogging we do actually helps or hurts, since the most excitement, the most buzz, comes from this kind of intensely partisan and ultimately small-potatoes issue. Seth, admirably, has kept silent on the entire McFiasco, choosing instead to do really important work on matters that, someday, will make a difference in the world. And here I am explaining, repeatedly, in comments all over the Cheddarsphere that no, I don't particularly care about Eugene Kane and any part he may or may not have played in the drama.

So, why? Because it's about us. The keys are flying off our keyboards over this mess because, regardless of whether we're liberal or conservative, Jessica McBride is one of us. Even we bloggers who would not agree with her if she posited that the sky were blue on sunny days have to look at what she does, and what we do, and see, in fact, some similarity. You can think she's horrible at it, but at the end, the it is this. In any small group, gossip about the group is inherently perceived as more important than discussion of things outside of the group. Children dying in the streets? Nah, let's talk about McBride. Troops dying in Iraq? Nah, let's talk about McBride. Incompetent justice department? Health care crisis? Underfunded schools? Nah--did you hear the one about McBride . . .?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have done this. In-group policing is a key part of belonging to a group, after all. I'm just trying to explain why this, of all topics we could have thrown down about over the last week, is the one that got the attention.

[UPDATED to add: McBride, as well, has been upfront about admitting the relationship between conservative bloggers and the megaphone of talk radio. And that liberal blogs lack such a megaphone. I have always given McBride credit for that, when Sykes and Co. deny, deny, deny.]***Most of the interesting commentary from the weekend was collected at WisOpinion today. Mike Schramm forever has his finger on the pulse of the blogosphere, today being no exception.

Two posts you absolutely must read--and I'm not kidding, people, this is mandatory: Nick Schweitzer's explanation of why McBride and her supporters in the McFiasco cannot blame Eugene Kane. Nick said it better than I could, and in language even the dimmest bulb could understand. Also, you must read Jason Haas's account of attending Jasmine Owens's funeral. UPDATED to add: Check out Erik Opsal's omnibus post, too.

Some on the right (encouraged by hints among McBride's excuses) are raising the suggestion that the McFiasco is purely the result of someone with a personal axe to grind against McBride. First, as I suggest in the comments to my previous post, if we ignored every blogger with an axe to grind, we'd never have anything to read. James Rowen can speak for himself on the matter of whether his grapes are sour (I suspect they are not). But as one who, in the words of a certain Marquette University professor, "carries water" for Jim on the matter, let me explain: It matters not who first noticed that a thing was done. It matters only that thing was done, and, in this case, the thing was wrong in itself. If we cannot call something wrong because of the origin of that knowledge, then we have lost something critical about our ability to think and discuss rationally.

It's also important to remember that pretty much none of us asked for McBride to be fired, only for an apology. Her firing precludes--or perhaps is a substitute for--that, so after all is said and done, we axe-grinders didn't even get what we wanted. The only one I see calling for McBride to be fired now from UWM is Michael McGee, Jr., who as I'm sure you're all aware, speaks for practically no one but himself. Certainly not me, certainly not Jim Rowen. (Aside: Would McGee ever get any exercise if he weren't constantly chasing that spotlight around?)

There's one more long, long post in my head about anti-intellectualism on the right that is tangentially related, since it is inspired by this post defending McBride. A part of that defense seems to be a discussion of how Rush Limbaugh's "Barack the Magic Negro" song is not only not offensive, but hilarious. As Barbara O'Brien asks, where's the joke? Let that link be a primer and, in case I never write the whole post, enough of a response for now.

Don't Make McBride a Martyr

by folkbum

As I wrote last night, Dennis Miller on the radio instead of Jessica McBride isn't necessarily a "win." The temptation will be both to celebrate her disappearance from radio and to take credit for it. This is not wise.

As I went back through our various postings from this week, starting with Jim Rowen who broke the story on through to the fine folks at Whallah, almost no one called for her to be fired--merely for her to apologize. (Jason did, though he was the only one I found.) Mostly, we were looking for some recognition that she crossed a line--an apology. I haven't heard that the apology has happened yet, so for anyone to insinuate that we got what we wanted--as Patrick and others do here--is wrong. We didn't get that at all.

Additionally, as much as McBride's opinions may not have added one iota of diversity to the airwaves in Milwaukee, she was, at least, a woman on talk radio. Patrick, in the link just above, speculates that WTMJ "used this non-story as cover for firing a woman." Dennis Miller adds nothing to WTMJ-AM to make it look or sound any more like what Milwaukee looks and sounds like, and McBride's firing leaves WTMJ with a grand total of two weekly hours of local programming hosted by women, neither hour remotely political. (They do run Laura Ingraham's crappy show in the middle of the night.) That Miller would be the replacement does not speak well of whatever intentions WTMJ might have to make their programming more diverse in any way--not just ideologically.

Mostly, though, I want to be careful that we don't make McBride a martyr. Some on the right are already trying, even going to so far as to call those of us who asked for an apology "little fascists." (Of course, that seems perfectly in character for that blogger.) McBride will undoubtedly find something else to do. I'd just rather she do it as "McBride, mediocre radio host," and not "McBride, conservative martyr." No point in feeding that beast.

McBride out!

by folkbum
UPDATED! Twice! Thrice!!!

I would have let it go at an apology:

WTMJ-AM (620) will replace Jessica McBride in the 8 p.m. to 11 slot next Thursday, adding Dennis Miller's new syndicated talk show to its lineup when sports isn't scheduled.

Here's the statement issued by WTMJ this afternoon:

Newsradio 620 WTMJ Proclaims Miller Time!
MILWAUKEE, Wis. – Five-time Emmy award winner and four-time Writers' Guild award winner Dennis Miller will join the lineup from 8:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m. beginning Thursday, May 24th on Newsradio 620 WTMJ. Tom Parker, 620 WTMJ Program Director made the announcement today.

The press release says this has been in the works a while--implying, therefore, that it has nothing to with the unpleasantness this week. I've sent some emails to try to learn more. We'll see how this develops.

Update: Jon Schweitzer writes:

The Dennis Miller thing is a permanent move. Jessica McBride will not be on the air anymore. The decision was made some time ago. We thought [today] was a good time to announce it.

We feel Jessica's viewpoints and opinions are very interesting and thought provoking. We are still discussing the possibilities concerning her blog and the website.

What this seems to mean: McBride was not ousted over the Jasmine Owens story or--sorry to break your heart, fellas--Jim's and Wallah's efforts.

There are probably more sides to this story, still. There will be a lot more written and said about it, including, I can safely predict, a significant part of the Right Cheddarsphere trying to blame us. Exactly those of us that Jon Schweitzer seems to be saying we can't actually credit for her ouster. Probably including me.

You can read the press release itself squeezed onto her blog page.

Update II: I feel the need to point out that this is not necessarily a "win," by the way. Dennis Miller has issues with good taste and the truth. Here are just two of his greatest hits.

Update III: More than just saying that today "was a good time" to announce McBride's departure--with whatever we could read into that--Schweitzer made it explicit to both Cuprisin and the Business Journal that the Jasmine Owens story accelerated the move that was, indeed, in the works. The Biz Journal actually implies that dropping McBride was a part of the array of changes announced this week on WTMJ and WKTI.

The Miller Show has only been running since late March, and currently only airs on one Wisconsin station. It will be running 11 hours after live on WTMJ.

As I was finishing this update, Cuprisin's Saturday Column was posted.