The DNC guzzles the Dean Kool Aid

It is a cardinal principle of stupidity that if something just isn't working, do more of it. It is also a cardinal principle of the squishy left ("liberals") which the hard Left strongly encourages. Well, the Democratic National Committee has just selected Howard Dean as chairman. We all remember Howard Dean, right? He was that lunatic that said all sorts of mind-numbingly stupid things, then started screaming in Iowa. He epitomizes all that is wrong with the party.

In fact, he epitomized it a bit too clearly, which is why the party finally dropped him like a hot potato and went with the more nuanced Kerry. But Kerry was still too blatantly Leftist, and the country decided to stay with the unpopular president of the bad economy, the jobs going overseas, and the wars abroad. Of these three: Dean, Kerry, Bush - Bush proved the least unpalatable. And this *before* the election in Iraq went off so well.

Terry McAuliffe was incompetent, to be sure. There was a time when I could entertain the notion that Terry McAuliffe was the root of the party's problem. But now it's undeniable. The problem with the Democratic party is the DNC.

I could go on and on about all that's wrong with this choice, but there's no point in belaboring the obvious. Either you see it, or you're in denial. Instead, I'd like to talk about what it means, from several angles.

First, what it means in the sense of what it implies. It implies that the Democrat party is in the firm grip of forces that are destroying it, and will continue to destroy it. Dean says he intends to "rebuild the party." by which he seems to mean, by way of Orwellian inversion, that he intends to complete its destruction. Nothing can stop this now. This is a party without vision, without a coherent message, and now, without credibility even as far its progressive values go. First it angrily protests the removal of a brutal mass-mudering thug from the throne in Baghdad, then it allows a former Klansman to lead its attack on a petite black woman who happens to be up for the job of Secretary of State.

The Democrats have a serious image problem. And they can't see themselves in a mirror clearly enough to correct it. Not only don't they stand for anything, but they don't even know how to fake it anymore. (Bill Clinton knew how to fake it, but that only worked for a while.)

These forces of which I speak are the limousine left, the fashionably stupid, that dominate the DNC. But the stupid never drive their own decisions. They haven't that level of consciousness. Instead they're driven by influences. I see two influences acting on them. The first is their shallow belief that Dean's organozaing and fundraising abilities are all that matters. They simply don't grasp the difference between management and leadership. As long as the limo driver looks sober, they don't care where he's taking them. The second is the hard Left, those who, for whatever reason, hate America and/or democracy itself. Ever since Lenin, the hard Left have been cynical masters of manipulation. They know how to push the buttons of the useful idiots, and the limousine left are very useful idiots indeed.

As I've said before, the Left is in terminal decline in America as a political force. It is in deep trouble throughout the English speaking world. The DNC has much to offer the Left, but the Left has nothing of value to offer the DNC. The Left is a parasitic creature, sucking the lifeblood out of the Democrat party. And it is utterly in control of its host.

Now, what it means in the sense of what it will lead to. Last November it became undeniable that the Democrat party was in big trouble. Now it's becoming clear that it is doomed. Over the short term, the Republicans will have it easy. They've gained some hard won victories in the past few years, maybe they deserve to coast for a while. Over the longer term, the Democrat party, as we have known it, will either cease to be a major political party, or will cease to exist entirely.

But what about the country as a whole? What of Anglophone civilization, of which the United States is the current undisputed leader? What of Western civilization, of which the Anglosphere is the undeniable vanguard? What of decency and sanity, and what of liberalism, in the proper sense of the word?

I'll save all that for another post in the near future.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/politics.american.html#20050213

"Jeff Gannon" deconstructs the press corps

Well, I was going to do a long series of posts on the implications of all this, but I had too many prior committments, and events are overtaking me. So, this instead.

WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: WHAT IS A REPORTER?

Excerpt:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan On Thursday challenged liberal media activists, who are currently feigning outrage over events surrounding "Jeff Gannon," to examine the definition of reporter in the new century.

"In this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist. It gets into the issue of advocacy journalism," McClellan said.

"Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room.

"There are a number of people in that room that express their points of view, and there are people in that room that represent traditional media, they represent talk radio, they're columnists, and they represent online news organizations."

I say:

Some background. The pseudonymous "Jeff Gannon" is reporter for the Talon News Agency, who has been lobbing softballs at Rumsfeld in the press briefings. This pisses off a lot of people on the left. So first they dug up some dirt and outed him as a homosexual. I could comment on the intolerance and hypocrisy of this tactic, but I can't spare the cycles right now. Now they're saying this is a government conspiracy to subvert the news establishment or something.

Kos complains that he's not a legitimate reporter, without making it clear just what he defines as a legitimate reporter. Others are saying Talon is not a legitimate news agency, without offering a definition of just what constitutes a legitimate news agency. Salon and others say this must be a conspiracy - a paid shill - because how else could he have gotten a press pass using a false name?

This pretension that there's such a thing as meaningful journalistic credentials is being exposed by this whole affair. The news establishment have served the public very poorly for a long time now. (That's an Angelfire link, so turn off Javascript.) Also, the traditional outlets, with their centralized control and high cost of entry for publishers, are going obsolete. News reporting is becoming more democratic. Any concerned citizen with an Internet connection can be a reporter nowadays. The old establishment don't much like that. But it's a better deal for the consumer.

And just who was harmed by what he did? Were the public deceived? Perhaps as regards this man's name, but that's not a matter of public concern. Were the public misled or deceived on any other point? No, quite the opposite. These establishment hacks have not been trying to get information for their audience, or even to get at a hidden truth. They've simply been tossing the same loaded questions over and over again, studiously ignoring the replies. That's not questioning. That's hectoring. It's made it hard for the White House to get the other side of the story out. If anything, Jeff Gannon helped correct the balance. Yes, he's biased. Yes, he's a bit over the top. Is he any worse than, say, Helen Thomas or Dan Rather on these accounts? Oh, but he's got the *wrong* bias. It's the double standard, you see. The left belong strongly in free speech - for themselves and for those agree with them. But not for anyone else.

Okay, not how about this conspiracy angle? Was he a White House plant? Given the above, even if you grant this for the sake of argument, that doesn't seem like a bad thing at all. But we don't even know yet if it's true. It seems he got in not by having connections necessarily, but by gaming the system. He got one day passes, that don't require the same background check as a regular pass. Now here comes the connecting lie:

"According to one current member of the White House press corps, Gannon was the only reporter to skirt the rules that way, obtaining daily passes month after month for nearly two years." - Salon

In point of fact, he's *not* the only reporter to have done so.

Excerpt:

Several reporters pointed to Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, who has been attending press events through a daily press pass for several years. Some say he is as partisan as Gannon in his questions, but often with a left-leaning approach. One reporter called him "the ideological flip-side of Gannon."

I say:

These reporters who say Gannon was the only one - were they lying, or simply ignorant? It reflects badly on them either way.

Now a final digression on a related topic: it's all over the news that Eason Jordan is resigning from CNN. That's just as well for CNN, because he was incompetent - mentally incompetent, and was embarrassing the organization. But did he jump or was he pushed? Is this a chilling effect? Was he forced out because of his political views?

Well, if you consider slander a political view, then perhaps yes. But for the record, I never called for him to be forced out. I was happy that he was exposed, because I believe free speech must cut both ways. But him leaving CNN was either his call, or CNN's. Not anyone else's. The freedom to speak includes the freedom of others to rebut. And it includes the freedom to shut up if you can't take the heat.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/news.html#20050212

Eason Jordan - did he say it or didn't he?

Well, the non-left-wing blogs all over the place have been on this Eason Jordan thing, to the point that even Kos has had to make a snarky remark about it, but I think I'd better help make sure there's no one left who can ignore this. So let's get this out of the way...

At Davos, Eason Jordan alleged that US troops have been targetting journalists and killing them. He offered no evidence to back this up whatsoever. Since then he's denied that's what he meant, claiming his words were taken out of context or misunderstood or misquoted or something. But multiple witnesses maintain he said just that. Also, it seems there's a videotape, but they won't release it, for reasons that are a tad murky.

Mr. Jordan has said a lot of crazy things, leftist conspiracy story things, over the past few years. This is just the latest. He's the Chief News Executive at CNN. That's the same CNN that admitted it played down Saddam' atrocities in order to maintain access to him. (Actually it was Eason Jordan who said so, but why would he lie about *that*?) The man's an embarrassment, and he's in charge. What does that tell us about CNN?

I've been collecting stories about how untrustworthy mainstream news is right here (Angelfire, so turn off the Javascript.) After Rathergate I figured the point had been both made and proven beyond reasonable doubt. I didn't want to beat a dead horse. But for completeness' sake I'm adding this latest thing.

Besides, I'm going to comment on the Jeff Gannon business soon in a coming post, and I intend to make the Bush bashers wish they'd never brought it up. The problems of mainstream news ("MSM") tie into that, so I'm posting this latest example as a prequel.

Some links...
Winds of Change comments
Blogherald has a roundup
Glenn Reynolds on the videotape question

So much for that.

Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/news.html#20050210