RAStewart

"Thank you for your recent letter about your emergency open-heart surgery.

"We acknowledge and appreciate that in your ten years as a valued client of Squeezedown MegaHealthCorp, you and your employer have paid approximately a quarter of a million dollars in premiums and you have filed no major claims until the claim in question. However, please refer to the paragraph on 'Pre-Existing Conditions' on page 2,319 of the current 'Limitations on Coverage' manual. As you may know, pre-existing conditions are not covered under your plan. According to our records, at the time you began your present employment, you had a required physical examination which clearly indicated that, at that time, you already had a heart. Obviously, this fits the pre-existing condition clause, so we stand by our determination that your surgery cannot be covered.

"Thank you for choosing Squeezedown MegaHealthCorp as your insurance carrier. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any future concerns. ..." posted 07/02/2008 at 15:05:46

"You can't spend $750k a month just on credit cards and then call your opponent 'elitist.'"

Well ... yeah ... if you're a Republican, you can, and the corporate media are standing by, eager to help.

Just remember, ISOKIYAR: It's Still OK If You're A Republican. posted 07/02/2008 at 16:38:01

What the right wing calls intellectual elitism (please understand I'm not assuming this is you) is often just a derogatory term for being intelligent, informed, and articulate. I'd be just fine with having a president who's smarter than me, thanks, at least in matters of public policy. It would be a refreshing change.

America's anti-intellectualism--which seems to have devolved into a reverence for willful ignorance--is one of the things that are putting an end to the democracy Tocqueville once admired. posted 07/02/2008 at 15:54:57

Here's how it works.

We all know that the September 11 attacks, which happened only a scant ten months into Bush's first term, were Bill Clinton's fault; so was the first attack on the World Trade Center, when Clinton had been President a whole month.

Likewise, if we get a major terrorist attack between now and November, it will prove that we still need the protection of the Imperial Republican Guard, and anyway it will be the fault of the Democrats, because they have had majorities in the House and Senate for almost a year and a half. If we don't have an attack, that proves the Emperor and his Heimatssicherheitsamt have protected us, in spite of the treasonous liberal fifth columnists and their shadowy crypto-Muslim associates. See? posted 06/27/2008 at 13:56:57

Ha!--Unfortunately I don't have to strain my imagination. There are at minimum 28% (Bush's lowest approval ratings, I believe) walking among us who fit that description. posted 06/26/2008 at 12:06:54

You may consider yourself to have an amen corner here, MsDoc. Say it, sister. :-) posted 06/26/2008 at 11:51:58

Unfortunately, Republicans since Ronald Reagan have been making very successful use of another principle: "You can fool enough of the people enough of the time." I hope the string is running out on that, but we won't know until November. (Or, for those of us who suspect there is truly no depth to which the present kakistocracy won't sink, until the afternoon of January 20.) posted 06/26/2008 at 11:47:35

To be fair, McCain is smarter and more articulate than Bush, he has actually served his country honorably in wartime and from the accounts I've read showed a lot of courage when he did, and he has a more substantial record of publc service generally and of bipartisanship in particular--not that that's a very high bar of comparison.

So would McCain be an improvement over Bush? Well, let me put it this way:

If I were at death's door with double pneumonia, and I'd been treated for eight days by a quack who had never cracked open a medical book and had no notion of human anatomy, I'd be somewhat relieved to have my case taken over by a doctor who at least knew where my lungs were.

On the other hand, given my druthers, it would be even better to be treated with antibiotics, rather than continue with the leeches and cold showers. posted 04/01/2008 at 16:24:01

Ha! You may be right about that. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:15:10

Amen to both of you. In fact, linquistic's post got me wondering what the corporate media would be doing right now if the situation were reversed--two Republican candidates duking it out to the end and a clear Democratic winner sailing unopposed to the general campaign. Boring in like a pack of beagles on the Republican contest, amplifying and analyzing every soundbite and "gotcha" moment, while uncritically repeating the Democrat's talking points? I think not. Sure they'd be following the GOP story, but you know they'd be all over the Democratic candidate like yellowjackets at a Labor Day picnic. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:06:43

Hm. Just as an aside, I wonder if Christopher Hitchens has reflected on a), b), or c) as applied to the Current Occupant? posted 03/31/2008 at 16:59:44

Thank you. Maybe I'm getting to be an old curmudgeon, but this ubiquitous "speach" spelling is driving me up the wall. The neocons *want* us to be illiterate, people! Don't help them out!

Anyway, and more to the point, if Obama does win the nomination, this whole meme about "he's done nothing of substance, what's his record ..." is only going to intensify. The best answer to it is to look at, well, his record. I hope I'm not out of bounds posting this, but the best summary I've found to date is on That Other Giant Liberal Blog Site:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/11354/7731 posted 03/31/2008 at 12:36:13

Of course Fox "News" will survive. The neocons will no more let it die than the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would have given up Pravda. A propaganda mouthpiece accepted as an authoritative news source by scores of millions of Americans, including the rest of the corporate media--who would let go of an asset like that? If profits get bad enough it will be subsidized, openly or under the table.

Not that I expect that. Not only Fox, but any organization, has to update its image periodically. And an organization with no concerns about substance can be that much lighter on its feet regarding style.

What if, by some miracle, Obama or Clinton wins in November? Easy-peasy. Back to all hate all the time, just like in the 90s.

McCain? Just update the "muscular triumphalism" (great phrase, that). It will be easier in a way; at least Fox won't have to pretend that their Dear Leader is a war hero. And if, like Bush today, McCain faces micron-thin and ineffectual Democratic majorities in Congress, all the better: someone to blame for everything that goes wrong, and the "bluster, blondes and blaring graphics" can be varied with an hourly Two Minute Hate.

And then, as the article mentions, there's The Base--the same thirty percent that are still prepared to do the lemming dance behind Shrub. They aren't going anywhere.

I wish I were anywhere near as confident about the country's future as I am about Fox's. posted 03/29/2008 at 23:08:38

Fine, the race is not over. At this point neither candidate can win without the superdelegates, if I understand correctly.

I am an Obama supporter. I think I am like most Obama supporters in *not* hating either Hillary or Bill. I think I am like most Obama supporters in saying that if Hillary *does* win the nomination, I will vote for her in November and hope to God she does become our next president, because the last thing I want for my country is for our seven-year nightmare to become a twelve- or sixteen-year nightmare, complete with a Supreme Court almost completely hand-picked by the radical right.

So I am not anti-Clinton. But partisan I am, in that I care about the Democratic Party and believe, flawed as it is, it is the only immediate hope for ... well, I'll come right out and say it, for the survival of the Republic, which has been almost killed by the current administration and its many enablers. And I am disturbed by the direction Senator Clinton has taken her campaign, or allowed it to be taken. I don't think at this point that what is going on is healthy for the party or for either candidate's prospects in November. I may be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

Now about that caps lock ... posted 03/27/2008 at 16:01:01

Jefferson?! Do you think for one minute that atheistic, French-loving radical could win in November?

Just take a look at a two-dollar bill some time. Do you see a flag pin in Mr. Separation-of-Church-and-State's lapel? Nuff said. posted 03/27/2008 at 15:10:17

Agreed ... but then, this is the Democratic Pary we're talking about; party suicide is definitely an open option. posted 03/27/2008 at 15:03:47

"Free grub is all you need to do to get the media on your side."

Free grub and an R after your name. posted 03/27/2008 at 15:12:40

Or, rather, something about the unbridled, unregulated corporatism of the past 27 years. Lord Acton is proved right over and over again: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." posted 03/27/2008 at 14:59:44

Absolutely right; in fact you've taken up the point I was going to raise.

Hard-boiled skepticism used to be considered a basic requirement for journalism. "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." Maybe the standard wasn't always followed, but it *was* the standard.

What goes on most of the time today in the corporate media doesn't deserve the name of journalism. posted 03/27/2008 at 13:33:24

It's partly ideological and partly not, I think. John McCain certainly has a better relationship with the press than, say, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama has, or has the chance to develop, a better relationship than Hillary Clinton, for the reasons you've outlined. But Obama will still have his record, his present and past associates, his background, and his (very) occasional gaffes vetted far more thoroughly and severely than Cheney. And of course the Republican propaganda machine known as Fox "News" has no left-wing, or even moderately Democratic-leaning, equivalent in the corporate media.

And by the way, while I do commend the Chicago Tribune for giving Obama the chance to discuss Rezko at length, for listening, and for fairly reporting their conclusions, you can bet the farm that the paper will endorse McCain in November. posted 03/27/2008 at 12:48:59

My only quibble with this article is that I don't think the media's worship of McCain is unprecedented; it reminds me of the free ride Reagan got, from his first appearance on the national political scene to this day.

The corporate media in the United States are useless. But I don't see any demand from the American public for anything better. So in a sense, both in media and in government, we are getting what we deserve. (Or rather, we are all getting what the laziest and most ignorant among us deserve.) posted 03/27/2008 at 12:28:41

Thanks for this thoughtful article.

Unlike some here, I don't consider Hillary Clinton a monster. I think your statement that she "has many admirable qualities" is true, and I'll even go out on a limb and say that her "tearing-up moment" in New Hampshire and the things she said about why, fundamentally, she is in politics, struck me as one of the most direct looks she has allowed us into who she really is. That's why it has been very difficult for me to try to understand her actions over the last few months.

I think we are witnessing something along the lines of a classical tragedy, in which a person with the potential for greatness is brought down by a fatal flaw. It saddens me as well as angering me. I hope she will find a way back from the brink, because she could be a powerful force for good in American politics. More immediately, though, I just hope she restrains herself, or is restrained, from wrecking the Democratic Party's already precarious hopes in November. posted 03/26/2008 at 18:33:18

I want to think you're right, but then I think ... why do we imagine that McCain will be examined in the general campaign? Why do we expect the free ride to stop? posted 03/26/2008 at 13:55:42

So ... a perfect candidate, right? Unfortunately none of what you've said is a disqualification, or even a handicap, for a candidate for President of the Dying Republic of America in the twenty-first century. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:31:16

Many of us seem to be assuming that the corporate media will do something unheard-of and radical, like, oh I don't know, examine the records of the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Or that a majority of American voters will take the time and trouble to inform themselves about same.

It is to laugh. Like this: Ha! Ha! And again I say, Ha!

We seem to be forgetting who's been elected president, oops, sorry, Emperor, twice now, or at least allowed within easy stealing distance of two elections. Or that the Democratic Party is once more tearing itself apart, just in case the GOP might be in need of some help. Condi Rice would be the Clarence Thomas of the vice-presidency--the clearly unqualified candidate that prominent Democrats would be afraid to criticize for fear of looking like racists. And the media are even more useless now, resting even deeper and more comfortably in the pockets of the Republican Party, than in the time of George I. Hate to say it, but McCain-Rice raises the chance of Republicans keeping the White House from 70% or so to very close to 100%. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:52:55

We would do well to care.

One of the reasons Republicans have held power for most of the past generation (along with the disenfranchisement and vote fraud) is their ability to persuade people to vote against their own interests, and evangelical Christians have been one of the largest, most consistent blocs so persuaded. If some of them are beginning to realize they've been had--or better yet, to discover or rediscover that their faith actually doesn't glorify war and wealth, actually says something about caring for the poor and sick, actually has some implications about being responsible stewards of the world--I think that's something to be welcomed. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:44:27

Very funny! But wait a minute ... just wait a minute here, Mr. Maher, did you just imply that marijuana is not as bad as homicide????!!!!

Step over here, please, sir, and put your hands up against the wall. Don't bother asking about your Miranda warning, we don't bother with that at Guantanamo. posted 03/26/2008 at 14:39:40

Well said, Ms. Clinton! I have my issues with Bill and Hillary, but I have to say, everything I've seen and read about their daughter speaks well of them as parents. posted 03/26/2008 at 11:03:37

Two more points, since there seems to be a length limit on posts now:

It's difficult to raise these issues without seeming to deny the continued reality of discrimination against girls and women. But the fact is, life is complex and multi-dimensioned. It may be true, is true I think, that a man can still get to the top of a Fortune 500 company on less ability and work than a woman. It doesn't follow that life in these times is hunky-dory for the average man.

We need a revival of at least some aspects of the "men's movement" of the eighties and very early nineties. Men like Sam Keen and Robert Bly lit the torch--somehow it didn't get passed along. I like what jeskiley says about healing, becoming our best selves, and building community. The media will not take this up, though; it will be up to men on a grassroots level. posted 03/25/2008 at 16:46:14

Tip o' the hat from a fellow librarian, Rep. Owens. Your Viagra Monologues gave me a chuckle, and I look forward to the Chicago premiere.

Agreed that males need to be understood as more than oppressors or figures of fun. I'll have to ponder the connection with sex scandals for a bit. Where I get notice it is in the evidence that young males are jumping off the achievement train in large numbers, or never getting on. Girls and young women are overtaking their male contemporaries in school performance, college admissions, college graduation, and entry into the professions--I believe law schools are over half female on average these days, and suspect medical schools are not far behind. I give the trend two cheers, or one and a half. As a husband, father of daughters, and colleague and friend of women, I'm happy to see girls succeeding. As a man, father of sons, and colleague and friend of men, I think, "But does it have to be just one-half the human race doing well at any one time? What's crippling our boys and young men? Don't we want everyone to have equal opportunity, and as many as possible to embrace that opportunity?" posted 03/25/2008 at 16:44:23